The Perpetual View

The Bill Press Hate Machine

2012-02-22T17:27:00.000-08:00

February 23, 2012
The Bill Press Hate Machine
Filed under: Uncategorized — theperpetualview @ 1:19 am Edit This
Rate This
The Patriot Post · http://patriotpost.us
By L. Brent Bozell · Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Bill Press has a new book out called “The Obama Hate Machine.” To read the blurbs, you might wonder if Press thinks no one should be allowed to criticize the president. Here’s Nancy Pelosi touting the book: “In a poisoned political climate, negative personal attacks on President Obama must have no place in our public discourse.”

What’s next? A mandate forbidding inappropriate free speech? These tolerant liberals are out of control.

Press appeared on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” on Feb. 12 to plug his book, and he did say “there’s legitimate criticism of any president, which I think is very healthy, and I welcome it, and I’ve been a part of it. Right?” But then he went off the rails.

“I don’t know that anybody ever said that Ronald Reagan was a terrorist, or George W. Bush was a terrorist. Right? This isn’t a slight difference. It’s a huge difference, the level of attacks we’ve seen against President Obama.”

It’s proof positive that Bill Press knows very little. Just like in his last embarrassing book, “Toxic Talk,” Press claims all the ugly rhetoric comes from conservatives. But this is — I’ll be blunt — dishonest, and you don’t even have to look back in history to prove Press wrong. The Daily Kos had an entry headlined “Ronald Reagan, Terrorist!” on Reagan’s 100th birthday last year. Cindy Sheehan called George W. Bush a terrorist routinely. The term is used against conservatives of every stripe.

But let’s turn the spotlight back around to Bill Press. How has he performed on the “hate machine” scale? Let’s explore the record. Oh, yes, Press has a record, too.

1. On Jan. 13 — 18 days before his anti-hate book was first issued — Press called Newt Gingrich a terrorist on MSNBC’s Al Sharpton program, “Politics Nation”: “He’s the suicide bomber of the Republican Party. … He’s in it to take down as many people as he can as he goes down, and he has that same silly grin on his face when he pulls the plug as a suicide bomber.”

2. On his radio show on Aug. 6, 2011, in a funding dispute over the Federal Aviation Administration, Bill Press attacked the Republicans: “These guys are terrorists! I’m sorry; I’m sorry; you know, you know Joe Biden; they say he’s getting in a little trouble ’cause he called them terrorists. That’s exactly what they are!”

3. On June 16, 2010, Press complained that Glenn Beck was granted permission to have a rally at the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. “If you ask me, that’s like granting al-Qaida permission to hold a rally on Sept. 11 — at ground zero.”

4. How about death wishes? On his radio show on July 22, 2011, Press played a clip of Speaker John Boehner suggesting Obama “needs to step up and work with us on the spending cuts.” He then replied: “You know, it’s a wonder lightning just doesn’t strike people dead on the spot when they say stuff like that.”

5. Nazis? In an Aug. 6, 2009 column, Press slashed at Tea Partiers opposing Obamacare at town hall meetings: “Taking a page right out of a Nazi playbook, organizers bus in professional protestors and arm them with instructions on how to take over meetings, shut down discussion, shout over any pro-health care reform speakers and then post video of the resulting chaos on YouTube. It’s mob rule, pure and simple.”

6. On Oct. 10, 2008, Todd Palin’s reported support for a secessionist party in Alaska drew this radio blast from Press: “What’s the difference between a secessionist and a terrorist? Isn’t a secessionist just another form of a terrorist? Ask Abraham Lincoln. … Let’s find out what the ‘First Dude’ was going to do in order to secede from the Union. I tell you it wasn’t going to be peaceful.”

7. And then there’s the good old-fashioned insult. On July 25, 2006, Press declared who was the dumbest president ever: “George W. Bush, with his rock bottom IQ of 91: seven points lower than his Daddy. … He’s just plain dumb — the dumbest president in the last 50 years. And probably, the dumbest president ever!”

Press’s alleged IQ information by the “Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pa.” was a hoax, entirely made up, which underlined just who shouldn’t be calling other people dummies.

8. But Bill Press really thinks American voters are also morons. On his radio show on Nov. 4, 2010, Press proclaimed: “Just once … I would like to hear somebody say, ‘The voters have spoken, the bastards.’ Or, ‘The voters have spoken. What a bunch of idiots.’ ‘The voters have spoken. God, they’re dumb. Dumb as hell.’”

Most Americans won’t be dumb enough to buy Bill Press’s book or believe a word he says against other people building their “hate machines.”

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

Regulatory Commissars: FCC Moves Ahead With Net ‘Neutrality’

2012-02-22T17:12:00.001-08:00

February 23, 2012
Regulatory Commissars: FCC Moves Ahead With Net ‘Neutrality’
Filed under: Uncategorized — theperpetualview @ 1:10 am Edit This
Tags: internet
Rate This
Unable to destroy the Internet’s spread of conservative thought and information through the worst Congress in history, FCC regulators for the Obama administration have ignored the will of the people and the new Congress by arbitrarily imposing vague net neutrality regulations. The FCC, which used the corrupt methods from the passage of ObamaCare as its model, deliberately kept the proposed regulations away from the prying eyes of the public while also violating a court order halting its previous attempt to regulate the Internet.

Despite its lack of authority to do so, the FCC has been trying to impose its so-called “net neutrality” regulations to restrict the ability of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to manage network transmission. Even more overtly in its raw overreach for power, the FCC’s own website was taken down for “maintenance” during the four days prior to imposing the regulations, preventing public access to the more than 1,900 pages of comments it had already received. Only in Obama’s world does government refusal to provide public access to the government, willful disregard of the judicial system, and hiding behind make-believe system maintenance qualify as fairness, openness and transparency. The practical effect merely tells the country that leftists so fear allowing citizen participation in government that they do everything they can to keep citizens out.

Opinion Disguised as Science

2012-02-22T15:36:00.001-08:00

February 22, 2012
Opinion Disguised as Science
Filed under: Uncategorized — theperpetualview @ 11:33 pm Edit This
Rate This

by Donna Laframboise

In a blog post yesterday climate scientist Judith Curry wrote:

It is fine for people (and scientists) [to] have political ideologies. The problem comes in when you…use science to demand policies. [bold added]

In my view, many climate scientists behave oddly compared to other kinds of experts. In criminal trials the role of expert witnesses is limited and clearly defined. They testify about their direct observations – or the results of tests they have performed.

Not for one moment does anyone think it is the role of a handwriting expert to decide whether the accused is guilty. That is the job of the judge and the jury – after listening to a variety of experts, some of whom will no doubt contradict (and cast doubt on) each other’s opinions.

Although the pathologist who performed the autopsy may have private views about an accused murderer’s guilt or innocence we all understand that it would be inappropriate for that medical professional to voice those views within the courtroom – and doubly inappropriate to do so outside of it.

Yet when it comes to climate, everything gets turned on its head. People with a narrow specialty (in water resources, for example) nevertheless regard themselves as full-fledged “climate experts.” Taking on the role of judge and jury, they imagine that an understanding of their small piece of the puzzle translates into firm knowledge of the far more complicated big-picture. They proclaim that multiple lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion – even though they themselves don’t possess the expertise to evaluate the merits of these other lines of evidence.

It is as if a firearms expert began declaring, while a criminal trial was still in progress, that his evidence, the testimony of the police, and the pathologist’s time-of-death estimate, all point in the same direction. It’s as if that firearms expert pronounced the accused obviously guilty and urged the application of the death penalty immediately.

Journalists would never take such behaviour seriously. They’d recognize that the expert was overstepping his mandate by a wide, wide margin. If his views got reported at all, it would be in order to expose and condemn his poor judgment.

So why, when climate scientists step well beyond the mandate of their narrow academic specialty and tell politicians what to do – when they “demand policies” as Judith Curry puts it – does the media think such conduct is OK?

Yesterday, the Associated Press filed exactly that kind of story, one that has since been picked up by numerous other media outlets. The mere fact that “44 scientists” from “28 Iowa colleges” have sent a letter urging politicians to respond to climate change is considered news. The Chicago Tribune report is here. An Iowa television station’s website says this. Here’s the story in a Texas newspaper.

We aren’t told who these scientists are, what their expertise happens to be, or why their views are more worthy of notice than the views of 44 bricklayers. We aren’t even directed to a copy of the letter. So far, I’ve not been able to locate it. Based on another news account, however, it sounds virtually identical to a letter issued by 31 Iowa academics last November (see here and here).

Among the alleged scientists who signed that earlier declaration is Danielle Wirth. Her PhD dissertation dealt with environmental ethics. According to her academic bio pageshe is affiliated with the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Club of Rome. That makes four activist organizations – in addition to the Iowa chapter of the United Nations association. As a bonus, we read that she enjoys “herbal medicine research and preparation.”

It surely needs to be said that the above does not paint a picture of a rigorous, objective scientist whose opinions about climate change deserve media attention.

Another signatory is Thomas Rosburg, a biology professor who was the proud recipientof a Sierra Club Environmental Educator Award last October.

A third is Mark Aronson, a zoologist whose thesis dealt with rainbow trout. He is the “chair of the Sustainable Campus Initiative Curriculum Committee for the Eastern Iowa Community College District” and the founder of a campus environmental club. The latterencourages ”environmental activism and advocacy” and has formal ties with the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy and (here’s one I’d not heard of before) the Wildland Center for Preventing Roads.

Personal opinions, disguised as science, are not news. Although we’re been told that “scientists” have signed a letter in Iowa, peeking beneath the surface reveals something else. Rather than circumspect, dispassionate climate change advisors once again we discover activists.

Chris Matthews Claims Hardball ‘A Great Positive Thing for American Civilization

2012-02-22T11:39:00.000-08:00

Chris Matthews Claims Hardball ‘A Great Positive Thing for American Civilization
Filed under: Uncategorized — theperpetualview @ 7:37 pm Edit This
Rate This
Published: 2/21/2012 12:59 PM ET

Subscribe to Kyle Drennen
By Kyle Drennen
Author Archive
Putting a question to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews at the end of a President’s Day panel discussion at Ford’s Theater on Monday, I challenged him about the American people growing cynical of media coverage, the left-wing Harball host responded by proclaiming that his own program was “a great positive thing for American civilization.” The largely liberal audience applauded the notion. [Listen to the audio]

Matthews suggested his comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek: “What do you expect me to say? That’s what I do every day.” However, moments earlier he asserted: “I think what I do every night and the people that watch me appreciate it….I try to bring an entertainment factor into it….I think at the end of my hours every night they know a lot more about American politics than when they begin, and they enjoy it more.

Immediately following my question, Matthews made reference to a question from my Media Research Center colleague Scott Whitlock: “Well, I’m not a media critic, there was one here earlier.” Whitlock offered Matthews the opportunity to expand on or apologize for outrageous anti-Catholic comments the liberal commentator made earlier in the evening.

In addition to claiming he was “not a media critic,” Matthews claimed: “I basically don’t criticize other people.” Besides the mountain of evidence to the contrary, earlier in the discussion, Matthews took a shot at Fox News parent company NewsCorp and CEO Rupert Murdoch.

Historian and author Harold Holzer had discussed the fact that New York Times founder Henry J. Raymond was a top Republican Party official and ally of Abraham Lincoln, wondering if anyone could “imagine” such a thing happening today. Matthews retorted: “I can imagine it. It’s called Rupert Murdoch.”

After praising the virtue of his own show, Matthews admitted that “there’s a lot of noise” in the media and then offered some suggestions on where to go for news and information:

…there’s also tremendous selections out there. You can listen to NPR every night for an hour, you can – I mean you can listen to All Things Considered, you can listen to Morning Edition, you can listen to the [Jim] Lehrer [PBS News] hour. You can listen to the really good, I think, network news broadcasts. You can select, during the day, other ways to get the news. You can listen to CNN or watch – you can get this – we have a couple of great newspapers in this country, you have the [New York] Times and the [Wall Street] Journal – news sections of the Journal – especially the Saturday Journal is fabulous for culture. We have – if you can’t put together your own potpourri of news and information everyday, you’ve got a problem.

The media “potpourri” Matthews seems to indulge in has quite a liberal odor.

Here is a transcript of my February 20 exchange with Matthews:

8:30PM ET

KYLE DRENNEN: Mr. Matthews, earlier in the discussion you talked about the problem of people losing faith in public institutions, becoming cynical. There are many people who would be critical of the media and see – becoming cynical of media coverage in America today. How would you respond?

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, I’m not a media critic, there was one here earlier.

[CROWD LAUGHS]

MATTHEWS: I basically don’t criticize other people – I think what I do every night and the people that watch me appreciate it. I love politics, I love the system, I love the country, obviously. I love the way we go about it, I try to bring an entertainment factor into it. People don’t have to watch. I think at the end of my hours every night they know a lot more about American politics than when they begin, and they enjoy it more. And I think my viewers all vote, I don’t know why. They all read the newspaper, because you can’t keep up with this if you don’t read the paper. You can’t keep up with Hardball without reading the paper. And – and I think it’s a great positive thing for American civilization.

[CROWD LAUGHS AND APPLAUDS]

MATTHEWS: What do you expect me to say? That’s what I do every day.

MODERATOR: He’s putting three children through college.

MATTHEWS: No, that is all a byproduct of what I love to do. I would do this in parties if I met you and I’d argue basically what I do on television if you – if I bumped into you on the street. So-

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: And I can attest to that.

[CROWD LAUGHS]

MATTHEWS: But you’re right, there’s a lot of noise, and I think there’s a lot of noise, but there’s also tremendous selections out there. You can listen to NPR every night for an hour, you can – I mean you can listen to All Things Considered, you can listen to Morning Edition, you can listen to the [Jim] Lehrer [PBS News] hour. You can listen to the really good, I think, network news broadcasts. You can select, during the day, other ways to get the news. You can listen to CNN or watch – you can get this – we have a couple of great newspapers in this country, you have the [New York] Times and the [Wall Street] Journal – news sections of the Journal – especially the Saturday Journal is fabulous for culture. We have – if you can’t put together your own potpourri of news and information everyday, you’ve got a problem.

HAROLD HOLZER [AUTHOR AND HISTORIAN]: If it was ever thus, when this guy [Abraham Lincoln] was carried out of that box, he had on his person five newspaper clippings praising him. After living through a time when he blamed the media for all his problems.

– Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Kyle Drennen on Twitter.

Academia’s Consumer Fraud

2012-02-21T03:31:00.000-08:00

Academia’s Consumer Fraud

Posted By Thomas Sowell On February 21, 2012 @ 12:20 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | No Comments

It is fascinating to see people accusing others of things that they themselves are doing, especially when their own sins are worse.

Academics love to say that businesses are not paying enough to people who work for them. But where in business are there people who are paid absolutely nothing for strenuous work that involves risks to their health?

In academia, that situation is common. It is called college football. How often have you watched a big-time college football game without seeing someone limping off the field or being carried off the field?

College athletes are not to be paid because this is an “amateur” sport. But football coaches are not only paid, they are often paid higher salaries than the presidents of their own universities. Some make over a million dollars a year.

Academics also like to accuse businesses of consumer fraud. There is indeed fraud in business, as in every other aspect of human life — including academia.

When my academic career began, half a century ago, I read up on the academic market and discovered that there was a chronic over-supply of people trained to be historians. There were not nearly enough academic posts available for people who had spent years acquiring Ph.D.s in history, and the few openings that there were for new Ph.D.s paid the kind of salaries you could get for doing work requiring a lot less education.

My own pay as a beginning instructor in economics was not high but it was certainly higher than that for beginning historians.

Now, 50 years later, there is a long feature article in the February 17th issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education on the chronic over-supply of historians. Worse yet, leading university history departments are resisting demands that they keep track of what happens to their students after they get their Ph.D.s — and inform prospective Ph.D.s of what the market is like.

If any business operated this way, selling customers something that was very costly in time and money, and which the sellers knew in advance was almost certain to disappoint their expectations, academics would be bursting with indignation — and demanding full disclosure to the customers, if not criminal prosecutions.

But The Chronicle of Higher Education reports “faculty resistance” to collecting and publishing information on what happens to a university’s history Ph.D.s after they leave the ivy-covered walls with high hopes and low prospects.

At a number of big-name universities — Northwestern, Brown and the University of North Carolina’s flagship campus at Chapel Hill — at least one-fourth of their 2010 history Ph.D.s are either unemployed or their fate is unknown.

At Brown University, for example, 38 percent of their 2010 Ph.D.s are in that category, compared to only 25 percent who have tenure-track appointments.

For people not familiar with academia, a tenure-track appointment does not mean that the appointee has tenure, but only that the job is one where a tenure decision will have to be made at some point under the “up or out system.” At leading universities, far more are put out than move up.

There are also faculty appointments that are strictly for the time being — lecturers, adjunct professors or visiting professors.

Half the 2010 Ph.D.s from Duke University and the University of Pennsylvania have these kinds of appointments, which essentially lead nowhere. They are sometimes called “gypsy faculty.”

Finally, there are Ph.D.s who are on postdoctoral fellowships, often at the expense of the taxpayers. They are paid to continue on campus, essentially as students, after getting their doctorates. More than one-fourth of the 2010 Ph.D.s from Rutgers, Johns Hopkins and Harvard are in this category.

At least these universities release such statistics. A history professor at Rutgers University who has studied such things says: “If you look at some of the numbers published on department Web sites, they range from dishonest to incompetent.”

But apparently many academics are too busy pursuing moral crusades in society at large to look into such things on their own ivy-covered campuses.

The Glazov Gang - To Build a Mosque in America-Part1

2012-02-21T03:16:00.001-08:00

http://youtu.be/eU8JeuZq9p4

Hollywood’s Post-Racial Racism

2012-02-21T03:01:00.001-08:00

- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -

Hollywood’s Post-Racial Racism

Posted By Mark Tapson On February 21, 2012 @ 12:31 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 3 Comments

In a 60 Minutes interview with Mike Wallace several years ago, black actor Morgan Freeman displayed unusual wisdom for Hollywood when he said that the way to end racism in America is to “stop talking about it.” Not long thereafter, (half-) black candidate Barack Obama’s ascension to the White House confirmed that race is no barrier to success in America (apparently neither is incompetence). But instead of ushering in a post-racial era as many hoped, Obama’s presidency has ramped up racial tensions and driven his black Hollywood supporters to talk about racism more than ever before –among them, sadly, Morgan Freeman.

Obama’s administration has been anything but post-racial. From Attorney General Eric Holder’s refusal to prosecute Black Panther thugs, to Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee’s charge that Tea Partiers are the new KKK, to the President’s own insult of the police officers who properly arrested his academic buddy Henry Louis Gates, Jr., it’s been payback time for those blacks who wear their racialism on their sleeve and yet hypocritically dismiss their critics as racist.

Including some blacks in Hollywood. Even the once-wise actor Freeman ignored his own earlier advice and claimed recently that the Tea Party is “a racist thing” representing “the weak, dark underside of America”:

Their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term. What underlines that? “Screw the country. We’re going to whatever we can to get this black man outta here.”

This conveniently ignores the fact that it is Obama who is doing whatever he can to screw the country, and the Tea Party is justifiably as mad as hell and not going to take this anymore. Freeman’s assumption seems to be that if the President were white, his critics would be just fine with his destructive policies, and all opposition would fade away.

Fellow black actor Samuel L. Jackson echoed Freeman’s unjust assessment of the Tea Party:

It’s pretty obvious what they are. The division of the country is not about the government having too much power… It’s not politics. It is not economics. It all boils down pretty much to race. It is a shame.

Yes, it is a shame. It’s a shame that fame gives Obama apologists like Jackson a platform to spout racist ignorance. In an interview for Ebony magazine, Jackson revealed who the real racist is:

I voted for Barack because he was black. ‘Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them … That’s American politics, pure and simple. [Obama's] message didn’t mean [expletive] to me.

Pause for a moment to consider the media outrage if Jon Voight or another of the few openly conservative white actors in Hollywood had said, “I voted for John McCain in the last election because he’s white. His policies were completely irrelevant. That’s the American way.” His publicist would rush him into the obligatory public apology tour and racial sensitivity re-education camp, and that actor’s career would still be over. But a black actor admits to the mirror opposite of that and it barely registers a blip on the media radar.

Like Morgan Freeman, Samuel L. Jackson is an unquestionably talented and well-known actor with a whopping number of acting credits on his résumé, including Pulp Fiction, A Time to Kill, multiple appearances in the Star Wars series, and the upcoming The Avengers. He arguably should have won the Best Actor Oscar that went to his costar John Travolta for Pulp Fiction. Even Jackson’s voiceover work is outstanding, as evidenced by his family-friendly turn in The Incredibles as superhero Frozone, or his hilarious, family-unfriendly reading of the popular “children’s” book, Go the F*** to Sleep.

But as people outside of Hollywood know, being talented doesn’t make a celebrity any more enlightened or insightful than anyone else. Witness the self-righteous, wrongheaded politics of progressive flagbearers like Howard Zinn devotée Matt Damon or Hugo Chavez BFF Sean Penn or Occupy cheerleader Mark Ruffalo. Americans vote solely on the basis of their skin color? Policies don’t matter? Jackson’s comments are stunningly thoughtless even for that Hollywood crowd. At least he was honest.

He then went on in the interview to spew the N-word more times than a Klansman and to express his hope that Obama would live up to the Angry Black Man racial stereotype that Jackson himself plays so convincingly:

When it comes down to it, they wouldn’t have elected a [N-word]. Because, what’s a [N-word]? A [N-word] is scary. Obama ain’t scary at all. [N-word] don’t have beers at the White House. [N-word] don’t let some white dude, while you in the middle of a speech, call [him] a liar. A [N-word] would have stopped the meeting right there and said, ‘Who the [expletive] said that?’ I hope Obama gets scary in the next four years, ‘cuz he ain’t gotta worry about getting re-elected.”

Obama’s policies did eventually concern Jackson. The actor has joined Castro-supporter Sidney Poitier in expressing frustration, for example, that the President hasn’t done more for the poor (apart from increasing their numbers). But other big names in black entertainment – like Will Smith and wife Jada Pinkett, Kerry Washington, Tracy Morgan, and rapper Jay-Z – have no complaints and plan to continue actively throwing their support behind the President. Choreographer Debbie Allen said,

I will be there again just like I was in 2008. Are things exactly the way I’d like them to be or need them to be? No, but he can get us there if he’s given the time he needs to do it.

Sorry Ms. Allen, but America doesn’t have that much time left – unless by “get us there” she means knock the already teetering pedestal out from under America’s superpower status and leave us a floundering, impotent, racially divided, Euro-socialist has-been. A post-American era has always been Obama’s goal anyway, and at the pace he’s managed thus far, another four years might be all that he needs to bring that about.

Of course, there are plenty of white Hollywood stars caught up in a history-making election who also voted for Obama because he’s black, which doesn’t exactly make them post-racialist either, as Shelby Steele points out:

When whites – especially today’s younger generation – proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially.

It’s impossible to know how many in Hollywood or elsewhere in America voted for the same reason as Samuel L. Jackson. The majority of Obama’s supporters no doubt got behind him because he’s black and because of his progressive message. At least those people recognized that his policies, however misguided and/or subversive, mattered. But Jackson only bothered to consider the color of Obama’s skin and not the content of his character – and that is the very definition of racism.

Why Syria Will Not Be Another Libya

2012-02-21T02:53:00.001-08:00

- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -

Why Syria Will Not Be Another Libya

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On February 21, 2012 @ 12:45 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 1 Comment

The architects of the Libyan disaster in France, the UK, the United States and Qatar have decided that Syria is the next step in replacing dictators with Muslim Brotherhood allied “democratic” parties. But no matter how eager they are to roll the Arab Spring forward with a month of bombing raids, this won’t be a relative cakewalk like Libya.

Gaddafi isolated Libya through his own craziness and then his alliance with the West, which left him with no friends when Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama turned on him in the name of Arab democracy. Assad is often described as isolated because the Arab League has taken a firm stand against him, but he has a firm ally in Iran, which has few options and is likely to do whatever it takes to keep him in power.

Next up is Russia, which has lost most of its Middle Eastern allies and doesn’t have that many options besides Syria, where it has a naval base and any number of secret and not so secret outposts. That will provide a pipeline of advanced technology, including the kind that can endanger NATO planes. While that isn’t likely to lead to any serious casualties, an attack on Syria will allow Russia to test out some of its latest technology against our aircraft. Just as Iraq provided a testing ground for some advanced Russian technology.

And there’s one more catch. The wildly unpopular Russian government might just be itching for a small scale conflict, especially one with the United States. A few planes lost on both sides and the Russians can claim victory. It wouldn’t be a particularly smart move by Moscow from our point of view, but from the point of view of a government that only rules due to massive fraud and force, a heavy dose of patriotism for the motherland might be just what the spin doctor ordered. A direct confrontation between Russian and NATO planes would be a milestone for Russia’s recovery and a way to wash away the shame of Yugoslavia and Pristina Airport.

Even if the Russians don’t fly under their own colors, that doesn’t mean they won’t fly. The Israelis shot down plenty of Russian advisers who were flying as Syrians and Egyptians. Russia might be satisfied with counting coup and testing out some of their new hardware that way.

The Arab League may be backing us, but that just means the expensive and useless Gulf Arab armies run by the cousins and nephews of the ruling elites, who can’t exactly be counted on to do much of the fighting. They can and will provide training and weapons to the so-called Free Syrian Army, as they did to the Libyan militias, but then again they have extensive experience arming and training terrorists.

The real determining factor is how much of the Syrian army still answers to Assad. If enough of it does, then Iran can supply Shiite militias and Revolutionary Guard troops as stopgaps for the defections. If it doesn’t and Iranian thugs and Russian military advisers would have to occupy Syria in order to salvage it, then the opposition will have won.

The game plan for the Friends of Bombing Syria club will be a No Fly Zone, which neither Russia nor China is likely to vote for after the same maneuver was used for regime change in Libya. Unable to get a NFZ through the UN Security Council, NATO and the Arab League will likely have to go outside the UN to declare one. The sort of thing that would have touched off outrage during the Bush era will get cheers for decisiveness in bypassing Russian obstructionism.

If NATO and the Saudi League declare their own No Fly Zone, it will still be the United States and France doing the actual enforcing. Obama ducked out of Libya as quickly as he could, which mainly leaves the French. That was fine in Libya where the bombings were expensive but not very risky and there weren’t even all that many targets to bomb. French jets and US drones eventually got the job done in Libya. Syria won’t be quite that easy.

A No Fly Zone will create a safe space for the Free Syrian Army, whatever that might be, to arm and train, and then take over the rest of the country. But that assumes Assad and his backers have learned nothing from the fall of Gaddafi. The odds are very good that the Libyan civil war has been studied in detail and every possible lesson wrung from it in Moscow and Damascus.

Even without that, Libya was a cakewalk. Had Saddam been in Tripoli instead of the insane colonel, then there would have been some real atrocities. The key to understanding the future is to look at the past. For all the media hype, Gaddafi did not really have a history of mass murder. Assad Sr. did. Assad Jr. hasn’t properly gotten the chance, but Syrian generals and nearsighted optometrist’s backers in Tehran know how to shut down an uprising the hard way.

Syria has an extensive WMD program; it has nerve gas and if things get bad, it may be willing to deploy chemical weapons against its enemies, the way its fellow Baath Party did across the border in Iraq. Those programs will be the first targets of NATO strikes, regardless of whatever the official statement about the No Fly Zone will be, but if the other side aren’t idiots, then finding those weapons will be as hard as it was in Iraq.

And that’s the other shoe. Saddam developed and executed a plan to deal with an American invasion that involved building an insurgency and hiding away his deadlier toys. His partners in that plan were in Syria. The people suppressing the insurgency in Syria are the same ones who oversaw the insurgency against NATO in Iraq. There are mutual grudges on both sides, but the Syrians know how to play the other side of the board.

Finally there’s one more explosive element. This isn’t the conflict between a dictator and his people that every media outlet is trying to present it as. This is a religious civil war between Alawites and Sunnis. The Alawites have slaughtered plenty of Sunnis and if the Sunnis win then the butcher’s bill will come due. As repugnant as the Syrian elite may be, they are not only fighting for power, but for the lives and futures of their families. And they may be willing to do things that the Libyan forces would be unprepared to do.

The likely scenario is still a No Fly Zone aiming at the destruction of the Syrian air force and much of the heavy stuff on the ground. This should be doable, but it will be more expensive than we envision. Even Libya managed to outlast Obama’s initial assessment by several months. Syria may take even longer unless a great deal of firepower is committed to the task.

That could mean another indefinite conflict that ends in another Saddam scenario complete with sanctions and a permanent No Fly Zone. That could have been the outcome in Libya; it still might be the outcome in Syria with Sunni Islamists operating in a limited territory under our protection. If the Democrats screw up that badly and create their own Iraq, then they really will have come full circle.

But assuming that Syria’s capabilities are significantly degraded, and that NATO aircraft safely prowl the sky taking out any remaining command and control centers and armor, then the conflict boils down to a straight civil war in which bands of insurgents on both sides do their best to butcher each other. Syria has some rather nasty special forces and its Baath elites have experience running insurgency operations against which NATO airpower will be mostly useless.

That breaks down into Iraq, complete with both sides carrying out the kind of Sunni-Shiite terror that sent the country spiraling down into hell. And it’s hardly an implausible scenario. The basic elements of religious fanaticism, guerrilla experience and trainers on both sides are available. With NATO and Qatar providing training and strategy on one side, and Russia and Iran doing the same on the other, this could end up being worse than Iraq, except that American troops probably won’t be in the middle of it.

That raises the question of whose troops will be. The Arab League wants a joint UN Peacekeeping Force. That isn’t likely to happen except as a completely useless paperweight. A UN force would prevent NATO from implementing regime change and prevent the Assad regime from butchering its enemies, thereby serving no one’s purposes. More likely though the UN force would be absolutely useless at both these things and would stand and watch, while providing occasional targets for either or both sides.

Turkey’s Islamist AKP thugs are raring to go, but a Turkish deployment might be too much even for the Arab League, which is on the same Islamist page as the AKP, but still might feel uncomfortable about what might look like a Turkish conquest of Syria. Sarkozy might be dumb enough to commit French ground troops, but that would end up carrying its own price. Some joint Friends of Invading Syria force might be able to throw together the Turks, the French and the Saudis for a comic version of the Coalition of the Willing, to secure Free Syrian Army territory and dispense humanitarian aid. And on the other side of the line would be the Baathists who have some experience fighting occupation armies. The end result might not be very pretty at all.

There is still an alternate scenario in which the Russians manage to trump NATO with some coalition of top Baathists and the Islamist opposition, while sidelining Western-backed leaders, but that’s not too likely. For one thing the Russians aren’t really any better at this than us. They showed that in Afghanistan. For another this isn’t just about Russia, it’s about Iran and its own religious solidarity. The Alawites are useful for a number of reasons, most of them having to do with being an isolated minority. End the isolation and suddenly Syria wouldn’t make quite as good a pawn.

That brings us to the showdown. NATO has become the arsenal of the Arab Spring, much as Al Jazeera has become its propaganda arm. But this time around the scenario is much more complex than a loony colonel with an army that couldn’t beat African militias. And there is no telling who will win or what the cost will be.

eza Aslan blames Spencer and Geller for rise in "anti-Muslim sentiment," says radical Christians far greater threat than jihadis

2012-02-21T00:07:00.001-08:00

Reza Aslan blames Spencer and Geller for rise in "anti-Muslim sentiment," says radical Christians far greater threat than jihadis

Selling he Big Lie to unwitting students

Islamic supremacist Boy Reza Aslan preaches hate in Love Auditorium at Colgate University, blaming none other than Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller for the rise in "anti-Muslim sentiment" in the U.S. since 9/11. His claims are worth examining, since the "Islamophobia" tactic (a strategy that the Muslim Brotherhood originated) continues to be a favorite of the Left and the mainstream media, and Reza's use of it is revealing of what they're trying to do. "Best-Selling Author Reza Aslan Lectures on Islamophobia," by Amanda Golden for the Colgate University Maroon-News, February 16:

On Monday evening in Love Auditorium, Colgate welcomed Reza Aslan, author ofTen Years Later: Fighting Islamophobia and Understanding Muslims, to campus. He addressed a full house and concluded the talk with a book signing. Aslan, who is the Chief Executive Officer of BoomGen Studios, centered his lecture on the ideas of rising Islamophobia and overall anti-Muslim sentiments in the United States. His previous work, No god but God, was an international bestseller.
Aslan began his talk by speaking about his own identity within a societal context, saying that he and his family left Iran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Because of the standing Iran had in the United States after the Iranian Hostage Crisis, he spent most of the early 1980s trying to assimilate into American culture. He found being Iranian in America at the time was not easy.

Easier than being American in Iran.

Aslan, through his own experiences of cultural identity, said that he believed there to be a "malleable American identity that allows for different cultures to easily absorb into the national American heritage." He said that even after 9/11, he still felt at home in America.
"Everyone thought there would be an enormous backlash against Muslims," Aslan said, "but there was actually an enormous amount of unity between different faiths that rallied to the side and cause of Muslims after 9/11."

Actually, no one thought there would be an enormous backlash against Muslims except the Islamic supremacist groups and Leftist media hacks who longed for that backlash so as to use it to promote privileged victim status for Muslims and deflect attention away from jihad terror activity. And Islamic supremacist groups like Hamas-linked CAIR are still trying to convince the American people that such a backlash did occur and is still occurring: that's why Hamas-linked CAIR and other Muslims have not hesitated even to fabricate "hate crimes." Thus Reza's admission that there was actually no such backlash is likely to get him a few scolding phone calls from his Islamic supremacist masters.

Aslan addressed the growing unease among many Americans.
"Anti-Muslim sentiment is at all-time highs," he said. "Far higher today than they were in the immediate aftermath of 9/11."

Aslan shared that these sentiments are almost 14 percent higher today than they were 10 years earlier.

"Attitudes towards Muslims in the United States are getting progressively more and more bigoted," he said. "Two-thirds of Americans don't think Muslims should have the same rights or civil liberties as non-Muslims."

Aslan routinely lies about the positions of his opponents -- apparently the real points they make are beyond his meager intellectual abilities to answer, so he has to resort to setting up straw men, and does so regularly. No one of any prominence in the anti-Sharia movement actually wants to deprive Muslims of rights or civil liberties. They just don't want to allow Islamic supremacists to subvert our Constitutional rights and civil liberties under the guise of exercising them, by asserting elements of Sharia in the U.S. and demanding that where Islamic law and American law conflict, American law must give way. They want to stop Muslims from forcing non-Muslims to abide by Sharia provisions -- such as in Pennsylvania just recently, where Muslim leaders are threatening Muslim shop owners to get them to stop selling alcohol, tobacco and pork, thereby at very least inconveniencing must of these shops' non-Muslim clientele.

Aslan spoke extensively on how he believed that this surge in anti-Muslim sentiment is not a naturally evolving phenomenon.
"It is not the result of a slow-moving grassroots sentiment," he said. "On the contrary, this is the result of a very well-organized, well-funded campaign by a handful of far-right extremist groups (Jihad Watch and Stop Islamization of America) to convince Americans that Islam is the enemy."

Jihad Watch and Stop Islamization of America: that's essentially Pamela Geller and me. Did Aslan actually expect his marks at Colgate to believe that two people are responsible for the alleged "surge in anti-Muslim sentiment"? While I appreciate his estimation of our extraordinary powers, and perceive how large we must loom in his fever dreams, in reality, we ain't that good. Any actual rise in "anti-Muslim sentiment," or in rightful suspicion of Islamic jihadists and supremacists, is not due to anything we have done, but rather to the activities of Muslims such as Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; and Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; and Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; and Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; and Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; and Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; and Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber; and many others like them who have plotted and/or committed mass murder in the name of Islam and motivated by its texts and teachings -- all in the U.S. in the last couple of years.

Recently, seven funders have spent almost $40 million within the Islamophobia industry to create fear-mongering reports about the dangers of Islam and Muslims in America, Aslan explained.
Aslan didn't make clear, for obvious reasons, that this $40 million was distributed among eight organizations over a period of nine years. That's an average of $555,555 per organization per year -- and even though I am mentioned in the report, I have never had that kind of funding for any year since I began Jihad Watch. Or even a third of that much. Neither has SIOA. Aslan's chief bogeymen have been operating on a pittance compared to the hard-Left Center for American Progress, which originated the "Islamophobia" report. Its budget for 2009 alone was $38,187,695. So Aslan would have us believe that there is an "Islamophobia industry"? An Islamic supremacist anti-"Islamophobia" industry, sure. But not an "Islamophobia" industry.

The reports are then fed into the echo chamber and served to a handful of media outlets that consequentially invite people who wrote the reports onto their news shows to confirm and cite the information. The echo chamber, he said, becomes news, and is then spread to the general public and then is picked up by political leaders. It is then fully part of the mainstream of American society and the rhetoric of Muslims. Aslan said that this is what happened with the "Mosque at Ground Zero" last year as well as the reports surrounding the "Sharia-ization of America."
This is a far more accurate depiction of the symbiosis between the Leftists and Islamic supremacists and the mainstream media (witness Reza's own frequent appearances on Colbert, Jon Stewart, Christiane Amanpour, NPR, etc.) than anything on the Right. Most of the conservative-leaning media is populated by cowards and venal self-seekers who would sooner sell their own mothers than feature anyone whom the Left has targeted for demonization, marginalization, and destruction.

"Studies have shown that the single greatest determinant to your views on Islam is whether you watch Fox News or not," Aslan said. "Fox News watchers have a worse view of Islam than tea-partiers who don't watch it."
Aslan pulls "studies" out of thin air, ignores all requests for documentation, and then goes on to the next stop in his "Islamophobia" traveling clown show and does it again. But even if such "studies" did exist, what exactly would they prove? They might indicate that Fox News informs its viewers more fully and accurately about the jihad threat and Islamic supremacism than do other networks. They might just mean that Fox tells the truth where the others don't.

Aslan shared that there are now 23 states that have either passed legislation or are in the process of passing legislation banning Sharia, which is the set of laws by which Islam societies are governed. Sharia has itself become a symbol of Islam, and has been associated with extremist leadership promoting an Islamic lifestyle.
"Every single one of those laws will be repealed," Aslan said. "The first to pass in Oklahoma has already been repealed because it's anti-constitutional. We can't allow one religious community not have the same rights as another. The court of appeals have overturned it in Oklahoma and will for all the other ones."

The law in Oklahoma was indeed blocked, but Aslan should not be so sanguine about the others falling as well. The Oklahoma law was poorly written, and Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacists immediately argued before a Leftist judge that the law would infringe upon Muslims' rights -- as Aslan does here. However, in reality, no one cares about individual Muslim religious practice or wants to restrict it, and the judge should have known that the purpose of the law was not to stop Muslims from getting married in Islamic religious ceremonies and the like, but to stop the political and supremacist aspects of Islam that infringe upon the rights and freedoms of non-Muslims. Newer versions of the law, introduced in other states, make this clear.

Going off this, Aslan spoke about the motives that drive the Islamophobia network. He addressed how in actuality, Muslims are the most loyal American religious group. A recent Gallup poll shows that 93 percent of Muslims say they are loyal to America, and that Muslim-Americans are most likely out of any major faith in the U.S. to reject violent attacks against citizens.
"There are more planned attacks against the US by homegrown Christian militias than Muslims of any nationality," Aslan said. "There is no reason to think there has been a sudden spike in homegrown national terrorism, but facts and data are irrelevant in issues of bigotry."

The claim that "there are more planned attacks against the US by homegrown Christian militias than Muslims of any nationality" is pure fabrication. Can Aslan produce a list of such attacks by Christian militias over the last few years comparable to my list of jihad plots and attacks above (and my list isn't even complete)? Of course he cannot and will not. He has learned the technique of the Big Lie very well.

Aslan said that Islam has become the dumping ground for all things uncomfortable."Islam has become otherwise a receptacle where Americans are throwing their fears about the economy, changing racial landscape, etc. – whatever is fearful, foreign, exotic, unfamiliar is increasingly being tagged as Islam."
Here again, Aslan cannot or will not depict his opposition accurately. In reality, concerns about jihad and Islamic supremacism have nothing to do with the economy, or race, or what is "fearful, foreign, exotic, unfamiliar." They have to do with a desire to protect our lives and our freedoms from a system of law and governance that denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for women and non-Muslims.

Aslan returned to his earlier point about the power of the American identity in order to address the stigmas that are so often associated with it.
"The miraculous thing about the American identity is that it can absorb different ideas and cultures," he said. "The problem is that in times of societal stress, that identity gets tested. We are certainly in one of those times. A lot of Americans are waking up to an America that they don't recognize."

He explained that while education is a powerful tool in creating the change necessary to alter peoples' perceptions of their Islamophobia, he doesn't feel it is enough.

"Data does not change peoples' minds," Aslan said. "Information does not change peoples' minds."...

Aslan apparently doesn't even believe that himself, since he lies so often and does his best to keep people from getting accurate information about Islam and jihad.

The Origin of the Heartland Documents

2012-02-20T22:58:00.001-08:00

Peter H. Gleick

Pacific Institute

GET UPDATES FROM PETER H. GLEICK
The Origin of the Heartland Documents

Posted: 02/20/2012 7:45 pm
Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.
At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.

Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts -- often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated -- to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

Peter Gleick

Follow Peter H. Gleick on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PeterGleick

ISLAM IN AMERICA: PENNSYLVANIA MUSLIM LEADERS THREATEN MUSLIM BUSINESS OWNERS WITH BOYCOTT IF THEY DON'T STOP SELLING ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND PORK

2012-02-19T21:25:00.001-08:00

ISLAM IN AMERICA: PENNSYLVANIA MUSLIM LEADERS THREATEN MUSLIM BUSINESS OWNERS WITH BOYCOTT IF THEY DON'T STOP SELLING ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND PORK

Where's the rat pack when ya need 'em? Dino! Frankie! Sammy! What have we wrought?

This is sharia in America.

Pennsylvania: Muslim leaders threaten Muslim business owners with boycott if they don't stop selling alcohol, tobacco and pork Jihadwatch

Whatever the cogency of their moral critique of alcohol and tobacco, these Muslim leaders are pushing for a solution that is characteristically Islamic: instead of working to teach Muslim youth self-control and the virtues of avoiding drinking, smoking and drug use, they want to make it impossible for them to fall into these vices by making them unavailable. This is the same mentality that, instead of teaching men to respect women and control themselves, forces women to cover themselves up in public, ostensibly so as to remove all temptation.
And above all this is a Sharia move. If it weren't, they wouldn't be pressuring the store owners to stop selling pork as well. Their attempt to portray this as a strike for morality and the common welfare falls flat when they bring the pork ban into it. Here again, Muslims are trying to force non-Muslims -- in this case, those who live near and patronize these stores -- to abide by Sharia provisions, instead of simply refraining themselves from the things to which they object.

"Muslim group asks stores to remove alcohol, tobacco," by John Kopp for the Delaware County Daily Times, February 16 (thanks to Robert):

CHESTER — A group of Islamic leaders is urging Muslim business owners to stop selling alcohol, tobacco and drug paraphernalia, which are prohibited in the Quran because they contribute to the destruction of humanity.
The United Muslim Coalition for Chester Citizens Against Violence and Crime mailed out a letter detailing the request to 16 Muslim-owned businesses last month.

The coalition wants the businesses to stop selling such products because they run counter to Islam and also contribute to the drug and violence problem plaguing Chester. The coalition claims the business owners are ignoring passages in the Quran that call for Muslims to protect others from harm.

“They’re preying on the addictions that plague our community,” Imam Haneef Mahdi said. “We’re trying to eradicate from the root those things that are hurting our community.”

Imam Farid W. Rasool said many people buy blunts from these stores strictly to lace the wraps with marijuana, cocaine or embalming fluid. The latter is known as “wet” on the streets.

Rasool said many of Chester’s youth engaged in drugs and violence identify with the Muslim faith. Coalition leaders said they are tired of seeing these youth — and others who don’t identify with Islam — dying on the streets.

“We have a right to request that you stop contributing to the death of your community,” Keith Muhammad said. “We are asking as a community for you to stop. That should be respected. Certainly, out of the law of Islam, you should be moved.”

Coalition leaders said they are just one cog in a broader effort to improve Chester. They said they simply are asking their fellow Muslims to adhere to their faith and stop taking actions detrimental to the community.

If the business owners do not cease selling forbidden products, the coalition said it will ask the public to stop supporting those businesses.

Coalition leaders do not view their efforts merely as another anti-violence group taking action.

They said they want to influence the morality of the community and are calling on Muslim business owners to cease living a contradictory lifestyle.

“We live by example,” Muhammad said. “That is what we’re trying to get them to do.”

In their letter, the coalition also asked Muslim business owners to cease selling pork and any other products also forbidden in the Quran.

The Muslim leaders spent two weeks visiting each of the establishments, because none of them responded to their letter or attended their meeting, they said.

Mahdi said many of the business owners expressed concerns about profits. Some store operators are immigrants more focused on prospering in America than following their religion, he said.

“The concern was normally the monetary loss that would be taken if they removed these products from their stores,” Mahdi said. “There are certainly other things they could be selling that would make their businesses profitable.”

Coalition leaders noted at least 25 Muslim-owned businesses are making profits by selling wholesome products. There is no need to sell forbidden products, they said.

“We are enjoined to have love in our hearts to every human being,” Nusrat J. Rashid said. “Why on earth would you want another human being to be subject to these dangers?”

EARLIEST GOSPEL OF MARK FOUND?

2012-02-19T20:26:00.001-08:00

TESTING THE FAITH

EARLIEST GOSPEL OF MARK FOUND?

Would be oldest fragment of New Testament known to exist

Published: 8 hours ago
by JOE KOVACS Email | Archive
Joe Kovacs, executive news editor for WND, is an award-winning journalist and author of the No. 1 best-selling book "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told."
A New Testament professor is setting the world of Bible scholarship on fire with his claim that newly discovered fragments of early Christian writings could include a first-century version of the Gospel of Mark, from the same century in which Jesus and the apostles lived.
Daniel B. Wallace of the Dallas Theological Seminary made the stunning announcement during a Feb. 1 debate with Bart Ehrman at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill on whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today.

“If this Mark fragment is confirmed as from the first century, what a thrill it will be to have a manuscript that is dated within the lifetime of many of the original followers of Jesus!” Wallace said. “Not only this, but this manuscript would have been written before the New Testament was completed.”

Yes, the Bible is true, but why are so many simple facts from it suppressed? Find out what you’ve been missing in the No. 1 bestseller, “Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You’ve Never Been Told,” only $4.95 today only!”

Wallace says seven New Testament fragments written on papyrus had recently been discovered – six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. He expects further details to be published “in about a year.”

“These manuscripts now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts (all fragmentary, more or less) from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 40 percent of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

“It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.”

Wallace’s interest is focused on the portion from Mark’s Gospel.

“Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century. This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.”

Craig A. Evans, professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College, says the find may indeed be of very great importance.

“If authenticity and early date are confirmed, this fragment of the Gospel of Mark could be very significant and show how well preserved the text of the New Testament really is. We all await its publication,” Evans told the Christian Post.

Others agree.

“Any find that gets us a quarter-century or so closer to the time the original gospels were written would be highly significant, even sensational,” Andreas Kostenberger, senior professor of New Testament and biblical theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological in Wake Forest, N.C., told Baptist Press.

“Of course, in part the significance of the discovery depends on the size of the fragment, not to mention the verification of the date. There have been previous reports of discoveries of early Mark or other gospel manuscripts that did not check out at closer scrutiny, so it is certainly appropriate to maintain scholarly caution until the full data are known and available to public scrutiny. For example, some scholars got burned when they prematurely accepted so-called ‘Secret Mark,’ which turned out to be a forgery.”

When asked about the trustworthiness of what Mark really wrote if we don’t possess an actual original copy of his manuscript, Kostenberger said, “The fact is that the earliest manuscripts of all or parts of Mark that we do have show remarkable consistency and stability. And none of the minor variations between different manuscripts affect any major doctrine of Christianity at all.

“Of course, there is no way to prove positively one way or another what might have happened during the period between the original writing of Mark and the first available copies. Knowing what we do know about the care with which ancient Jews as well as early Christians took to preserve the original wording of what they believed to be authoritative and sacred writings – in fact, the very words of God – inspires a high degree of confidence. First the apostles, and then those after them carefully guarded the reliability of the eyewitness testimony to Jesus contained in the four canonical gospels.”

Obama saids that he is not a natural born citizen? Is he a liar?

2012-02-17T21:48:00.001-08:00

http://youtu.be/MwhKuunp8D8

Democrats Richer Than Romney

2012-02-15T04:45:00.001-08:00

- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -

Democrats Richer Than Romney

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On February 15, 2012 @ 12:27 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | No Comments

Democrats who have been a bit too obscenely eager to damn Mitt Romney as Mr. Moneybags may want to reconsider. The media has spent a great deal of time touting the claim that Romney would be the richest president in half a century. But Romney’s net worth of approximately 200 million dollars would not even make him the richest senator. Senators Kohl, Warner and Kerry all beat out Romney in the wealth sweepstakes. And they’re all Democrats. For all the news stories about his wealth, if Romney ran for Congress, he wouldn’t even make it as the wealthiest member of the House of Representatives.

If the Democrats really believe that wealth is a disqualification for public office, why do they keep selecting some of the wealthiest senators in the country? If Romney wins then he may become the wealthiest president in half a century, but if Kerry had won the honor would have gone to him.

The combined net worth of Obama and his cabinet in 2010 was around 150 million dollars. Slate Magazine sneeringly put up a calculator offering readers a chance to see how long it would take Mitt Romney to make the same amount of money that they did. The annual income figure that Slate used for Romney was 21.6 million dollars. Obama’s tax return showed him earning 5.5 million dollars. Romney’s annuals weren’t that much more than the 16 million that the Clintons took him in one year as part of the over 100 million dollars they amassed since Bill left office. There were no Slate calculators to let people figure out how long it would take Obama or Clinton to earn what they made in one year.

There’s something ridiculous about pretending that 21 million a year is a lot of money, but 5.5 million is a modest income. To most Americans both figures represent a lot more than they make. But then few presidents leave the Oval Office as paupers anyway. Ulysses S. Grant might have gone so badly into debt that he was reduced to poverty, but that’s uncommon today when former presidents have any number of lucrative moneymaking options.

Clinton has a higher net worth than George W. Bush does and every Democratic President has been or ended up wealthier than his Republican predecessor, except Carter who tied Ford. And their wealth is relative. Romney isn’t anywhere in the range of political billionaires like Bloomberg or Meg Whitman who can sink tens of millions of dollars into an election. To put those numbers into context, Bloomberg and Whitman combined spent nearly all of Romney’s net worth on trying to win just two elections.

But the net worth and the political clout of their wealth pale next to George Soros who along with the billionaires of the Shadow Party funded the rise to power of the Democratic Party and its takeover by the left. Soros’ Open Society Institute spends between 400 and 500 million dollars annually. That’s twice Romney’s net worth in a single year being tossed around by the godfather of the Democratic Party

Democrats hoping to use sheer numbers as a talking point may find that those numbers go places they don’t expect and asking the public to adjudicate between millionaires playing class warfare will earn them a shrug and a grunt. The real numbers to be worried about are even bigger than Obama’s millions or Romney’s millions or even Soros’ billions that power the Democratic Party. They are the trillions of dollars in national debt amassed by a class warfare administration that refuses to contemplate spending cuts for anything but the military. And that debt is the monkey on the back of generations living and yet unborn. It’s an anchor around the United States economy and a ticking time bomb waiting to blow up whatever prosperity and stability is achieved this decade.

The federal government spends over 20 billion dollars per work day. Romney’s entire net worth isn’t even 1 percent of the money spent by the federal government in a single day. A higher tax rate for Romney would be no more than a snowflake in the avalanche of federal spending.

If we were to confiscate Romney’s entire fortune, what would that buy us?

Obama proposed spending 200 million dollars on a Portland to Milwaukie light rail line. Milwaukie, a city in Oregon, is less than seven miles away from Portland. You can drive there in 15 minutes. It has a population of 20,000 which comes out to about 200,000 in light rail dollars per person.

In the last five years, over 600 million dollars in payments have been improperly made to dead federal employees. The good news is that Romney’s entire net worth might cover a year of wrongful payments to dead bureaucrats.

USAID spent a mere 90 million dollars to promote hiring and sales among businesses in Pakistan. Thirty million of that was spent to boost Pakistani mango sales. Put together Mitt Romney and Barack Obama’s annual incomes and it still wouldn’t cover the money that the United States spends promoting Pakistani mango sales.

But why sweat the small stuff? There were 125 billion dollars in improper payments made in 2010. Triple the numbers during the Bush administration. The combined fortunes of the Waltons and Koch Brothers would just barely cover the known improper payments made in a single year by the government.

Americans know this. In a poll last year, people estimated that the government wastes 51 cents of every dollar it spends. When they think about the big money, it’s not the 200 million dollars that someone else has; it’s the 50,000 dollars in national debt that each and every American is on the hook for. A debt that they know is being enlarged without end.

Playing the wealth card is meant to paint Romney as an out of touch elitist, but it is the people who have drowned the nation in a debt that there isn’t enough money to repay who are the out of touch elitists. Michael Moore (estimated net worth 50 million) emphasized repeatedly that the Forbes 400 had a total net worth of over a trillion dollars, while the bottom 60 percent of households have only 1.2 trillion dollars.

What he failed to mention is that 1.2 trillion dollars wouldn’t even cover the annual budget deficit. Put together the wealth of the top 400 and the bottom 60 percent and it wouldn’t even cover the interest on the national debt.

The people responsible for this are the true 1 percent. The 1 percent of government officials, politicians and crony capitalists in the Obama administration who have spent the money of the other 99 percent. Americans may have varying feelings about the rich, but everyone hates a crook.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

EXCUSING SHARIAH AT CPAC

2012-02-15T04:38:00.000-08:00

DEFENDING THE WEST

EXCUSING SHARIAH AT CPAC

Exclusive: Pamela Geller exposes pair on group's board opposing anti-jihad efforts

Published: 11 hours ago
by PAMELA GELLER Email | Archive
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."
CPAC 2012 was last weekend. For the fourth year in a row, I did what the Conservative Political Action Conference refuses to do: Cover the central issue of our time, the issue that ought to be center-stage, prime time at CPAC: jihad.

This year yet again, the puppet masters, Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, managed to keep jihad and Sharia off the CPAC schedule – except for the event hosted by my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI). Once again, our event was SRO, packed. The room was hot as hades (I suppose Grover Norquist had turned up the heat), but that did not stop the sweaty crowd from participating and staying for the full two-hour presentation. On an ominous note, three people wearing Americans for Tax Reform ID tags were taking pictures of the faces and name tags of the people attending our event. ATR is Grover’s organization.

I have been organizing events at CPAC since I first brought Geert Wilders to the conservative confab back in 2009, but this was our most powerful one yet. The only coverage of our landmark event in defense of freedom, however, was from the anti-freedom, pro-jihad left. Islamic supremacists and their quisling apologists in the leftist media immediately tried to twist the meaning of remarks by one of our speakers, James Lafferty. They accused Lafferty, founder and chairman of the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force, of applauding the destruction of mosques. Lafferty set the record straight in a statement he sent me: “I do not condone or encourage any criminal act or vandalism against any mosque. I am a firm believer in the rule of law and the protections our Constitution provides for the free exercise of religion – and that means all religions.”

In reality, this was a gathering of patriots. The crowd gave a standing ovation to retired Marine Gunnery Sgt. Jesse Nieto, whose son was killed in the jihad attack on the USS Cole. Nieto filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court after base officials barred him from driving his truck onto Camp Lejeune or any other military base because it was festooned with counter-jihad decals. Robert Spencer referred Nieto to attorney Robert Muise of the American Freedom Law Center, one of our keynote speakers. Muise sued on his behalf and won.

Our other keynote speaker, J. Christian Adams, is the heroic former Justice Department lawyer who blew the whistle on the Obama DOJ’s refusal to prosecute the Black Panther voter intimidation case. He spoke about the deeply ingrained Islamophilia within Eric Holder’s department and its energetic efforts to enforce special Shariah privileges for Muslims – such as the notorious case in which the DOJ sued a school district for denying a first-year teacher’s outrageous request for 19 days off so that she could go to Mecca on the hajj.

Another highlight of CPAC was a wild exchange between an obviously unhinged and dishonest Suhail Khan and Robert Spencer and me. Spencer initially approached Khan with an invitation to debate. Khan responded with lies and invective, growing progressively more unhinged, especially when I joined the fray. Watch the video: Khan looks like a criminal caught in the act of a crime.

This all happened because earlier that day, at an ironically entitled panel called “Conservative Inclusion 101,” Khan told an audience member that Spencer didn’t know what he was talking about, and that was why Spencer was not asked to speak or included in their “inclusion” panels and meetings. So Spencer, when he saw Khan in the hotel lobby, approached him, stuck out his hand (Khan refused to shake it) and offered to debate. Khan then started flinging these hysterical lies and accusations; he said that on Sept. 21, 2011, the ACU board unanimously banned Spencer and me from CPAC and specifically named Ambassador John Bolton as having agreed to this. Khan is a baldfaced liar. Bolton called the claim “ridiculous.”

The day after CPAC ended, the leftist site Think Progress published a related ACU Board resolution, and sure enough, Khan was lying: It makes no mention of Spencer or me. But I am more intrigued with the question of who on the conservative side is leaking to the uber-left media. There is a mole at the senior level of the ACU, in bed with uber-leftists at Think Progress. Who is the enemy within our ranks? They are obviously more at home with the uber-left than the right. They knew the left would do their bidding against our own people. Think about that. The ACU board should be refreshed with new, solid conservatives. Why isn’t membership on the ACU Board rotated – why don’t Norquist or Khan ever move off the Board? Their histories are deeply compromised.

Further, at his event Khan distributed the most egregious libel against Jewish law and whitewash of Shariah: an article claiming that Shariah was just like Jewish law and thus Jews should not oppose its spread in the U.S. The article didn’t point out that Jewish law doesn’t force itself on anyone, unlike Islamic law. The Quran says that “there is no compulsion in religion,” but there is compulsion in Islamic law – unlike Jewish law. And Jewish law doesn’t assert authority over non-Jews, while Islamic law does assert authority over non-Muslims. It didn’t deal honestly with the fact that Islamic law is a comprehensive political program at variance with democratic freedoms.

Can you believe this Muslim Brotherhood proxy gave the Pledge of Allegiance at the CPAC banquet?

There is a battle for the soul of the conservative movement. We are serving notice. We will take you down. You will not destroy the only hope America has for a return to our basic founding principles.

Click here to print.

White House threatens veto of GOP’s highway bill

2012-02-15T04:30:00.001-08:00

White House threatens veto of GOP’s highway bill
by The Associated Press
06:39 PM, Tuesday, February 14 2012 | 11 views | 0 | 0 | |
WASHINGTON (AP) — After years of procrastination, the White House and Congress have suddenly boosted a long-term plan to improve the nation’s roads, bridges and transit systems to the top of the political agenda.

This week, the House and Senate are set to take up vastly different bills providing a blueprint for shoring up the nation’s aging transportation system. Lawmakers are driven in part by a desire to show voters a major accomplishment in an election year when regard for Congress is at rock bottom. They are pitching the bills as jobs generators, although it may be more accurate to say they preserve jobs that might otherwise be lost if Congress doesn’t find a way to keep highway and transit programs solvent.

President Barack Obama chimed in Monday with his own plan to spend nearly half a trillion dollars over six years on transportation infrastructure. And on Tuesday the White House threatened to veto the House bill, saying the Republican measure doesn’t spend enough to strengthen the nation’s transportation system and weakens environmental and labor standards.

But the president’s plan is much grander than anything Congress is likely to go along with that the administration has swung its weight behind the Senate bill, a bipartisan plan that more modestly proposes to spend $109 billion over less than two years.

House Republicans have proposed spending about $260 billion over nearly five years, but the bill is drawing fire from so many quarters that the ability of Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to muscle the measure through to passage is in doubt. To build support with tight-fisted tea partiers for such a large spending bill, GOP leaders added sweeteners designed to appeal to conservatives, such as expanded offshore oil and gas drilling, approval of the controversial Keystone pipeline and a requirement that federal employees pay more toward their pensions.

The bill’s treatment of mass transit programs has riled urban lawmakers, including New York and Chicago metro-area Republicans who may wind up voting against the bill. It eliminates the guarantee of a portion of federal gasoline and diesel tax revenues for transit, leaving programs vulnerable to future budget cuts.

“If you are a Republican from a city that has mass transit, how can you vote for this and go home?” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who is sponsoring an amendment to restore a portion of fuel tax revenues for transit. Seven Republicans have co-sponsored the amendment.

And six GOP lawmakers have sent a letter to Boehner and other GOP leaders saying the transportation bill will stand a better chance of passage if provisions opening leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling are dropped. The provisions, which include opening the East and West coasts and portions of the Florida Gulf Coast, as well as ANWR, to drilling, are supposed to help pay for transportation programs. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates they would raise less than $5 billion over 10 years for the federal government.

“Opening ANWR to drilling as a means to pay for the transportation bill is neither reasonable nor realistic,” said Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., author of the letter.

The bill also eliminates locally popular federal programs that help underwrite bike paths, bike lanes and pedestrian safety projects, including the Safe Routes to School program, in order to concentrate funding on highways.

“The House bill takes us back to the dark ages,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican congressman, told reporters Monday. He said he doesn’t expect any Democrats to vote for the bill.

“I hope there will be lots of opportunities to amend it,” LaHood said, to increase funding for transit and other needs. “Without amendments, this bill isn’t going to pass.”

But Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and co-author of a major portion of the bill, said he is “fairly confident” based on his discussions with GOP lawmakers that the bill can pass.

“This is going to be the No. 1 job creator and economic generator bill of this entire session (of Congress),” he said. “I think members will rally behind what may be their last chance of getting jobs and a responsible blueprint for dealing with our crumbling infrastructure.”

There will be changes made to the bill through a leadership-backed amendment that will address GOP members’ concerns, Mica said.

“The bill isn’t done,” he said. “The final bill will be something conservatives can be very proud of because it has dramatic reforms and measures that people have called for for years.”

But House leaders are being squeezed from both sides. If they give too much ground they risk losing support on the right. The Club for Growth, a free-market, anti-tax group influential with fiscal conservatives, and the political arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation have objected to both the House and the Senate bills. Conservatives say the bills spend too much money and transportation programs should be paid for using only fuel tax revenue. Democrats and moderate Republicans, meanwhile, oppose sharp cuts to popular programs.

In the White House veto threat, Obama’s Office of Management and Budget also objected to a mandate in the House bill that a permit be granted for an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas. The Obama administration denied the permit last month but left the door open for an application for a new pipeline route. The White House says the bill also eliminates transit programs that help metropolitan areas reduce congestion.

GOP leaders said Tuesday they intend to divide the transportation bill into three bills. Their strategy is to allow lawmakers who oppose the transit changes or oil drilling provisions to vote again those portions, while still supporting the heart of the bill. Afterward, the House clerk will stitch the three bills together.

Floor debate could begin on the House bill as soon as Wednesday, with a final vote expected Friday. Lawmakers had filed 293 amendment requests with the House Rules Committee by Monday’s 11 a.m. deadline. The committee decides which amendments can be offered during debate.

Debate began on the Senate bill late last week with a strongly bipartisan procedural vote of 85-11, and is continuing this week. The bill is co-authored by Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and James Inhofe, R-Okla., ideological opposites who have managed to overcome substantial disagreement in an effort to pass a bill.

But Democrats, who control the Senate, have struggled to come up with the money to pay for the plan. Several GOP senators have signaled that their support for the bill could turn to opposition if changes aren’t made to satisfy their fiscal concerns.

Like the House, the Senate has been hampered by a shortfall between current spending levels and fuel tax revenues, which are the main source of funding for transportation programs. Reductions in driving due to the economy as well as more fuel-efficient vehicles have lowered tax revenues. The budget office projects the trust fund that pays for highway and transit programs will go broke sometime in the 2013 federal budget year.

Without an infusion of cash from somewhere, the Transportation Department could be forced to slow down reimbursements to states for highway construction and other transportation projects. That, in turn, could lead to thousands of lost jobs.

Lawmakers could resolve much of their money woes by increasing the 18.4 cent-a-gallon gas tax and the 24.4 cent-a-gallon diesel tax, but that’s politically unpalatable in an economy where unemployment remains high and many Americans feel financially insecure.

Indecision about how to shore up the Highway Trust Fund has long stymied efforts to pass a transportation plan. The last long-term plan expired in 2009. Congress has kept programs going through a series of eight short-term extensions. The current extension expires March 31.

Read more: The Courier - Your Messenger for the River Valley

The Global Warming Hoax is Now Killing People

2012-02-15T01:30:00.000-08:00

- Accuracy In Media - http://www.aim.org -

The Global Warming Hoax is Now Killing People

Posted By Alan Caruba On February 14, 2012 @ 3:55 pm In Guest Columns | 3 Comments

By Friday, February 10th, an estimated 500 Europeans had died from the freezing weather gripping the continent. This is the price they and British citizens are paying for embracing the global warming hoax, spending billions for wind power when they should have been building coal-fired and other sources of energy to heat their homes and businesses.

As the British daily, The Telegraph, reported on Friday, “Serbia has started implementing power cuts in a desperate bid to stave off the collapse of its national grid as the country suffers the effects of days of freezing temperatures.”

I and others have been warning for years that the Earth has been cooling since 1998 and that the planet is on the cusp of a new ice age because the average length of an interglacial period of warmth between such ages is now coming to an end after the passage of some 11,500 years.

All aspects of global warming legislation and spending programs must be utterly reversed if we are not going to see huge losses of life and the disruption of entire economies.

The Ottawa Citizen published an Agence France Presse article [1] on Friday reporting that “Thick ice closed vast swaths of the Danube on Thursday, crippling shipping on Europe’s busiest waterway, as the death toll from bitter cold across the continent rose…as it has every day for nearly two weeks.” The report noted that “Navigation was impossible or restricted in Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Austria, as ice covered the river or formed dangerous floes in shipping lanes.”

No shipping means no delivery of coal and oil and no shipping of food and other necessities. Europe is freezing over as the United States has been experiencing an unusually mild winter thus far. That, too, is likely to yield to the increased cooling of the planet and then, maybe, Americans will realize the threat to their lives that the closing of coal-fired plants, instigated by the Environmental Protection Agency, really means.

In England, the Mail, reported on Sunday, February 12th, that large numbers of its elderly citizens are being “frozen to death as fuel bills soar: hypothermia cases among the elderly double in five years.” [2] England, now gripped by foolish green notions of renewable energy, has covered itself with wind turbines, despoiling its countryside and coasts while proving unreliable and incapable of meeting its energy needs.

Figures showed that “1,876 patients were treated in hospital for hypothermia in 2010-2011, up from 950 in 2006-2007” reported the Mail. “Three-quarters of victims were pensioners, with cases soaring among the over-60s more than any other age group.”

In Europe, other news organizations reported that “Many of the dead were homeless people, who literally froze to death as the temperatures dropped to minus 50 degrees in some parts of the continent. Their bodies were found in the streets buried under snow, in rivers, and in doorways. Dozens of people were also killed in weather-related accidents.”

Writing in a Turkish newspaper, the Hurriyet Daily News, Sophie Quintin Adali, an analyst for a project of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, said, “As if the debt crisis weren’t bad enough news, the climate freeze sweeping across Europe is wreaking havoc by severely disrupting travel, business and people’s lives. Local authorities, indeed whole countries, are caught poorly prepared.” Turkey is experiencing record snowfall and low temperatures.

“The lack of readiness should come as no surprise because for decades the sensationalist message of global warming has dominated the public area,” said Ms. Adali.

“Politicians and decades of political environmentalism have a lot to answer for,” said Ms. Adali. “The man-made climate theory…is still supported by a mighty European Union bureaucracy and a green network addicted to public funds.” Even now, the Green Climate Fund “through which millions of taxpayer’s money will still be disbursed” is threatening the lives and the economy of people worldwide.

The current freeze is not just affecting Europe, but reaching across the Mediterranean to North African nations. And at some point America will feel it too.

We have not built a single new nuclear plant in America since 1978. EPA rules are forcing the closure of coal-fired plants throughout the nation. The national grid for the distribution of electricity is in need of upgrades.

The nation’s policies are controlled by the most environmentally insane administration in its history, wasting billions on so-called green energy. Its new budget raises taxes and proposes a trillion-dollar deficit without any significant effort to cut the spending that has left this and future generations in debt while the price of gas soars to new heights.

America and the rest of the world have been horribly deceived by the United Nations Intergovernmental Climate Change Panel that continues to drive the global warming hoax. The lying scientists who got on the global warming gravy train, the politicians that embraced it, and the media that misled millions are all culpable, all responsible.

They should be driven from office, defunded, and chased through the streets like villagers in pursuit of Frankenstein.

People are freezing to death in their homes and in the streets. What will it take to drive a stake into the heart of the global warming monster?

Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org

URL to article: http://www.aim.org/guest-column/the-global-warming-hoax-is-now-killing-people/

URLs in this post:

[1] Agence France Presse article: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/todays-paper/Europe+Danube+freezes+over/6130398/story.html

[2] “frozen to death as fuel bills soar: hypothermia cases among the elderly double in five years.”: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2100232/Frozen-death-fuel-bills-soar-Hypothermia-cases-elderly-double-years.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Far-left Protest for Al-Jazeera Flops in Philly

2012-02-15T01:22:00.000-08:00

Accuracy In Media - http://www.aim.org -

Far-left Protest for Al-Jazeera Flops in Philly

Posted By Cliff Kincaid On February 14, 2012 @ 3:06 pm In AIM Column | Comments Disabled

Fresh from their attempts to disrupt the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), members of the “Occupy” movement showed up in Philadelphia, at the headquarters of Comcast Corp., to demand that the company put the Arab propaganda channel Al-Jazeera on all of its cable systems nationwide.

Despite the pathetic turnout—only about two dozen people showed up—the demonstration garnered attention from such news organizations as the Associated Press and Reuters.

Moshe Phillips, a Philadelphia-based writer/researcher and activist, told AIM, “The words of Dr. Judea Pearl, the father of slain American journalist Daniel Pearl, echoed though my head as I watched the marchers. Dr. Pearl stated last year that ‘weakening the West is their [Al-Jazeera’s] first priority. Al-Jazeera is an anti-Western propaganda machine that also engages in news services for profit and status.’ He was right. And now we see the active and visible collusion between the dregs of the Occupy Philadelphia / Occupy Wall Street crowd with Al-Jazeera. On the streets of Philly today we saw a dark sign of things to come. The question is how much did Al-Jazeera pay for the Occupiers’ services today?”

Pamela Geller, editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs blog [1], told AIM the channel should not only be discouraged but officially blocked from U.S. media markets because of its links to terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. “Terror TV Al-Jazeera should be designated a terrorist organization just like [Hezbollah’s channel] Al-Manar. Al-Manar is designated a terrorist organization,” she said.

Under such a designation, the Qatar-based and funded channel could be stopped from operating on American soil and its agents and “news personnel” imprisoned.

Geller, who also serves as president of Stop Islamization of Nations (SION), added, “The propaganda war against the West is being waged on all fronts, but no organization has done as much to spread hate, lies and incitement to violence as Al-Jazeera. Al-Jazeera is the leading terrorist propaganda organization in the world. Jihad murder mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki has praised Al-Jazeera, and several years ago one of its most prominent reporters was arrested on terror charges. Al-Jazeera also has for years been the recipient of numerous Al-Qaeda videos featuring bin Laden, Zawahiri, and American traitor Adam Gadahn. Yet they never seem to be able to trace where these videos are coming from. They have repeatedly been set up at the point of attack right before a bomb went off, so that they could take the picture of the slaughtered, dismembered bodies.”

The Philadelphia demonstration was organized by the little-known Rethink Press, a group that boasts a “partnership” relationship [2] with the George Soros-funded Free Press. Al-Jazeera officials openly encouraged [3] the protests through the popular website Meetup.

Meredith Larson, one of the founders of Rethink Press, is listed on the Facebook page for the “First National Call In Day to Demand Al Jazeera English [4].” Her own personal Facebook page [5] identifies her interests as including Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, the Free Gaza Movement, Noam Chomsky, National Public Radio, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Al-Jazeera English.

The “Campaign for Al Jazeera English’s DC Networking Event [6],” now on YouTube, featured Mike Haack of Rethink Press describing how the campaign for Al-Jazeera was being conducted through the “Meetup” website. The event was held at Busboys and Poets in Washington D.C., a left-wing bookstore, restaurant, and gathering place, and co-sponsored by the Human Rights Action Center, Institute for Policy Studies, and the Media and Democracy Coalition. People were invited to talk about “why they love Al-Jazeera English.”

Haack’s bio [7] says he “likes Al Jazeera English because of its superb coverage of economic inequalities in the United States.” His Facebook page [8] lists his interests as including Occupy Your Workplace, Noam Chomsky, Institute for Policy Studies, U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and the International Solidarity Movement.

Anticipating violence, security officers and representatives from the Comcast building management in Philadelphia stopped the protesters from entering. One report [9] said, “Rethink leaders Xi Wang and Mike Haack were admitted briefly under escort. They brought the signatures, printed on 1,000 pages and tied with a ribbon, to the mail room for delivery to Comcast officials.”

Florida broadcaster Jerry Kenney, a critic of the channel’s efforts to get carriage in the U.S. media market, commented that “It is obvious that these occupiers are clueless that Al Jazeera English is owned and operated by a one percenter, a petrodollar billionaire dictator who forbids freedom of the press in his own country and who could buy Comcast with his pocket change. Why aren’t they protesting for free speech in Qatar or at the Qatar embassy?”

Kenney went on, “The owner of Al Jazeera English is so repressive and paranoid of free speech that he has routinely imprisoned bloggers and even a World Cup film crew. But I guess if 30 tax-supported public television station program managers, mostly in academia, who currently carry Al-Jazeera English for free, think that a dictator’s point of view is just what Americans are crying out for, well, how can we blame another group of useful idiots for thinking the same?”

He is referring to the tax-supported public television stations airing foreign propaganda channels such as Al-Jazeera English and Russia Today (RT).

The small Philadelphia protest was the culmination of months of effort, described as “Bringing Jihad TV to America” by Matthew Vadum of the Capital Research Center in a FrontPageMag.com story [10] last August. He noted that radical activist Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies had been a featured speaker at the “Campaign for Al Jazeera English” event in Washington, D.C., hosted by Rethink Press. Bennis explained, “If there were Al Jazeera access in every city in this country, building a movement to challenge U.S. foreign policy, to make it something different than what it is, would be a whole hell of a lot easier than it is now.”

What she had in mind, Vadum explained, was weakening the U.S. as a world power and undermining its allies such as Israel.

Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org

URL to article: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/far-left-protest-for-al-jazeera-flops-in-philly/

URLs in this post:

[1] Atlas Shrugs blog: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/

[2] “partnership” relationship: http://rethinkpress.org/aboutus/links

[3] openly encouraged: http://mashable.com/2011/02/04/al-jazeera-campaigns/

[4] First National Call In Day to Demand Al Jazeera English: http://www.facebook.com/events/153586371361532/

[5] personal Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/meredithjlarson

[6] Campaign for Al Jazeera English’s DC Networking Event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-fx-8s5dbE

[7] bio: http://rethinkpress.org/aboutus

[8] Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Haack/7404785

[9] report: http://1philly.com/occupy-protesters-join-effort-to-get-al-jazeera-on-comcast/

[10] story: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/29/bringing-jihad-tv-to-america/

Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations

2012-02-15T01:08:00.003-08:00

PRINT PAGE

Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations

By Tucker Carlson, Vince Coglianese, Alex Pappas and Will Rahn - The Daily Caller 10:02 PM 02/12/2012
This is the first in a Daily Caller investigative series on Media Matters For America. Daily Caller reporters Alex Pappas and Will Rahn contributed to this report.

David Brock was smoking a cigarette on the roof of his Washington, D.C. office one day in the late fall of 2010 when his assistant and two bodyguards suddenly appeared and whisked him and his colleague Eric Burns down the stairs.

Brock, the head of the liberal nonprofit Media Matters for America, had told friends and co-workers that he feared he was in imminent danger from right-wing assassins and needed a security team to keep him safe.

The threat he faced while smoking on his roof? “Snipers,” a former co-worker recalled.

“He had more security than a Third World dictator,” one employee said, explaining that Brock’s bodyguards would rarely leave his side, even accompanying him to his home in an affluent Washington neighborhood each night where they “stood post” to protect him. “What movement leader has a detail?” asked someone who saw it.

Extensive interviews with a number of Brock’s current and former colleagues at Media Matters, as well as with leaders from across the spectrum of Democratic politics, reveal an organization roiled by its leader’s volatile and erratic behavior and struggles with mental illness, and an office where Brock’s executive assistant carried a handgun to public events in order to defend his boss from unseen threats.

Yet those same interviews, as well as a detailed organizational planning memo obtained by The Daily Caller, also suggest that Media Matters has to a great extent achieved its central goal of influencing the national media.

Founded by Brock in 2004 as a liberal counterweight to “conservative misinformation” in the press, Media Matters has in less than a decade become a powerful player in Democratic politics. The group operates in regular coordination with the highest levels of the Obama White House, as well as with members of Congress and progressive groups around the country. Brock, who collected over $250,000 in salary from Media Matters in 2010, has himself become a major fundraiser on the left. According to an internal memo obtained by TheDC, Media Matters intends to spend nearly $20 million in 2012 to influence news coverage.

Donors have every reason to expect success, as the group’s effect on many news organizations has already been profound. “We were pretty much writing their prime time,” a former Media Matters employee said of the cable channel MSNBC. “But then virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff.”

The group scored its first significant public coup in 2007 with the firing of host Don Imus from MSNBC. Just before Easter that year, a Media Matters employee recorded Imus’s now-famous attack on the Rutgers women’s basketball team, and immediately recognized its inflammatory potential. The organization swung into action, notifying organizations like the NAACP, the National Association of Black Journalists, and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, all of which joined the fight.

Over the course of a week, Media Matters mobilized more than 50 people to work full-time adding fuel to the Imus story. Researchers searched the massive Media Matters database for controversial statements Imus had made over the years. The group issued press release after press release. Brock personally called the heads of various liberal activist groups to coordinate a message. By the end of the week, Imus was fired.

Media Matters soon became more sophisticated in its campaigns against non-liberal cable news anchors. Lou Dobbs, then of CNN, was a frequent target.

“As part of the Drop Dobbs campaign,” explains one internal memo prepared for fundraising, “Media Matters produced and was prepared to run an advertisement against Ford Motor Company on Spanish Language stations in Houston, San Antonio, and other cities targeting its top selling product, pick-up trucks, in its top truck buying markets.”

Ford pulled its advertising from Dobbs’s program before the television ad aired, but Media Matters kept up its efforts, working primarily with Alex Nogales of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, and with the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and other self-described civil rights groups.

In November of 2009, Dobbs left CNN. “We got him fired,” says one staffer flatly.

“Certainly Media Matters deserves a lot of credit for the work they did,” Nogales said in an interview. “They’re very effective.”

Glenn Beck, the former Fox News Channel host, drew the ire of a wide spectrum of liberal groups while his program aired nationally. But according to several people who watched the process from the inside, it was Media Matters that orchestrated much of the opposition to Beck.

“We called it ‘fingerprint coverage,’” explains one former staffer, “where you know it was the result of your work.” As an example, he cites the left-wing group Color of Change, co-founded by the controversial former White House “green jobs” czar Van Jones, which received much of the credit for pressuring advertisers to drop their sponsorship of Beck’s show. But in fact, he says, Media Matters developed the campaign that cowed Beck’s sponsors.

Media Matters, according to its 2010 tax filing, gave a $200,000 grant to Citizen Engagement Laboratory, Color of Change’s parent group. The purpose of the grant, according to the document, was for a “campaign to expose Glenn Beck’s racist rhetoric in an effort to educate advertisers about the practices on his show.”

High profile though these victories against conservatives were, Media Matters has perhaps achieved more influence simply by putting its talking points into the willing hands of liberal journalists. “In ‘08 it became pretty apparent MSNBC was going left,” says one source. “They were using our research to write their stories. They were eager to use our stuff.” Media Matters staff had the direct line of MSNBC president Phil Griffin, and used it. Griffin took their calls.

Stories about Fox News were especially well received by MSNBC anchors and executives: “If we published something about Fox in the morning, they’d have it on the air that night verbatim.”

But MSNBC executives weren’t the only ones talking regularly to Media Matters.

“The entire progressive blogosphere picked up our stuff,” says a Media Matters source, “from Daily Kos to Salon. Greg Sargent [of the Washington Post] will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff.”

“If you can’t get it anywhere else, Greg Sargent’s always game,” agreed another source with firsthand knowledge.

Reached by phone, Sargent declined to comment.

“The HuffPo guys were good, Sam Stein and Nico [Pitney],” remembered one former staffer. “The people at Huffington Post were always eager to cooperate, which is no surprise given David’s long history with Arianna [Huffington].”

“Jim Rainey at the LA Times took a lot of our stuff,” the staffer continued. “So did Joe Garofoli at the San Francisco Chronicle. We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post]. Brian Stelter at the New York Times was helpful.”

“Ben Smith [formerly of Politico, now at BuzzFeed.com] will take stories and write what you want him to write,” explained the former employee, whose account was confirmed by other sources. Staffers at Media Matters “knew they could dump stuff to Ben Smith, they knew they could dump it at Plum Line [Greg Sargent’s Washington Post blog], so that’s where they sent it.”

Smith, who refused to comment on the substance of these claims, later took to Twitter to say that he has been critical of Media Matters.

Reporters who weren’t cooperative might feel the sting of a Media Matters campaign against them. “If you hit a reporter, say a beat reporter at a regional newspaper,” a Media Matters source said, “all of a sudden they’d get a thousand hostile emails. Sometimes they’d melt down. It had a real effect on reporters who weren’t used to that kind of scrutiny.”

A group with the ability to shape news coverage is of incalculable value to the politicians it supports, so it’s no surprise that Media Matters has been in regular contact with political operatives in the Obama administration. According to visitor logs, on June 16, 2010, Brock and then-Media Matters president Eric Burns traveled to the White House for a meeting with Valerie Jarrett, arguably the president’s closest adviser. Recently departed Obama communications director Anita Dunn returned to the White House for the meeting as well.

It’s not clear what the four spoke about — no one in the meeting returned repeated calls for comment — but the apparent coordination continued. “Anita Dunn became a regular presence at the office,” says someone who worked there. Then-president of Media Matters, Eric Burns, “lunched with her, met with her and chatted with her frequently on any number of matters.”

Media Matters also began a weekly strategy call with the White House, which continues, joined by the liberal Center for American Progress think tank. Jen Psaki, Obama’s deputy communications director, was a frequent participant before she left for the private sector in October 2011.

Every Tuesday evening, meanwhile, a representative from Media Matters attends the Common Purpose Project meeting at the Capitol Hilton on 16th Street in Washington, where dozens of progressive organizations formulate strategy, often with a representative from the Obama White House.

In the past several years, Media Matters has focused much of its considerable energy on the Fox News Channel. The network, declares one internal memo, “is the de facto leader of the GOP and it is long past time that it was treated as such by the media, elected officials, and the public.” At the end of September 2009, Burns made the case publicly in an interview on MSNBC.

Fox, he said, “is a political organization, and their aim is to destroy a progressive policy agenda.”

Less than a month later, in language that could have been copied directly from a Media Matters press release, White House communications director Anita Dunn leveled almost precisely the same charge, dismissing Fox as “more a wing of the Republican Party.”

Were the lines of attack coordinated? “To my knowledge, there wasn’t coordination,” says a source. But at times there has seemed to be a kind of mind meld between the Obama political team and Media Matters.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, for example, author Jerome Corsi wrote a highly critical book about the Democratic candidate, titled “The Obama Nation.” The Obama campaign responded immediately with a detailed memo. The title of that memo, “Unfit For Publication” (a play on Corsi’s 2004 book, “Unfit for Command,” about then-presidential candidate Senator John Kerry), was the same title used by Media Matters just weeks before in a similar memo about the same book.

The irony of Brock’s relationship with the White House is that at certain points he has been openly hostile to Barack Obama, especially in conversations in social settings. Described by some who know him as a passionate and emotional Hillary Clinton supporter, many Democrats believe Brock maintained regular contact with the highest levels of Clinton’s campaign and its advisers.

As late as 2010, Brock was still exchanging personal emails with longtime Hillary Clinton consigliore Sidney Blumenthal, in which the two seemed to grouse about Obama and bond over their shared connection to Hillary.

The intensity of the 2008 campaign, say those who knew Brock at the time, seemed to exacerbate his bouts of what appeared to be mania, a condition from which he had apparently suffered for some time. In 2002, the Drudge Report reported that Brock had “suffered a breakdown” the year before and was treated in the psychiatric ward of Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington.

During a 2008 meeting of the left-wing umbrella group Democracy Alliance outside San Diego, Brock’s unusual behavior drew considerable attention. According to a fellow attendee, “David completely lost his shit. He started getting incredibly aggressive. He alienated important people in the progressive movement, like John Podesta [of the Center for American Progress] and Anna Burger [of the Service Employees International Union]. Lots of drama. There were a lot of conversations about David’s mental health.”

Two years later, at another Democracy Alliance meeting shortly after the 2010 election, Brock behaved in a way one prominent liberal who was there described as “erratic, unstable and disturbing.” Brock’s aggression, this person said, was “hard to ignore and noticed by a number of people,” generating “quite a bit of concern” about his condition. A number of demonstrably odd media appearances Brock made around this time only reinforced those concerns.

All of this, sources say, has caused anxiety for prominent Democrats. Brock’s profile has risen recently, mostly due to American Bridge 21st Century, the political action committee he founded and runs. Brock boasted loudly and in public that American Bridge would be an answer to Karl Rove’s American Crossroads GPS, a claim some found unsettlingly grandiose.

At some point, Brock received a prescription for his condition. “Some days he’d come in and you could tell he was on his meds because he would just sit in his office alone and not engage with staff,” says a coworker. Other days, “he’d be intensely engaged. He’d get manic, very reckless and grandiose. You’d see this level of self-confidence in him that would spiral.”

Last spring, some at Media Matters headquarters and in other parts of the progressive world were caught off guard by an interview Brock gave to Ben Smith at Politico, in which he promised to wage “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against Fox News. “It was insane,” says a coworker. “David was totally manic at the time. We were all shocked.”

Friends say Brock, who has publicly admitted drug use in the past, was working obsessively and staying out late with compatriots. “They’d close [local bars] and party till six in the morning,” said one.

A number of people in Brock’s orbit believe he was regularly using illegal drugs, including cocaine. “It’s not like he was trying to keep it a secret,” says a female friend of Brock’s.

Sources back at the Media Matters offices describe an atmosphere of tension and paranoia. “Many of us lived in fear that at any point we could be fired,” one said. Brock believed he had received credible death threats, and employed a two-man security detail, at least one of whom was armed and acted as his driver. A new security system was installed in his house. He became concerned that one of his bodyguards was plotting against him.

By 2010, Brock’s personal assistant, a man named Haydn Price-Morris, was carrying a holstered and concealed Glock handgun when he accompanied Brock to events, including events in Washington, D.C., a city with famously restrictive gun laws. Price-Morris told others he carried the gun to protect Brock from threats.

Late in 2010, other Media Matters employees learned about Price-Morris’s gun, and he was fired due to their objections. No public announcement was made.

According to one source with knowledge of what happened next, Brock was “terrified” that news of the gun would leak. “George Soros and a lot of groups connected to gun control are funding this group, and they wouldn’t be too happy that an employee of Media Matters was carrying a gun, especially when it was illegal in D.C.”

Meanwhile, Brock became rigid and harsh with his employees — “viciously mean,” in the words of someone who witnessed it. “He spent a lot of time ripping up researchers. It was abusive. I never understood why more people didn’t quit.” One staffer recalls Brock saying he would like to fire a researcher for being physically repugnant. “David definitely does not like ugly people.”

At times, Brock would become crazed with intensity, “obsessively” involving himself in research: “There was a point at which he would pore over every single piece of research we put out, 10 or 15 dense items a day. He would line-item all of it.”

David Saldana, the former deputy editorial director at Media Matters, concedes that under Brock’s leadership, “there were very harsh penalties for getting things wrong. And justifiably so. … There was no room for weakness. Things had to be gotten right.”

The atmosphere in the office was considerably more tolerant on non-editorial matters. “There were these two folks who got caught [having sex] in the communications war room on the weekend,” said one employee.

“People came in, and lo and behold there were two of their colleagues doing the nasty on a desk.” Neither one was fired.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/#ixzz1mRIk9nhX

REAL REASONS WHY PLANNED PARENTHOOD FREAKED OVER KOMEN

2012-02-09T23:40:00.000-08:00

WND EXCLUSIVE

REAL REASONS WHY PLANNED PARENTHOOD FREAKED OVER KOMEN

'They can't afford to have any group stand up to them'

Published: 5 hours ago
By Jack Minor

A new report has validated concerns expressed by the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure Foundation over investigations into Planned Parenthood, the U.S. abortion industry’s biggest player.

And there also has been suggested a reason why Planned Parenthood stomped so hard and so fast on the foundation and its relatively minor grants when officials there said they would discontinue them because of the multiple investigations of Planned Parenthood.

“Planned Parenthood is like the mafia and if one store owner doesn’t want to pay, they take him out because they can’t afford to have any group stand up to them,” said Gualberto Garcia Jones, the legal analyst for Personhood USA, the campaign that simply suggests defining the unborn as “persons” under the Constitution, which would protect them from abortion.

There have been many questions about why Planned Parenthood officials freaked out over the suggestion by the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation that it would re-evaluate its annual $600,000 or $700,000 in grants to the abortion industry giant that routinely reports tens of millions of dollars in profits.

It was in a 23-page report that was delivered to Congress that the Alliance Defense Fund suggests the reason for the Planned Parenthood interest is the money.

The abortion company’s primary motivation is to “take advantage of ‘overbilling’ opportunities to maximize its revenues” from federal and state programs, the report said. It identifies 12 types of potential fraud committed by the organization.

Those activities include Planned Parenthood billing and then receiving reimbursement for medications and services provided in conjunction with an abortion, which is against federal law, the report said.

Additionally, the report revealed that the Internal Revenue Service’s criminal division was currently conducting its own audit of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate following a complaint by a former employee over a possible improper relationship between PPGG and its related political organization.

ADF Litigation Counsel Catherine Foster said, “Americans deserve to know if their hard-earned tax money is being funneled to groups that are misusing it.”

The report provides detailed information on improprieties discovered during multiple audits performed on Planned Parenthood in California, Texas New York and Washington State.

Additionally, 10 state audits revealed that Planned Parenthood has overbilled Medicaid by nearly $8 million, while 38 federal audits found between $88 million and $99 million in overbilling.

Based on Planned Parenthood’s latest annual report the organization took in over $1 billion in revenue. Some $18.5 million of that was “in excess of revenue over expenses,” or in other words – profit. Almost half of the group’s funding comes from taxpayers. The report also revealed Planned Parenthood had over $1 billion in assets.

The amount provided by the Komen Foundation was $680,000 last year and $580,000 in 2010, which amounts to less than one tenth of a percent of Planned Parenthood’s revenues.

And while Cecile Richards, CEO for Planned Parenthood, said the Komen cuts would “end its support of lifesaving breast cancer screening at Planned Parenthood health centers,” Planned Parenthood actually does not offer mammograms, but instead refers patients to local radiology centers.

In announcing the cuts, Nancy Brinker, founder and CEO of the Komen Foundation said in an online video that the group has “the highest responsibility to ensure that these donor dollars make the biggest impact possible.”

Following the announcement, Planned Parenthood and its pro-abortion allies in the media immediately sprang into action, claiming that none of the funds by Komen was used to provide abortions and that the cuts were the result of “right wing radicals” who hated women.

Under pressure from the pro-abortion lobby, Karen Handel, senior vice president for public policy, resigned from the foundation. Handel, who had served as Georgia’s secretary of state and was known to be pro-life, acknowledged that she had a part in the decision to cut off funding.

Within days the Komen Foundation bowed to the abortion lobby and reversed its decision.

Garcia Jones said the way the media and Planned Parenthood went after Komen bordered on extortion.

“If Komen stands up to the extortion then maybe the next non-profit or corporation will stand up to Planned Parenthood. The eugenicist-founded group simply will not and cannot allow any group to ‘stop making their payments.’”

In addition to being vilified in the press, 22 U.S. senators issued a letter “urging” Komen to reinstate the cuts.

Garcia Jones said he was not surprised by the congressional letter.

“People are afraid of them; they are a powerful organization and the have a lot of politicians in their back pocket.”

With its millions of dollars in profits, Planned Parenthood has the funds to generously fight attempts to protect the unborn.

During a recent election in Mississippi, Planned Parenthood and its affiliate chapters spent more than $1 million to defeat Amendment 26, which would have defined a person as beginning at the moment of conception.

A campaign finance report filed by Mississippians For Healthy Families revealed that the amount included $209,000 by Planned Parenthood Action Fund in New York, while the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in New York donated $524,000 against the plan.

Also, following the announcement of the funding cuts, Planned Parenthood said it had received $650,000 in donations in just 24 hours, which was just $30,000 short of last year’s grant from Komen.

The report to Congress noted among the types of suspicious activity pursued by Planned Parenthood is “unbundling,” which is separate billings for abortion related services; dispensing medications without a physician’s approval; handing out prescriptions to patients who haven’t been seen for more than a year; billing for more than the costs of supplies; billing for services not medically necessary; billing for multiple “initial” visits; billing incorrectly for followup visits, lacking documentation for billings; billing at incorrect rates and failing to pay subcontractors.

Separately, Planned Parenthood was charged criminally in Kansas on allegations of falsifying records and failing to follow abortion laws. Most of the major charges, however, eventually were dropped when it was revealed that state officials had destroyed key evidence in the case.

The records were destroyed during the administration of Kathleen Sebelius, an ardent abortion supporter who later became U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Allstate dumps the unbundled

2012-02-09T22:36:00.001-08:00

Allstate dumps the unbundled

By Jay MacDonald · Bankrate.com
Friday, December 2, 2011
Posted: 10 am ET
Some Allstate home insurance customers are being shown the door by the "Good Hands" people for refusing to bundle their homeowners insurance and auto insurance policies.

Insurance Journal reports that Allstate recently informed some 45,000 North Carolina customers that it will not renew their homeowners insurance policies unless they also purchase commercial or private auto insurance coverage with the company by Dec. 15.

Allstate says the move will enable it to better serve its 400,000 in-state homeowners. Minus the unbundled, of course.

Robert Hunter, director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America, says the "Good Hands" people are simply cherry-picking the more lucrative customers who bundle their home and auto with the company.

He may be right. Presumably, the company has made no similar moves to jettison auto policyholders who insure their homes with other carriers. After all, home insurance is where the big bucks live.

Insurance Journal reader reaction was mixed. A sampling:

"It is my belief that this action is a violation of more than (2) North Carolina insurance laws. First, it is considered an inducement … to buy their auto insurance through Allstate. Second, this action could be in violation of both North Carolina and federal 'Unfair Trade Practices.'"
"Next they will require a life insurance policy to write a homeowners."
"More carriers should follow their move across the entire country. If they did perhaps rates would level out and come down slightly."
"I think it is entirely fair that Allstate is doing this. I don't think it's fair that State Farm insures a person's home while they have their auto with Geico or Progressive, neither of whom sell home insurance, which is the most difficult to buy."
Insurance bundling continues to be a bewildering mess for consumers. It's opaque, driven by introductory offers that quickly evaporate, making it well-neigh impossible to compare rates. While most of us do bundle our home and auto coverage, many if not most would save on out-of-pocket premiums by unbundling. That said, trust and convenience factors convince the majority of us to bundle, even if we know we could pay less if we didn't.

That said, in my view it's one thing for an insurance company to offer a bundled "discount" and quite another to drop policyholders for refusing to bundle. While I'm sure it makes sense to the Allstate number-crunchers, I'm doubtful they factored in the potential brand damage from this poorly timed move.

Have you or someone you know been served with this arm-twist ultimatum from the "Good Hands" folks? I'd welcome your thoughts.

Read more: Allstate dumps the unbundled | Bankrate.com http://www.bankrate.com/financing/insurance/allstate-dumps-the-unbundled/#ixzz1lxQqdO60

NBC Nightly News Finally Mentions Obama Mandate Imposition on Catholics; Still Waiting for ABC and CBS

2012-02-07T22:31:00.001-08:00

February 8, 2012
NBC Nightly News Finally Mentions Obama Mandate Imposition on Catholics; Still Waiting for ABC and CBS
Filed under: Uncategorized — theperpetualview @ 6:29 am Edit This
Rate This
NBC Nightly News Finally Mentions Obama Mandate Imposition on Catholics; Still Waiting for ABC and CBS
By: Brent Baker
Monday, February 06, 2012 8:38 PM EST
NBC Nightly News on Monday lifted its two-plus week blackout of the Obama administration’s decision to force religious institutions, such as Catholic hospitals and charities, to provide birth control coverage in health insurance provided to employees, but ABC’s World Newsand the CBS Evening News have still yet to utter a syllable about what has enraged people across the political spectrum while having plenty of time to champion Planned Parenthood’s attacks on the Komen foundation.

NBC’s Chuck Todd on Monday evening found a few seconds in a larger story to relay how the Republican presidential candidates “are hitting the Obama administration’s decision to require all health insurance plans to cover birth control. Many Catholic organizations had hoped for an exemption since the rule runs counter to the church’s doctrine. Today Mitt Romney’s campaign launched a petition drive to repeal the decision, and Newt Gingrich also sounded off.”

The only previous ABC, CBS or NBC morning or evening newscast mention of the decision, revealed back on Friday, January 20, came in one brief newsbite ten days later on CBS This Morning, the MRC’s Matthew Balan documented in a Media Reality Check on Friday, “Media Go to Bat for Abortion Giant, Ignore Catholics vs. Obama Controversy; Study: 76% of Soundbites Favored Planned Parenthood Over Komen.”

Balan updated his numbers today (“Nets Hype Social Media ‘Torrent’ in Komen Uproar, Keep Pro-Abortion Slant”) to include the Friday night and weekend newscasts, bringing to 20 the total segments and interviews on Planned Parenthood/Komen run on the ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening shows.

In addition to the one, brief item on CBS’s morning show, as I recounted Monday morning (“Network Newscast Blackout of Mandate on Catholics Continues, But Sunday Talk Shows Take It Up”), during their roundtables ABC’s This Week and NBC’s Meet the Press discussed the Obama administration’s assault on religious liberty while guest Newt Gingrich brought it up on Face the Nation.

But ABC, CBS and NBC have yet to run a full story or interview segment on the mandate which has caused major consternation amongst Catholic leaders and religious liberty champions.

From the Monday, February 6 NBC Nightly News:

CHUCK TODD: …All the candidates are hitting the Obama administration’s decision to require all health insurance plans to cover birth control. Many Catholic organizations had hoped for an exemption since the rule runs counter to the church’s doctrine. Today Mitt Romney’s campaign launched a petition drive to repeal the decision, and Newt Gingrich also sounded off.

NEWT GINGRICH, ON MEET THE PRESS: Every time you turn around, secular government is closing in on and shrinking the right of religious liberty in America.

TODD: The White House continued to defend the decision today, but Jay Carney did sort of leave open this idea there could be compromises on how it’s implemented from church to church or organization to organization.

Komen exec quits after funding flap

2012-02-07T22:12:00.000-08:00

Komen exec quits after funding flap
Filed under: Uncategorized — theperpetualview @ 6:09 am Edit This
Tags: abortion, Brinker, cure breast cancer, Planned parenthood, Susan G Komen for the cure
Rate This
- Accuracy In Media - http://www.aim.org -

Komen exec quits after funding flap

Posted By AIM Newswire On February 7, 2012 @ 12:14 pm In AIM Newswire

ATLANTA (AP) — A high-ranking official resigned Tuesday from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast-cancer charity after a dispute over whether the group should give funding to Planned Parenthood, according to a letter obtained by The Associated Press.

Karen Handel, the charity’s vice president for public policy, told Komen officials that she supported the move to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. She said the discussion started before she arrived at the organization and was approved at the highest levels of the charity.

“I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it,” Handel said in her letter. “I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve.”

Handel said in the letter that the now-abandoned policy was fully vetted by the Komen organization. Its board did not raise any objections when it was presented with the proposed policy in November, Handel said.

Komen Founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker Brinkersaid she accepted Handel’s resignation and wished her well.

“We have made mistakes in how we have handled recent decisions and take full accountability for what has resulted, but we cannot take our eye off the ball when it comes to our mission,” Brinker said in a statement. “To do this effectively, we must learn from what we’ve done right, what we’ve done wrong and achieve our goal for the millions of women who rely on us.”

Officials with Planned Parenthood did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Handel had supported a decision that Komen announced last week to exclude Planned Parenthood, which provides a range of women’s health care services including abortions, from future grants for breast-cancer screenings because it was under congressional investigation. The charity cited a probe launched by a Florida congressman at the urging of anti-abortion groups.

The breast cancer charity reversed course after its decision created a three-day firestorm of criticism. Members of Congress and Komen affiliates accused the group’s national leadership of bending to pressure from anti-abortion activists. Brinker, denied the decision was driven by pressure from anti-abortion groups.

Until Tuesday, Handel had publicly kept silent about her role in the dispute.

In her letter, she said the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood was long a concern to Komen officials.

“Neither the decision nor the changes themselves were based on anyone’s political beliefs or ideology,” Handel said in the letter. Rather, both were based on Komen’s mission and how to better serve women, as well as a realization of the need to distance Komen from controversy.

A person with direct knowledge of decision-making at Komen’s headquarters in Dallas said the grant-making criteria were adopted with the deliberate intention of targeting Planned Parenthood. The criteria’s impact on Planned Parenthood and its status as the focus of government investigations were highlighted in a memo distributed to Komen affiliates in December.

According to the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of repercussions, a driving force behind the move was Handel, who was hired by Komen last year as vice president for public policy after losing a campaign for governor in Georgia in which she stressed her anti-abortion views and frequently denounced Planned Parenthood.

Brinker, in an interview with MSNBC last week, said Handel didn’t have a significant role in the policy change.

Handel, a Republican, ran for Georgia governor in 2010, winning an endorsement from former vice presidential candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Handel then lost a primary runoff to former Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal, who won the general election.

Throughout the campaign, Deal accused Handel of being soft on abortion.

Deal repeatedly attacked Handel over a 2005 vote she took while serving on a metro Atlanta county commission to give more than $400,000 to Planned Parenthood, though not for abortion services. The Georgia affiliate of Planned Parenthood said the money went to a downtown clinic for services such as cervical cancer screenings, testing for sexually transmitted diseases and birth controls.

A longstanding law bans using federal money to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to protect the health of the mother.

Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org

URL to article: http://www.aim.org/newswire/breaking-news-komen-exec-quits-after-funding-flap/

David Brock Out of the Closet, Again

2012-02-07T21:48:00.001-08:00

Accuracy In Media - http://www.aim.org -

David Brock Out of the Closet, Again

Posted By Cliff Kincaid On February 7, 2012 @ 3:53 pm In AIM Column | Comments Disabled

It has been apparent for some time that ex-conservative David Brock has been masquerading as a “media critic” while at the service of the Democratic Party. But the head of Media Matters has officially dropped the mask of media critic by creating a so-called Democratic “Super PAC” devoted to re-electing President Obama, adding Democrats to the Senate Democratic majority, and taking back the House of Representatives from the Republicans.

Alluding to the Republican takeover of the House in 2010, he told the group America Votes on February 1, “As Democrats, we can’t afford a repeat of 2010.”

Brock described how his new group, American Bridge 21st Century, would serve as a “better model” for Democrats to “coordinate our strategy that will maximize Democratic resources.”

The America Votes “State Summit,” held on January 31 and February 1 at the Capital Hilton in Washington, D.C., included a “Cecile Richards Progressive Leader Award Reception Honoring Larry Scanlon,” at the headquarters of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Richards is the head of Planned Parenthood and Scanlon is the AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) union political director.

Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post, who writes “The Fix [1]” column for the paper, was a featured speaker, discussing the political campaign season while exchanging pleasantries with his good friend and America Votes executive director Greg Speed. Cillizza said he thought Mitt Romney would likely capture the Republican presidential nomination.

However, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell told the crowd that conservatives may not turn out for Romney in the general election and that Obama could achieve victory if the progressives, energized by America Votes, get to the polls.

While the focus was on presidential politics, many of the sessions examined liberal strategies for victories in such states as Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Maine, New Hampshire, Nevada, Michigan, Minnesota, Washington, Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Media Matters is perhaps best known as the Soros-funded group that orchestrated a successful campaign to get Glenn Beck fired from Fox News. Beck, who used his program to systematically analyze the activities of hedge fund billionaire George Soros, has blamed Soros operatives for his departure from the channel, a charge confirmed [2] by a private investigator who interviewed employees of News Corporation, the parent of Fox News.

In order to be more “fair & balanced” on the liberal side, Fox News has hired [3] two feminists, Sally Kohn and Jehmu Greene, as paid Fox News contributors. They were both trained at the Women’s Media Center established by Jane Fonda. Kohn, who is also a lesbian activist, worked at the Soros-funded Center for Community Change.

Reflecting Brock’s deep commitment to—and involvement in—the homosexual movement, Media Matters created an affiliate, Equality Matters, to discourage media coverage of conservative groups that favor traditional morality. Some of the attacks the group launches on Accuracy in Media involve a failure to enthusiastically embrace homosexuality as a lifestyle to be honored and celebrated in the media.

Like Media Matters, which got $1 million from the billionaire, America Votes has been Soros-funded. The convicted inside trader gave the group $1,160,000 in 2006 and $1 million in the 2007-2008 period. Jonathan Allan Soros, a son of the billionaire, has contributed over $250,000 to the group. His wife, Jennifer Allan Soros, sits on the board of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion seller.

America Votes claims 300 state and national partner organizations in an effort to “advance progressive policies, expand access to the ballot, coordinate issue advocacy and election campaigns, and protect every American’s right to vote.”

America Votes “partner organizations [4]” include the AFL-CIO, AFSCME American Association for Justice, Communication Workers of America, EMILY’s List, Human Rights Campaign, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, National Education Association, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and SEIU (Service Employees International Union), among others.

The America Votes summit conference featured representatives of most of these “progressive” groups.

For Brock, now regarded by some liberal media as a “mogul,” it was an exercise in coming out of the closet a second time.

A former conservative who went through a political and sexual breakdown and transformation, Brock became a liberal and homosexual activist and wrote the book, Blinded by the Right, about how he supposedly twisted the truth to benefit the conservative cause. Brock had developed a relationship with then-First Lady Hillary Clinton’s openly gay press aide,Neel Lattimore [5], and came out of the closet, announcing he was a homosexual. Brock hired Lattimore at Media Matters as director of “special projects” but Lattimore left to work for various AIDS-related groups.

Based on an analysis of the open and announced party affiliations of Media Matters staffers, as well as its propaganda campaigns, it was clear the group was a virtual adjunct of the Democratic Party and that the claim it was somehow a nonpartisan watchdog was a lie. Indeed, supporters of Hillary Clinton started the group but it quickly pivoted to become a mouthpiece for Barack Obama once he secured the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

For years, Brock was content to bash the media for running with “conservative misinformation.” Now he wants to be a power broker in the Democratic Party.

Introduced at the America Votes session in his capacity as the president and CEO of Media Matters, Brock spent his time discussing his new Super PAC in the context of what he has accomplished at his so-called media watchdog organization. “For my group, American Bridge 21st Century, that means applying the experience I’ve gained holding conservative media accountable through Media Matters for America, and applying that same concept to hold conservative politicians accountable through opposition research, candidate tracking, and earned media,” he said.

In practical terms, he said this means “taking advantage of contacts within a community through state ProgressNow chapters; relying on the issue expertise of groups like the LCV [League of Conservation Voters] or Sierra club; or making a concerted effort to flag material we uncover that could be useful to someone like Planned Parenthood; these are mutually beneficial relationships.”

ProgressNow is designed [6] to help develop a “progressive infrastructure” in “key states.”

Brock went on, “We’re providing the research that informs the polling and the tracking clips in ads for the Presidential, Senate, and House PACS represented here; in return, they’re disseminating our content to ensure that it reaches voters.”

The groups he was referring to at the conference included Democratic Party groups such as Majority PAC, House Majority PAC and Priorities USA. The latter is a Super PAC run by Obama’s former White House aide Bill Burton, who told the event that the Republicans running for president were “clowns.” Just yesterday, the Obama campaign announced [7] its support for the organization’s fundraising efforts.

In Brock’s case, he is being paid by American Bridge while continuing to serve as president, CEO, and chairman of the board of Media Matters. Brock, who is also on the board of theProgressive Legislative Action Network [8], has written a new book, The Fox Effect [9], which is due out February 21.

Ironically, the book’s main charge is that Fox News has become “a partisan advocate for the Republican Party,” when Brock made Media Matters into a partisan advocate for the Democratic Party and is now openly functioning as a party operative. A significant number of Media Matters staffers [10] have come from the offices or campaigns of Democratic Party politicians.

Continuing this pattern, Brock’s co-author, Ari Rabin-Havt, the Executive Vice President at Media Matters, previously served as Director of Online Communications for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Deputy Director for Online Communications for the John Kerry for President campaign.

Chris Harris, communications director for Media Matters, is now “communications strategist” for American Bridge 21st Century, while Rodell Mollineau, who worked for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is president of Brock’s new entity.

Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org

URL to article: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/david-brock-out-of-the-closet-again/

URLs in this post:

[1] The Fix: http://www.washingtonpost.com/chris-cillizza/2011/02/24/AB7OmvI_page.html

[2] confirmed: http://sorosfiles.com/soros/2012/01/glenn-beck-staff-threatened-by-soros-operatives.html

[3] hired: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-fox-news-feminists/

[4] partner organizations: http://www.americavotes.org/nationalpartnerspage

[5] Neel Lattimore: http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/left-loves-a-liar/

[6] designed: http://www.progressnow.org/site/about/

[7] announced: http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/we-will-not-play-by-two-sets-of-rules

[8] Progressive Legislative Action Network: http://www.progressivestates.blogspot.com/

[9] The Fox Effect: http://www.randomhouse.com/book/112829/the-fox-effect-by-david-brock-ari-rabin-havt-and-media-matters-for-america

[10] staffers: http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-how-hillarys-hit-man-got-imus-may-a/

what will happen if there are cuts in medicare?

2012-02-02T21:58:00.001-08:00

http://youtu.be/1cLmthoS8lU

Pachauri Pushes Emissions Reduction – Again

2012-02-02T19:59:00.001-08:00

Pachauri Pushes Emissions Reduction – Again
by Donna Laframboise

According to its website, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a “policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive” organization. But it’s difficult to take that claim seriously when its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, continues to lobby hard for one policy in particular.

Today he delivered a speech at the inauguration of a sustainability summit organized by TERI, an entity he leads. Again and again, he referred to his favourite hobbyhorse: reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

But emissions reduction is merely one possible response to climate change (adaptation and high-tech fixes are two others; see more here). Nor is it a response that most parents, if they spent five minutes thinking about it, would care to embrace.

Virtually everything human beings do requires energy. At one time wood and animal dung were the primary sources of fuel. Then came coal, oil, and gas. At this moment in history the cheapest, most reliable sources of energy all produce some amount of carbon dioxide when we make use of them. As Bjorn Lomborg once pithily observed, “no one emits CO2 for fun” (backup link here). CO2 is a byproduct of being alive. Indeed, we exhale it with every breath.

Pachauri’s idea of taking care of the planet, therefore, is all about diminishing the human experience. Less emissions = less fuel = less of nearly everything. While most parents hope their kids’ futures will be filled with opportunity, emissions reduction is all about restricted, limited, impoverished lives. As Pachauri himself has made clear, less travel, less meat, and less heat are all part of the package.

Today he cited IPCC findings that:

between 1970 and 2004 [greenhouse gas] emissions had increased by 70%.

What he failed to mention is that, during that same time period, hundreds of millions of people emerged from dire poverty, living standards improved dramatically, and lifespans lengthened. It stands to reason that if more people are being adequately fed, housed, and medically treated, more energy has to be consumed. Duh.

But rather than celebrating these triumphs Pachauri’s headspace is dark and dire. He insists we’re sinning against nature and that punishment awaits if we don’t renounce our profligate ways. Like a broken record he drones on and on. Emissions this, emissions that.

The man is hopeless. He clearly hasn’t the first clue what it means to be “policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.”

How is that all those important people attending his sustainability summit – including the Prime Minister of India and the President of Finland – don’t see this?

.

On the theme of life having improved dramatically for some of the world’s poorest in recent years, see the bottom of page 4 of this 2010 PDF from the Asian Development Bank (numbered as page 2 within the document). It says that, over the past two decades, hundreds of millions of souls have been lifted out of poverty in Asia alone (backup link here).

See also this entertaining video: 200 Countries, 200 Years, [in] 4 Minutes. Swedish professor Hans Rosling makes it clear that, from the 1970s onward, we made immense strides with respect to both global wealth and global health. In my opinion, those gains are so remarkable they’re worth every bit of CO2 humanity produced in the process.

.

A backup of Pachauri’s speech is here. More info about his sustainability summit is here.

.

An Administration’s Green Fiascos Pile Up

2012-02-01T21:49:00.001-08:00

An Administration’s Green Fiascos Pile Up
Filed under: Uncategorized — theperpetualview @ 5:48 am Edit This
Rate This
- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -

An Administration’s Green Fiascos Pile Up

Posted By Rich Trzupek On February 1, 2012 @ 12:43 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 12 Comments

The Obama administration has spent three years and billions of tax dollars in efforts to jump start a “green energy” industry in the United States. The president says that “sustainable,” clean energy sources are the wave of the future, vital to America’s future security and the well-being of the entire planet. And yet, after all this time and all that money, all the administration has to show for those efforts are a series of spectacular failures that would make a less arrogant leader blush.

The Solyndra fiasco is the highest-profile of the president’s many green failures, but it’s hardly the only one. Barely a week goes by but that we learn of yet another government-funded “clean energy” boondoggle. Let’s consider a few examples.

Late last year, Beacon Power Company filed for bankruptcy protection. Beacon had previously received a $39 million government-guaranteed loan in order to fund research aimed at producing energy storage devices on an industrial scale. These kinds of “super batteries” are necessary solely to cover for the deficiencies and unreliability of solar and wind power.

Last Thursday, Ener1 Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection. Ener1 develops lithium storage batteries for electric cars manufactured by a company called Think Holdings, AS, which in turn has a manufacturing company located in Elkhart, Indiana. Ener1 received over $130 million in stimulus funds, and a $480 million loan from the Energy Department, promising to deliver 1,400 jobs to Indiana, while Think Holdings would generate a further 415 jobs. To date, Enre1 has created 275 jobs, while Think Holdings is down to 2 people who guard a plant at which about 100 electric vehicles – most of them unfinished – sit idly in storage.

A year ago, Vice President Joe Biden hailed Ener1 as one of “100 Recovery Act projects changing America.” “A year and a half ago, this administration made a judgment,” he said at the time. “We decided it’s not sufficient to create new jobs—we have to create whole new industries.” Unfortunately for Ener1, the free market did not share the Vice President’s enthusiasm. Demand for expensive, short ranged, small electric cars has not materialized, and thus Ener1 has no market for its product.

Even the much-ballyhooed Chevy Volt has turned into a disaster. Fire hazards aside, there is simply no demand for the vehicle beyond some arms of government, a few corporations with cash to waste and rich, tree-hugging celebrities who can afford the luxury of pretentiousness. Chevrolet hoped to sell 10,000 Volts in 2011. Actual sales amounted to 7,671 units. GM has temporarily laid off 1,200 workers on the Volt production line and is considering slowing down production. A recent study concluded that real cost of Volt – when you consider all of the government subsidies involved in developing and building the car – is about $250,000 per unit. To borrow one of the environmental movement’s favorite terms, it’s hard to see how production of the Volt could ever be sustainable in the free market.

Ironically, these green disasters are being revealed at a time when more scientific data and opinions are turning against the global warming alarmism that has driven the administration to make foolish green investments. Last Friday, in an Op-Ed published in the Wall Street Journal, sixteen prominent scientists took a strong stand against the alarmists. The signatories included luminaries like Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; and Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator. Among other things, the scientists said:

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

On Sunday, a story in the Daily Mail pointed out the equally inconvenient fact that data published by the infamous Climate Unit at the University of East Anglia confirms that there has been no significant warming since 1997. The models that the IPCC rely upon predicted that average global temperatures should have climbed steadily over the last decade and a half. Why haven’t the predictions matched reality? Like many scientists, Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, believes that alarmists put too much emphasis on the role of greenhouse gases in the climate and not enough on solar activity. “If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,” he said.

Yet, in spite of the ever-increasing body of evidence that “climate change” is a figment of a computer’s imagination, the Obama administration continues to pour money into companies whose sole reason for existence is to battle the non-existent problem. Imagine where we would be today if the president hadn’t wasted that money and had instead stayed out of the way of development of cheap reliable sources of domestic energy. We would be so much farther along the way to energy independence if we were tapping our vast reserves of coal and oil and bringing more energy down across the border from our friends in Canada. Sadly, the net effect of Obama’s energy policies has been to increase our dependence of foreign oil while doing nothing to secure our economic future.

Honour crimes in Canada since 2005

2012-02-01T21:11:00.000-08:00

Honour crimes in Canada since 2005

BY ROB TRIPP, POSTMEDIA NEWSJANUARY 29, 2012

With the conviction of the Mohammad Shafia, his second wife Tooba Mohammad Yahya and their son Hamed in the slaying of four family members, the tally of confirmed victims of honour crimes in Canada since 2005 is now 11. Among this total, seven of the victims are young women.

• In 2006 in Ottawa, Khatera Sadiqi, 20, and her fiance, Feroz Mangal, were shot to death by Sadiqi’s brother, who believed she had shamed the Pakistani family by getting engaged without her father’s consent. Hasibullah Sadiqi, 23, was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder.

• In June 2007 in Toronto’s Scarborough area, Anitha Selvanayagam, 16, and her boyfriend were walking together when they were run over and seriously injured by a van driven by her father. Prosecutors called it an “attempted honour killing” by Sri Lankan immigrant Selvanayagam Selladurai who was angry that his daughter had dated a boy of a lower caste. He pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated assault. Selladurai also ran down his son-in-law in the attack.

• In December 2007 in Mississauga, Ont., Aqsa Parvez was strangled to death by her father, Muhammad Parvez, and brother Waqas Parvez, 26, in the family home. The men pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and were sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 18 years. Aqsa rebelled against strict cultural and religious rules imposed by her Pakistan-born Muslim father.

• In January 2009, Amandeep Kaur Dhillon, 22, was stabbed to death by her father-in-law, 47-year-old Kamikar Singh Dhillon, who believed she would disgrace his family by divorcing his son. He pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.

Over the past two years, there have been at least four additional suspected honour crimes, including a June 2010 incident in Montreal in which a 38-year-old woman was charged with attempted murder after her 19-year-old daughter was stabbed. Montreal police said they were treating it as a “crime of honour.”

Normalizing the Kingston Honor Killings

2012-02-01T20:29:00.001-08:00

- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -

Normalizing the Kingston Honor Killings

Posted By Bruce Bawer On February 1, 2012 @ 12:41 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 33 Comments

Last month, after the Costa Concordia fiasco in Livorno, Gregoria De Falco – the port official who ordered the cartoonishly cowardly captain, Francesco Schettino, to get back on his ship and aid in the rescue effort – became an instant hero. But De Falco’s wife dissented, saying it was “ridiculous” to call her husband a hero. “The worrying thing,” she said, “is that people like my husband who simply do their duty every day, immediately become idols, personalities, heroes in this country. That is not normal.”

Wise lady. But it’s not only in Italy, these days, that some people are awed when others simply do their duty. Take last Sunday’s guilty verdicts in the Kingston, Ontario, honor-killing case. On June 30, 2009, as Stephen Brown recounted here the other day, three teenage sisters and their father’s first wife were found dead in a car in the Rideau Canal. Three weeks later, police arrested the girls’ father, Afghani-born real-estate tycoon Mohammad Shafia, their mother, Tooba Mohammad Yahya, and their brother, Hamed. All three have now been handed 25-year prison sentences for first-degree murder.

You didn’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to crack this case. Far from it. The perpetrators’ alibis were monumentally feeble, the motives transparent, the evidence ludicrously incriminating. On the family computer, someone had Googled “where to commit a murder” and “Can a prisoner have control over his real estate.” On wiretaps recorded after the murders, the father was heard boasting of his sense of honor, calling his dead daughters “filthy and rotten children” and saying “may the devil shit on their graves.”

Yet after the verdict, commentaries hailed the judge and jurors as courageous. How depressing that it should be considered courageous to send such people to prison! “Experts in so-called honour killings,” wrote Monique Muise in the Montreal Gazette, “heralded the verdict as a step forward; a clear message that neither Canada’s courts nor its people will tolerate this type of crime.” How depressing that a free country needs to send a message that it’s unacceptable to kill your children!

There are other depressing aspects to the case. Even to breathe the words “honor killing” in connection with such a crime nowadays is to invite a lecture by multiculturalists to the effect that the very term is racist. “Murder is murder,” they’ll insist; “non-Muslims kill their loved ones, too.” Readers of an article on the CBC website about the Shafia case felt compelled to protest that “we [Canadians are not] superior to any culture when it comes to how we treat children” and that “we shouldn’t make negative comments about immigrant’s [sic] practices when domestic violence is rampant amongst those who are Canadian born.”

This was basically the line Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, fed to Muise. “I’m frustrated and fed up with the kind of emphasis and time that’s been spent calling it an honour killing,” Hogben said. “The media attention in particular has been very much on this being something exotic, something foreign, as opposed to the fact that this was the murder of four women in Canada,” she said. “I think it was because that separated us from them. People want to believe it’s other people doing this. Canadians don’t do this.”

In other words: let’s pretend this is just another murder. Let’s pretend it’s not a lesson in the terrifying power of Islamic ideology – its ability to trump with ease that supposedly most powerful of emotions, parental love. Let’s pretend that cases like this don’t represent a warning to civilized democratic countries that we’ve allowed into our midst a way of thinking that’s as potentially deadly as any poison.

Then, of course, there’s the inevitable hand-wringing over anti-Muslim “backlash.” Michelle McQuigge provided a fine example of this in a whiplash-inducing article headlined “Shafia murder trial casts shadow over Canada’s Islamic community.” Muslims, she wrote, “blanch at the term ‘honour killing,’ believing it to be a misrepresentation of the faith they practice.” She then admitted that there is a serious problem with “honour-based violence” in the Muslim community. But having acknowledged this, she immediately assured readers that “the call for gender equality” is “at the heart of” Islam,” that “’honour killings’ are explicitly condemned in the Qur’an,” and that such actions are the result of misinterpretation of scripture by uneducated people from rural parts of the Muslim world.

Who was her authority for these claims? None other than Imam Syed Soharwardy of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, whom McQuigge quoted at length. Apparently embracing Soharwardy’s spin on the Kingston killings, McQuigge characterized them as “[t]he actions of one misguided family” who “single-handedly revived stereotypes of violence and intolerance that have dogged the [Muslim] community since 911.” And she conveyed, without any hint of disagreement, Soharwardy’s claim that domestic violence isn’t a widespread problem in the Muslim community and his lament that an event like the Kingston murders “provides opportunities to Islamophobes to reignite hate against Muslims and badmouth our religion.”

Throughout her article, McQuigge presented Soharwardy as an implicitly educated, sophisticated, benign, modern guy – a Muslim believer, in short, whose understanding of Islam is the very antithesis of Shafia’s. Apparently McQuigge didn’t care to remind her readers that when the Danish Muhammed cartoons were reprinted in the Canadian magazine theWestern Standard, it was Soharwardy who called the cops and insisted they arrest its editor, Ezra Levant. When they refused, it was Soharwardy who hauled Levant before the Alberta Human Rights Commission and ended up costing him over $100,000 in expenses. Nor does McQuigge care to mention (or does she not even know?) that Soharwardy – for all his efforts to leave the impression that he (and most other Canadian Muslims) take a less literal, more Westernized approach to the Koran than Shafia does – is on the record as insisting that sharia law is “universal” and “divine” and “cannot be customized for specific countries.”

Indeed, gratifying though the Kingston verdict is, there would appear to be a general reluctance in the Canadian media to recognize its larger lessons. Yes, there’s been plenty of talk about the need for Canadians to stand up to “patriarchal” conduct and to “culture-based” violence and misogyny in “immigrant communities.” But in these disquisitions the word “Islam” is often conspicuous by its absence – except, of course, when commentators make a point of insisting that these atrocities have nothing do with “true Islam.”

Only the gutsiest of Canadian columnists seem willing to draw a clear line between these murders and their explicit ideological roots in sharia law. Which is a terrible pity – for if there’s any plus side to the cold-blooded executions of Rona Amir Mohammed and Zainab, Sahar, and Geeti Shafia, it’s that, if properly understood, they provide a blindingly clear lesson in the difference between the pretty multicultural lies about Islam and the grim, intractable truth.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/01/normalizing-the-kingston-honor-killing/

NEW BIBLE YANKS ‘FATHER,’ JESUS AS ‘SON OF GOD’

2012-01-31T04:08:00.000-08:00

NEW BIBLE YANKS ‘FATHER,’ JESUS AS ‘SON OF GOD’

Islam-sensitive project ignites controversy, online petition
Published: 10 hours ago

By Joel Richardson

In the world of questionable and sometimes downright silly Bible translations, one would think that it couldn’t get any worse.

After all, we’ve seen the “In da beginnin’ Big Daddy created da heaven an’ da earth” Ebonics Bible, as well as the “Apostle’s Log” Star Trek English paraphrase Bible. In a more serious effort, the New Oxford Annotated Bible was created in part by pro-”gay” and feminist scholars in order to set forth a more “gay” revisionist interpretation of Scripture.

But now there is a major controversy developing as the latest altered Bibles are being created by organizations that most would think of as being more conservative and reasonable. At the forefront of the controversy are the Wycliffe Bible Translators, the Summer Institute of Linguistics and Frontiers, all of which are producing Bible translations that remove or modify terms which they have deemed offensive to Muslims.

That’s right: Muslim-friendly Bibles.

Included in the controversial development is the removal of any references to God as “Father,” to Jesus as the “Son” or “the Son of God.” One example of such a change can be seen in an Arabic version of the Gospel of Matthew produced and promoted by Frontiers and SIL. It changes Matthew 28:19 from this:

“baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”

to this:

“cleanse them by water in the name of Allah, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit.”

A large number of such Muslim-sensitive translations already are published and well-circulated in several Muslim-majority nations such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia.

According to Joshua Lingel of i2 Ministries, “Even more dramatic a change is the Arabic and Bangla (Bangladesh) translations. In Arabic, Bible translations err by translating ‘Father’ as ‘Lord.’ ‘Guardian.’ ‘Most High’ and ‘God.” In Bangla, ‘Son of God’ is mistranslated ‘Messiah of God’ consistent with the Quran’s Isa al-Masih (Jesus the Messiah), which references the merely human Jesus.”

In response to these translations, many within the evangelical missions movement as well as many former Muslim converts and indigenous Christians from countries where these translations are being used, are indignant. After numerous appeals have been rejected, a petition has been launched to call for the end to the translations.

More than 3,000 already have signed up.

While the organizations that are promoting these translations are adamant that replacing such terms as Father with Lord or Master best conveys the inspired meaning of the text, many of the indigenous Christian leaders from the countries where these translations are being promoted are broadly rejecting the translations.

The indigenous believers see the introduction of these American-made translations with which they so strongly disagree as a form of American cultural imperialism or colonialism.

According to Turkish pastor Fikret Böcek, such new translations are, “an all-American idea with absolutely no respect for the sacredness of Scripture, or even of the growing Turkish church.”

According to the testimony of one leader from a church in Bangladesh, one of the most problematic aspects of this development is that it gives fuel to the often-heard Muslim claim that Christians are liars who change their Bibles to deceive Muslims. Once a Bible translation is well established within any country, the introduction of such radically different translations reinforces the Muslim charge and undermines trust in the Christian community.

According to Lingel, who can be contacted at info@i2ministries.org, the crisis in translation methodology is largely due to “a postmodern literary bias” that has crept into some translation circles in recent decades. Such translations would seem to demand that the divine author of the Bible change rather than the Muslim reader.

“But Jesus demanded that many of his listeners change,” says Lingel, explaining that instead of demanding that Muslim readers change their understanding of God, these translations seem to convey that God must accommodate the religious prejudices of Muslims.

“Lingel is also the co-editor of a new book, “Chrislam: How Missionaries Are Promoting an Islamized Gospel,” which represents the first major response against Muslim-sensitive translations as well as the larger movement often referred to as the “Insider Movement” or “Chrislam.”

According to reports, of the roughly 200 translation projects Wycliffe/SIL linguists have undertaken in Muslim contexts, about 30 or 40 remove the terms father and son with reference to God and Jesus.

Lingel’s response is quite direct, “These projects need to be defunded.”

Yet according to a recent Forbes “200 Largest U.S. Charities” report, the Orlando-based Wycliffe Bible Translators USA is the third most well-funded religious charity in the states.

Proponents of the Insider Movement claim that this method of reaching Muslims is bearing great fruit. Opponents, however, point out that the so-called converts within the Insider Movement remain “hidden” within their Muslim culture, continue to attend mosque, pray like a Muslim, acknowledge Muhammad as a prophet, the Quran as inspired, and make the Muslim credal confession, known as the “shahada.”

Some now claim that there are as many as 300,000-1.2 million new “Insider believers” in Bangladesh. But one former Insider who left the movement and speaks out in Lingel’s Chrislam book reports that the number of insiders couldn’t be more than 10,000. According to this source, many of the claims are greatly exaggerated so as to bring in more funding from wealthy American missionary organizations.

“Other former Insiders have reported publicly that many Insiders are really Muslims who will do whatever it takes for the jobs and money they are offered by pro-IM ministries to feed their families,” Lingel says.

Further questioning the funding and support of well-known Christian organizations of this movement, Lingel recounts, “I have consulted with the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention on missions and evangelism among Muslims at various times… [Who] stated that there are tens of thousands of Isa al-masih jamaats, or ‘Jesus congregations,’ in northern Africa. But the members of these jamaats call themselves Muslims, do not believe in the Trinity and believe Muhammad is a prophet of God. Are they Christians or Muslims? Why talk about them in terms of missionary success?”

In response to what many Christians see as a heretical movement based on deception, Lingel’s i2 Ministries is in the process of completing a video-based university called Mission Muslims World University, with 40 of the most experienced professors from around the world teaching courses in Muslim ministries, Islamic Studies, apologetics, evangelism and discipleship.

TRUTH ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY

2012-01-29T03:34:00.000-08:00

TRUTH ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY

By Pastor Roger Anghis
January 29, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Over the last few years we have heard that the Republicans want to take Social Security away from the elderly and leave them with nothing. This is so far from the truth, but the media refuses to report the truth. Surprise, surprise! I, personally have always had a problem with the government taking my money away from for me when I get older and then telling me how much of my money I can have, if any. If I die before I have the opportunity to collect any of it, then none of my family is allowed all the monies that the government took from me for me when I got older. That is nothing less than outright legalized theft!

I don’t have a problem with taking a little out of my paycheck and stashing it away for my later years, but when the government is the one ‘keeping’ it I have a big problem. The government doesn’t pay interest on all of that money (The government collects interest on it, but they keep it.), which any bank would, and if it was in a personal bank account then my heirs would have access to all of the funds including the interest accumulated over the years. That’s what the government doesn’t like. You be allowed to keep your money. That does not set well with them, especially the Democrats. The majority of the Democrats in Congress believe that they have more of a right to your money than you do.

I would like to take a good look at the history of Social Security to see just which party has been the one that has decimated the program. The bill was introduced as the Economic Security Bill in January of 1935. While it was in the Ways and Means Committee the name was changed to the Social Security Act of 1935 and was signed into law in August of 1935. Recent comments from some pundits have claimed that Social Security passed without Republican support. That fact, which some Democrats seem to ignore, is not quite true. In 1935 there were 319 Democrats in Congress and 102 Republicans. Of those 284 Democrats voted for the bill and 81 Republicans. That is 80% Republican support. Sounds bipartisan to me. In the Senate there were 96 Democrats and 25 Republicans. 60 Democrats voted for the bill and 16 Republicans voted for the bill. That is 64% of the Republicans. That sounds bipartisan to me. Even though the total number of Democrats vs. Republicans was substantial, the vast majority of the Republicans supported the Social Security Act of 1935.

The rules of the Social Security Act of 1935 were simple but defined.

A. Participation in the program was required if you worked in a job that was covered by Social Security. At that time only about half of the jobs were covered by Social Security.
B. The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000.
D. That the annuity payments to the retirees were not taxed at the beginning of the program.
Some changes have occurred to the program that has had an effect on the program. Some of the changes have been directly to the program and some had nothing directly to do with Social Security but has had a drastic effect on it.

Since a pair of 1938 Treasury Department Tax Rulings, and another in 1941, Social Security benefits have been explicitly excluded from federal income taxation. (A revision was issued in 1970, but it made no changes in the existing policy.) This changed for the first time with the passage of the 1983 Amendments to the Social Security Act. Beginning in 1984, a portion of Social Security benefits have been subject to federal income taxes.

Following the 1979 Advisory Council, the National Commission on Social Security Reform (informally known as the Greenspan Commission after its Chairman) was appointed by the Congress and the President in 1981 to study and make recommendations regarding the short-term financing crisis that Social Security faced at that time.

In its Report, the Commission recommended that Social Security benefits be taxable: "The National Commission recommends that, beginning with 1984, 50% of OASDI benefits should be considered as taxable income for income-tax purposes for persons with Adjusted Gross Income (before including therein any OASDI benefits) of $20,000 if single and $25,000 if married. The proceeds from such taxation, as estimated by the Treasury Department, would be credited to the OASDI Trust Funds under a permanent appropriation."[1]

Even though this bill was originally passed with bipartisan support there were some concerns about the constitutionality of the bill:

When the Act was debated in Congress, leading Republicans in the House and Senate made attempts to delete the provisions creating the old-age pension system. They said they preferred to rely solely on the assistance (charity/ welfare) approach to help the aged. They argued that the payroll tax/insurance mechanism of the old-age benefits provisions might be unconstitutional and that, at any rate, it would impose such a heavy tax burden on businesses that it would retard economic development. The minority membership of the Ways and Means Committee (Republicans) stated, in the Committee’s report to the House, that the age benefits program (title II) and the method by which the money was to be raised to pay for the program (title VIII) established a “bureaucracy in the field of insurance in with private business.” They contended further that the program would “destroy old-age retirement systems set up by private industries, which in most instances provide more liberal benefits than are contemplated under title II.”[2]

The Social Security Amendments of 1954 ex-tended (1) mandatory coverage to, among others, some self-employed farmers, self-employed engineers, architects, accountants, and funeral directors, all Federal employees not covered by government pension plans, farm and domestic service workers not covered by the 1950 amendments, and (2) voluntary coverage to ministers, and certain State and local government employees already covered by staff retirement systems. The bill also raised the wage base for the OASI tax from $3,600 a year to $4,200; raised the tax rate to 3.5 percent each for employer and employees beginning in 1970, and to 4.0 percent each beginning in 1975, with the tax rate for the self-employed continuing at 1.5 times the employee rate (or 75 percent of the combined employee-employer rate).[3]

Amendments, which that are hundreds of them, continued to occur to Social Security that would include more workers, larger percentages taken from our checks and the matching figure from the employer. What we begin to see is that this system, devised from communist mindset that government can take care of the people, will not work. The 1983 Amendments to the Social Security Act were done because the fund was running out of money and steps had to be made to keep the system afloat.

The Senate Report thus acknowledged that one motivating factor in introducing this change was to raise revenue for the Trust Funds. This was part of a much larger package of program changes designed to address the financial solvency of the program. One might fairly say that cutting benefits and raising revenues was the purpose of the 1983 Amendments, and the adoption of Social Security benefit taxation was simply one provision among many to facilitate these aims.[4]

From 1979 to 1983 the problem of funding was addressed almost yearly. It was both parties and with bipartisan support that has made all the changes made to social security. The Democrats take credit for the good things and blame the Republicans for the bad things. The problem with the program is it can never do what it was designed to do. The entire program is faulty. Even though it was only designed from the start to be a supplement, it can’t even do that. Government is not supposed to be our source. There was a study done by the Wall Street Journal in the late 80’s, I have not been able to relocate it, that determined that if someone retiring in 1987 had taken that very same money that had been taken out of his paycheck all his working years for Social Security and put it into a simple passbook savings account, and never took anything out, he would be able to withdraw ten (10) times what Social Security was paying because there would be ten times more there. This is what the American people need to do and Bush tried to point the program in that direction in his first term but the Democrats went crazy.

Our Founders would have never envisioned the entitlements that we have today. Let the people and churches direct charity that is needed. They can do a much better job. Remember that when you are spending your money on you, you will have better quality and a much lower cost.We can’t drop it completely immediately but we can begin to go in the right direction. Giving total control of those funds over to the individual people. The basis of Social Security is found in communism. The free market does not operate well under communistic direction. In fact, it can’t operate un communistic direction. We need to let the people control their retirement not the government. The government has failed in all of its endeavors, Medicaid, Medicare, Amtrack, USPS. None are profitable. Never will be.

Footnotes:

1. Research Note #12:
2. Major Decisions in the House and Senate Chambers on Social Security: 19354985
3. ID. Pg. 41
4. Research Note #12:

© 2012 Roger Anghis - All Rights ReservedPastor Roger Anghis is the Founder of RestoreFreeSpeech.org, an organization designed to draw attention to the need of returning free speech rights to churches that was restricted in 1954.

President of The Damascus Project, TheDamascusProject.org, which has a stated purpose of teaching pastors and lay people the need of the churches involvement in the political arena and to teach the historical role of Christianity in the politics of the United States. Married-37 years, 3 children, three grandchildren.

Web site: RestoreFreeSpeech.org

E-Mail: editor@restorefreespeech.org

Results Of Obama’s Eligibility Hearing In Georgia

2012-01-29T02:57:00.001-08:00

Results Of Obama’s Eligibility Hearing In Georgia

JANUARY 27, 2012 BY DANIEL NOE 147 COMMENT.
Watch the entire proceeding on video here: Video Of Georgia Obama Eligibility Hearing

Today’s proceedings generally were about the Natural Born Citizen clause of the Constitution, and more specifically about Obama’s eligibility to be on Georgia’s 2012 Presidential Election state ballot. Three separate challenges were made to said eligibility, including one by “birther” rock star Orly Taitz. It is safe to say that history was made today.

Big shocker: Obama did not even show up today. Guess he was too busy campaigning in Nevada and Colorado for his re-election bid. Heck, he didn’t even bother to send his attorney Mr. Michael Jablonski to deliver the necessary documents to the courthouse. But apparently, a lot of concerned Americans did show up, as the Atlanta courthouse was crowded.

To recap what has happened with this case during the past few weeks, Mr. Jablonski has tried very hard to stop this case one way or another. First he attempted to have the case dismissed, then he said it simply was not relevant to the president, then he argued that as the law stands the states do not actually have the power to determine who appears on their individual ballots (yeah, and the Pope is a Muslim), and finally said that his client was simply too preoccupied with his responsibilities as President to give a damn about the case. In short, he found himself continually having to change the story of his client.

However, the Georgia court rejected every one and all of these excuses. Just yesterday, Mr. Jablonski sent out a letter to the secretary of state in which he declared that the case was simply not to be heard and that he and his client would effectively boycott these proceedings. Hours later, Mr. Brian Kemp, Secretary of the Great State of Georgia, responded by saying that Obama and Jablonski were free to not show up at court but would nevertheless be doing so at their own peril.

Of course, Mr. Kemp is wrong since Obama is the president, right? Shouldn’t he be above the law? I mean, it is pretty likely that someone like you or I would get away with behaving like them if we were subpoenaed to appear in court, right?

Court was in session at 9 am sharp; proceedings began with the judge meeting privately with all attorneys associated with the case (you know, at least those who showed up) for more than twenty minutes. According to various sources, he told them that since Obama was not present that he would be issuing a default judgment in their favor; he also initially wanted to end the case right then and there. However, the attorneys insisted on holding speedy hearings in which witnesses could testify and evidence would be entered into the court’s records. The judge honored their request.

Much of the evidence presented in court today was obtained with the help of several Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Among evidence entered into the court’s records: Obama’s digital “birth certificate” placed on the whitehouse.gov website, his father’s place of birth (Kenya), a few pages from Obama’s memoir “Dreams From My Father” in which he mentions that his father’s passport had been revoked (and subsequently could not leave Kenya”, and Immigration Services documents about Obama Sr.

Van Irion, one of the attorneys went into more detail about the Natural Born Citizen clause of the Constitution, citing the decision reached in the 1875 US Supreme Court Minor vs. Happersett. Using visual aids and copies of the Court’s decision, Mr. Irion distinguishes the term “citizen” from “natural born citizen.” It is explained that the 14th Amendment does not change the meaning of a natural born citizen, and that any and all lower court verdicts do not conflict with that specific Supreme Court ruling.

What one should take away from this specific testimony, if not the proceedings in general, is that a natural born citizen has two parents who also citizens of the United States at the time of said citizen’s birth. As Obama Sr. was clearly NOT an American citizen, the case can clearly be made that our president, constitutionally speaking, is not eligible to serve as our president.

Among those who testified was a former law enforcement officer, a state-licensed PI, and an IT/PhotoShop expert. They have concluded that Obama has likely engaged in social security fraud, that his father is NOT an American citizen, and that the official birth certificate released by the Obama Administration in April is fake, beyond a reasonable doubt.

All evidence and testimony has been officially entered into court records. This leaves the door open for similar cases pending or future cases to be brought in other states as well. Also, any appeal (if one is even possible in this case) would have to be based on evidence presented by the lawyers in each case. Plaintiff Carl Swenson said in an e-mail to supporters that both “Van Irion (another plaintiff) and my lawyer Mark Hatfield made certain that our cases and evidence in these two cases would be closed so as not to be affiliated, in any way, with ‘Birther’ Orly Taitz.”

What everyone is awaiting now from the judge is an official publishing of today’s ruling, again a default judgment for the plaintiffs. Swenson says “we won” and that it is now “time for the rest of the States to take my lead and duplicate this effort.”

One question every American should be asking themselves now that these eligbility proceedings in Georgia are over is simply: “who the hell is this guy?”

Although obvious, it is important to note that not even the slightest mention of these proceedings will be heard in the mainstream liberal media. And this is for good reason; they obviously want to protect their guy Obama. When his administration’s lackeys vocally attacked Fox News in 2009, viewership of Fox News did not go down; it skyrocketed. Likewise, if the media tries to attack Orly Taitz, these witnesses, or anyone else associated with these proceedings, the so-called “birther” movement will only get stronger.

In short, the “birthers,” who have been ridiculed if not ignored by the media and much of the American public for the past three years, have officially been vindicated today.

—

A blow by blow of the entire court proceeding was made by Craig Andersen of the The National Patriot. His article is found below. We will be updating this page with a synopsis of what today’s proceedings mean for the entire Obama eligibility movement and what results we might see. In the meantime, read the following blow by blow account:

Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.

The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.

Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.

The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.

The CBC'S propaganda war

2012-01-28T10:22:00.001-08:00

- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -

The CBC’s Propaganda War
Posted By Bruce Bawer On January 26, 2012 @ 12:06 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 33 Comments

The only thing worse than having the biases of the mainstream media inflicted upon you on a daily basis is having to subsidize it. For Americans, to be sure, the rip-off isn’t so terrible: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR, gets $430 million a year from the federal government, which comes to only a couple of bucks per household. In Britain, by contrast, the BBC license fee is now £145.50 ($226) annually per TV-owning family. And in Canada, the CBC receives more than $1.5 billion a year from the Canadian government, which amounts to upwards of $100 per household.

And what, exactly, are Canadian taxpayers paying for? That’s the question asked – and very illuminatingly answered – by a new documentary, This Hour Could Have 10,000 Minutes: The Biases of the CBC, produced by James Cohen and Fred Litwin. (The title is a reference to “This Hour Has 22 Minutes,” a long-running CBC series specializing in political satire.) Focusing on two main topics – anti-Israel bias and anti-conservative bias – the documentary consists almost entirely of CBC clips (most but not all of them from news programs) in which we can see these biases in action. To judge by this compilation, the CBC is perhaps even more slanted than the infamously partial BBC – and, perhaps, even more brazen about it.

Take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the documentary we see excerpts from a CBC report on the second Gaza “Freedom Flotilla” that consists entirely of interviews with flotilla participants – all of whom represent it as a virtuous and innocuous aid mission and condemn Israel’s actions against the previous flotilla as absolutely unjustified. At no point does the CBC provide even a brief reminder that there is, in fact, another side to the story. (As the documentary asks: “Is this reporting? Or stenography?”)

In one report, the CBC describes the Jewish Defense League, untruthfully, as a terrorist group that’s banned in Canada. In another report, on Hamas’s struggle with Fatah and takeover of Gaza, the CBC includes file footage of Israeli soldiers firing at terrorists – images that have nothing to do with the story in question. In both cases, the CBC was compelled to issue on-air apologies. (This documentary, in fact, is packed with on-air apologies for this sort of thing.)

We’re shown a clip in which an interviewer lets nutty ex-Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, a 9/11 Truther, rant away about Israel – and doesn’t challenge her when she accuses Israel of committing a “massacre” of “unarmed humanitarian activists.” And we’re shown another clip in which the despicable George Galloway is treated with fawning respect by interviewer George Stroumboulopoulos, who describes him as being banned from Canada (he’s not) and who agrees with Galloway that it’s “ridiculous” to consider him a terrorist. (To clarify this issue, the documentary makers show a clip from Arab TV in which Galloway is seen handing money over to Hamas – and bragging about it.)

Not only is the CBC systematically anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian. Its journalists introduce Israel and Palestine into stories that are utterly unrelated to Israel and Palestine, comparing aggressors with Israel and victims with Palestinians, the more firmly to fix in viewers’ minds the notion that Israelis are, indeed, the incarnation of evil and Palestinians as pure as the driven snow.

In a story about Somalis fleeing from belligerent Islamists in North Africa, for example, a CBC reporter says that “the Somalis are becoming the Palestinians of Africa.” In a story about Egypt’s use of its emergency laws to quell uprisings, another CBC reporter, in an apparent effort to make Egypt’s actions sound less harsh, points out that “Israel has an emergency law too,” which he proceeds to describe at length – even though those laws have nothing whatsoever to do with the events he’s reporting on.

The CBC, as the documentary points out, “can use any story to show how awful Israel is.” In a report on the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the CBC manages to work in an absurd comparison between the Soviets’ wall and Israel’s security fence: “For some people, the Berlin anniversary is a reminder of their own divisions. Today a group of Palestinian activists took down a slab of the security barrier that separates Israel and the West Bank.” (The report also describes the barrier as an “electronic fence,” which it isn’t.)

Cohen and Litwin don’t just take on CBC’s news programs. On the CBC, as they tell us (and show us), “even the game shows have a political bias.” On one such show, for example, contestants are asked: “Which city in Palestine is recognized to be a place of pilgrimage for Christians, Jews and Muslims?” Answer: Jerusalem.

Needless to say, a major staple of CBC programming is reflexive anti-Americanism. The CBC regularly provides a forum to people who argue that Islamic violence is the fault of American foreign policy. Republicans get especially disrespectful treatment: in one clip, CBC columnist Heather Mallick makes snide personal remarks about John McCain and calls Sarah Palin a “porn actress” type who appeals to “the white trash vote.”

The CBC is, of course, also hostile to Canada’s own Conservative Party. The documentary showcases a shameless piece of trickery by the network, in which a clip of Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper is taken out of context to make it look as if he’s putting down Canada’s Muslim community. After showing us the CBC version of Harper’s statement, Cohen and Litwin present us with the uncut version, which makes it clear that Harper was making a respectful comment about both Jews and Muslims. On this occasion, too, the CBC was forced to apologize.

The CBC bias against the Conservatives manifests itself on all kinds of shows and in all kinds of ways. In one clip, a weather girl makes snide remarks about Conservative policy. On a comedy show, an actor imitating Harper wishes viewers “a happy gun-toting, anti-abortion, heterosexual new year.” Another “comedy” program actually includes a sketch in which the actors shoot at Harper and George W. Bush. Skits mocking the left are few and far between.

We see a CBC interviewer giving Michael Moore a royal welcome, hailing him as a “right-wing bogeyman” and praising his “memorable Oscar acceptance speech.” (Moore repays the compliment, calling the CBC “a national treasure.”) By contrast, when Ayaan Hirsi Ali expresses her love of America in an interview with Avi Lewis, he laughs at her with breathtaking condescension and accuses her of embracing pro-American clichés. (She responds smoothly: “You grew up in freedom and you can spit on freedom.”)

In another clip, a CBC interviewer calls Hirsi Ali “right-wing,” to which Hirsi Ali, who’s promoting a book, replies: “What is right-wing about anything I have written in that book?” The interviewer doesn’t back off: if she isn’t right-wing, why has she taken a job at the American Enterprise Institute? On the CBC, to be associated with any conservative institution is to be guilty of an offense that requires an explanation.

This Hour Could Have 10,000 Minutes was first shown in Ottawa last November and was followed by a panel discussion among several journalists and media critics. That discussion is included on the DVD. One of the panelists points out that CBC journalists are the upper class of the Canadian news media: for instance, they earn 39% more than their non-CBC colleagues, have larger camera crews, and are accorded a disproportionate amount of space in the parliamentary press gallery. Another panelist notes that even though the CBC’s viewership numbers keep going down, its government subsidies continue to climb.

Canada is an important country – more important than many Americans realize, with an economy bigger than Russia’s and Spain’s – and the fact that Canadian taxpayers are shelling out good money to get slanted news matters. For Canadians, a documentary like this one performs a valuable service, bringing together some of the more outrageous moments in recent CBC history and providing the corporation’s critics with a solid piece of ammunition. For those of us living outside of Canada, the documentary is no less valuable, giving us an instructive dose of the kind of disinformation Canadians are fed every day – and helping us to understand, among other things, just why there’s so much knee-jerk contempt for the U.S. and Israel in America’s neighbor to the north.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/26/the-cbcs-propaganda-war/

Radical Muslims, Environmentalists, and the Green Jihad

2012-01-28T04:27:00.001-08:00

- Accuracy In Media - http://www.aim.org -

Radical Muslims, Environmentalists, and the Green Jihad

Posted By Mark Musser On April 25, 2011 @ 3:45 pm In AIM Column | Comments Disabled

(A Special Report from the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism)

Rep. Keith Ellison, the Muslim Congressman from Minnesota who shed tears in protest over the congressional hearings on the growing radicalization of Muslims in the U.S., wrote the foreword to a book entitled Green Deen: What Islam Teaches about Protecting the Planet [1]. In Arabic, “deen” means religious creed. The author of Green Deen is Ibrahim Abdul Matin. He wrote his book to demonstrate that there is a close relationship between Islam and modern environmentalism.

It turns out Ellison would have been a good witness to how Muslims are being radicalized as foot solders not only for global Jihad but for a “green” future. It is an unholy alliance that threatens our future but which escapes the attention of media predisposed to believe that radical Muslims working with environmentalists could only produce positive results.

What is fascinating is that Matin works in New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s environmental planning department as a policy advisor for New York City’s long term sustainability, and was one of the Muslims promoting the idea that the new mosque being considered near Ground Zero should be a green one [2]. In fact, Matin devotes one whole chapter of his book to “Green Mosques” and provides a list of environmentally friendly practices that can and should be implemented at each local mosque. Being the progressive Muslim that he paints himself to be, Keith Ellison was very impressed with Matin’s abilities and proudly decided to endorse his book.

One of the reasons Ellison decided to work with Matin was because of his own growing personal involvement in the green movement, which surprisingly enough, is becoming more popular among Muslims. In an interview posted on the DC [3] Green Muslim’s website [4], Ellison commented that “my involvement in politics is really rooted in my desire to try to promote unity among people, trying to promote unity with the Earth and creation, and trying to promote justice.” Ellison is also involved in an organization called the “Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota (EJAM [5]).” Ellison, the first Muslim Congressman in U.S. history, thus believes in green Islamic social justice of sorts—a veritable Islamic political ecology.

Ellison first met Matin in 2008 at a Muslim American seminar caucus in Washington, D.C. Matin was a fellow of “Green For All [6],” the very organization founded by communistVan Jones [7] to help promote the financial wonders of the so-called Green Economy [8]. Matin also helped organize Green For All’s National Day of Action [9] calling for “Green Jobs Now,” which more than 50,000 people attended. Ellison was very impressed by Matin’s influence at the caucus: “Ibrahim made an important connection that day—that the faith community needs to be involved in the green movement.” He went on to conclude his foreword by saying that “Green Deen brings faith communities into the environmental movement by changing the conversation from the facts of global warming to the fact that we all live and work here together and have a collective responsibility to keep this place clean and safe for everyone.”

While there is certainly no small controversy over exactly what a caliphate [10] may be, especially with regard to how Sunnis and Shia [11]s view it, or how closely it may be tied to the ushering in of Sharia law [12], Islamic totalitarianism [13], terrorism [14] and violence [15], it is a word that shows up often in Matin’s Green Deen. Matin innocuously translates the word “caliphah” to simply mean “steward,” a very environmentally-correct term. While this may satisfy the environmental consciousness of modern Western elites, this definition is, of course, very far removed from how most of the Muslim world have historically understood this word.

However, no matter how green a Muslim may or may not be, by definition, the caliphate must still be an Islamic theocratic state under the dominion of Allah. Even though Matinmaintains [16] that he wrote his book to help rebrand Muslims from being considered terrorists to environmentalists, he still prefaces his entire book with the idea that “the earth is a mosque.” This means that the environmental holism being espoused by Matin must necessarily be subject to Allah’s totalitarian authority over the earth. In other words, environmental holism and Islamic totalitarianism go hand in hand in Matin’s Green Deen.

Secret Conquest

If the entire earth is a mosque, as Matin maintains, then Allah’s boundaries are boundless, and this means that simultaneously Americans must live under the theocratic dictates of Allah, and environmentalism can easily be used alongside Sharia law to help bring America to its knees under Islamic jihadist control. While many on the left would naively consider such a possibility beyond the pale, something along these lines is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood [17] has in mind for the future of America. Indeed, in 1991, the radical Muslim Brotherhood espoused [18] that “the process of settlement…in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” In other words, something like environmentalism can be easily used as a jihadist tool in the hands of a green Muslim to help sabotage America from within. After all, Matin says that “Muslims have a personal connection to the color green,” and that “the favorite color of the Prophet Muhammad was green.”

More troubling is that Keith Ellison’s pilgrimage [19] to Mecca in 2008 was paid for by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, which is just another name [20]for the Muslim Brotherhood. Ellison also likes to attend Hamas rallies [21], and has even worked with communist front groups [22] like the National Lawyers Guild [23]. He even once went so far as to praise [24] the terrorist record of Bernardine Dohrn—the wife of the infamous Bill Ayers. After converting from Roman Catholicism to Islam, Ellison also praised [25] the likes ofLouis Farrakhan [26] and the Nation of Islam [27] during his college days. This hot-wiring of the anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, together with environmentalism, only helps to serve up an explosive eco-fascist concoction not seen since the 1930’s [28].

With such a cadre of characters and organizations under Ellison’s belt, is it any wonder that suspicions should arise over his activities, even over something as allegedly harmless as environmentalism? Which brings us back to Matin. Why in the world would Matin want Ellison’s endorsement if all he wants to do is try and show Americans that Muslims are not terrorists but are becoming progressive environmentalists? Neither should it be overlooked that the Muslim American Society also touts [29] the Green Deen book. Matin even considers Malcom X, who was also one of his heroes as a child when he used to listen to his tapes, to be a green Muslim [30]. Such disconcerting connections betray the image that Matin’s Green Deen is as benign as it reads.

Indeed, Matin’s whole approach to energy is viewed as a green Muslim apocalyptic dichotomy between heaven and hell. Matin considers gas, coal and oil as energy from hell, i.e., from the ground: “it is dirty, and it is a major cause of pollution and climate change. Energy from hell is non-renewable; it takes away from the Earth without giving back. It disturbs the balance of the universe and is therefore a great injustice.” As such, it appears that energy from hell needs to be placed under the caliphate control of Allah to help bring about a green Muslim social ethic on the earth: “one way we can stand out firmly for justice is by ending our reliance on oil and coal. Energies from hell are particularly devastating and unjust to people and the planet.”

From One Hell to Another

With the likes of the OPEC oil cartel largely run by the Middle East, coupled with the environmental restrictions on the homefront, perhaps the earth indeed is becoming one giant mosque. Worse is that Matin’s Green Deen only promises to become more hellish, leaving America increasingly exposed to the harsh natural elements of the sun, storm and wind. Yet, Matin views such exposure as a gift from heaven. For him, solar and wind power are Allah’s answers to America’s energy problems: “energy from heaven comes from above. It is not extracted from the Earth and it is renewable…energy from above is a gift from heaven.” The problem now, however, is that America’s electrical grid is not ‘smart [31]’ enough yet to incorporate Allah’s heavenly gifts into her energy system.

Matin also proudly notes in his book that the EPA received much needed help from a green Muslim by the name of Dr. Aziz Saddiqi. In the 1960’s Saddiqi was a young doctoral candidate who was doing groundbreaking research in the Houston area on chemical engineering. The University of Houston was so impressed with his work that he was offered a job: “Soon he found himself guiding the development of curriculum that would help the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency carry out its new mission of enforcing the Clean Air Act.” His chemical engineering expertise was much needed at the beginning to help the EPA get off of its feet: “In 1973 the EPA was only three years old and did not understand the full breadth of its power.” The EPA thus had a lot of growing up to do, and Dr. Saddiqi was at the heart of it all at the very beginning: “The EPA, its scientists, and its partner agencies needed to be trained on how to monitor pollution from smokestacks and other commonly used industrial practices.”

In fact, it seems that they were all on the learning curve together on this, as Dr. Saddiqui “had to learn how to explain his research in chemical engineering to this group of regulators.” Dr. Saddiqi “also authored the training materials used to teach EPA scientists how to sample ambient air and develop pollution controls.” Today, Dr. Saddiqi is in charge of the largest Islamic community in the United States, called the Islamic Society [32] of Greater Houston.

It is certainly comforting to discover that the EPA had a green Muslim helping them all out at the beginning on how to be good regulators. Environmentalism and the Islamic caliphate working together arm in arm at the very foundations of the EPA? Green hippies and a green Muslim expert working hard together trying to come to grips with the full regulatory power of the Clean Air Act?

Conflict of Civilizations

However innocent some green Muslims and environmentalists may or may not be in this whole ecological experiment that America is increasingly rushing headlong into, ratcheting up secular problems with apocalyptic concerns and solutions will only feed radicalism and religious fervor. It also draws in the naïve and unsuspecting to do things that they would not normally do. By apocalypticizing their worries and concerns [33], environmentalists have managed to take something as banal and neutral as handling natural resources and have turned it into a gigantic worldwide ethic of ecological social justice requiring immediate action that now is even beginning to draw [34] in the Muslims as well.

Muslims like Ibrahim Abdul Matin and Keith Ellison would do well to think again about the differences between Gaia [35], considered the spirit of the earth by environmentalists, and Allah. Though both have totalitarian [36] goals, they are by no means the same. Ecological pantheism [37] cannot be mixed with monotheism [38], even if the Muslim religion is symbolized by a crescent moon. At some point, these two ideologies will collide, and even though I am not a betting man, I would put my money on the growing juggernaut of Western pantheism. It has already largely devoured the Judeo-Christian worldview in America, and is well on its way to spitting out the pieces of what is left of free market capitalism.

Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org

URL to article: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/radical-muslims-environmentalists-and-the-green-jihad/

URLs in this post:

[1] Green Deen: What Islam Teaches about Protecting the Planet: http://www.greendeenbook.com/

[2] green one: http://www.aim.org../aim-report/the-%E2%80%9Cgreen%E2%80%9D-mosque-near-ground-zero/

[3] DC: http://arabnews.com/world/article20017.ece

[4] website: http://dcgreenmuslims.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html

[5] EJAM: http://www.ejamn.org/

[6] Green For All: http://www.greenforall.org/

[7] Van Jones: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15455

[8] Green Economy: http://junkscience.com/2011/03/23/clean-energys-junk-economics/

[9] National Day of Action: http://www.greenjobsnow.com/

[10] caliphate: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1278

[11] Sunnis and Shia: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=754

[12] Sharia law: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/05/10/caliphate-and-sharia-law.html

[13] Islamic totalitarianism: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/the_muslim_mainstream_and_the.html

[14] terrorism: http://www.danielpipes.org/2798/what-do-the-terrorists-want-a-caliphate

[15] violence: http://www.raymondibrahim.com/8882/caliphate-jihad-sharia-now-what

[16] maintains: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/16/author-wants-to-rebrand-muslims-from-terrorists-to-environmentalists/

[17] Muslim Brotherhood: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/muslimbrotherhood.html

[18] espoused: http://www.investigativeproject.org/document/id/20

[19] pilgrimage: http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/36417549.html?source=error

[20] name : http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/muslim-american-society-leader-admits-group-is-part-of-muslim-brotherhood/

[21] Hamas rallies: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/02/rep-keith-ellison-attends-ugly-prohamas-rally-in-minnesota.html

[22] communist front groups: http://www.aim.org../aim-column/times-helps-muslim-rep-ellison-obstruct-terror-probe/

[23] National Lawyers Guild: http://debs.indstate.edu/u588r47_1950.pdf

[24] praise: http://www.aim.org../aim-column/will-rep-king-expose-rep-ellison%E2%80%99s-pro-terrorist-record/

[25] praised: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/764obcsx.asp

[26] Louis Farrakhan: http://ww3.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue22/chajua22.htm

[27] Nation of Islam: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/NOI.html

[28] 1930’s: http://gulagbound.com/14685/nazi-political-biology-the-hotwiring-of-power-politics-naturalism-environmentalism-racism

[29] touts: http://muslimgreenteam.org/

[30] green Muslim: http://www.greendeenbook.com/author_malcolm.html

[31] smart: http://www.greensmartgridinitiative.org/

[32] Society: http://www.isgh.org/

[33] apocalypticizing their worries and concerns: http://www.theignorantfishermen.com/2011/03/eco-fascist-prophecy-of-global-warming.html

[34] draw: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_690815.html

[35] Gaia: http://www.usasurvival.org/cultofgaia.html

[36] totalitarian: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100032069/only-global-fascist-tyranny-can-save-us-now-says-nice-old-man/

[37] Ecological pantheism: http://www.brontaylor.com/environmental_books/dgr/dark_green_religion.html

[38] monotheism: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10499a.htm

MEDIA TO AMERICANS: 'NOTHING TO SEE HERE'

2012-01-28T04:05:00.001-08:00

WND EXCLUSIVE

MEDIA TO AMERICANS: 'NOTHING TO SEE HERE'

Reports ignore first time Obama ineligibility evidence entered into court record

Published: 9 hours ago
By Jack Minor
The mainstream media appears to have been put under a “cone of silence” about the first court proceeding to enter into the record evidence that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president based on the Constitution’s requirement that that office be occupied only by a “natural-born citizen.”

Georgia administrative law judge Michael Malihi on Thursday heard evidence from a variety of witnesses on why the president’s name should not appear on the Georgia state ballot for the 2012 election.

Earlier in the month, the judge had issued a subpoena for the president to appear before his court to answer challenges to his eligibility as a candidate.

Georgia law permits the secretary of state and “any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state to challenge the qualifications of any candidate.

Michael Jablonski, attorney for Obama, attempted to have the subpoena quashed, arguing that taking the time to appear would “interrupt [Obama's] duties as president of the United States.”

While Thursday’s hearing was taking place, Obama was speaking to a group of UPS workers in Las Vegas, one of the states where he hopes to gain a vote advantage in the November election.

Following the judge’s refusal to drop the subpoena, the president’s lawyers stated they would ignore the subpoena and not participate in the proceedings.

Later, appearing on the Rachel Maddow show, Mike Berlon, Georgia Democratic Party chairman, defended the president’s actions, saying the case was much ado about nothing.

“This has been thoroughly and richly litigated for a long time, and every court that has looked at it has determined that the president is a citizen,” he said.

But the facts don’t support Berlon’s statement, as this week’s hearing marks the first time that the evidence against the president’s eligibility has been entered into any court record. The dozens of previous cases that have been brought against the president have been dismissed on technicalities such as “standing.”

It is also the first time arguments have been made that the president is ineligible based on his own statements.

The presidency is unique among all of the constitutionally held offices in that it requires the person holding the position to be a “natural-born citizen,” not just a typical citizen of the U.S.

While the Constitution does not define the term “natural-born citizen,” many constitutional experts define it as the offspring of two citizen parents. The argument is supported by a U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1875, Minor v. Happersett.

The ruling, which is one of the few cases addressing the issue of natural-born citizenship as opposed to a naturalized citizen, states:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Based on this standard, the birth certificate released by Obama proves he is not eligible as his father was a non-citizen who came from Kenya.

The hearing Thursday produced a wide range of evidence from experts testifying that the president’s birth certificate was a forgery to issues with his Social Security number, which does not match the president’s name in e-verify.

Regardless of political persuasion, a sitting U.S. president openly defying a court subpoena for a hearing at which evidence indicating he’s a usurper is entered into the record is newsworthy.

However, a look at mainstream media websites shows an almost total blackout.

CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC did not run any coverage on Thursday’s hearing, with the exception of some local affiliates in Atlanta. The Fox News Channel’s report was a day later.

WND contacted the news organizations asking for comment on why they did not believe the story was newsworthy, considering the precedents set in the hearing. At the time of this article’s publication, none chose to respond.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution was one of the few newspapers to cover the event; however, its coverage did not discuss the ramifications if the judge were to rule Obama ineligible to appear on the ballot.

The media blackout of the Georgia case is part of a continuing pattern of covering up serious discussion of the birth certificate issue.

During the court martial of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who refused to obey orders over concerns about the president’s eligibility, the media for the most part refused to cover the issue.

Stars and Stripes, Military.com, WND and a local reporter from Lakin’s home town were at the proceedings, however there was almost no representation by major media outlets.

Many retired officers who come out against the president’s eligibility, such as Maj. Gens. Jerry Curry and Paul Vallely, have also been ignored by media.

Media have also refused to report polls showing many Americans still have doubts about the president’s eligibility.

Just last month, a Democratic polling company’s survey indicated that a majority of Iowa caucus goers still did not believe the president was born in the United States.

Public Polling Policy released the results of a poll conducted Dec. 18, which showed that 52 percent of self-identified caucus goers either did not believe or were not sure the president was born in the U.S.

WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah also has been the subject of a media blackout over the issue.

Farah used to be a frequent guest on cable news shows, however once he made the decision to cover the constitutional issues of a president of the United States possibly being ineligible for the office, he became “persona non grata” on many of the same media outlets.

The Zionist Imperative

2012-01-28T03:44:00.000-08:00

The Zionist Imperative

By Caroline Glick

1/27/2012

European and American perfidy in dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons program apparently has no end. This week we were subject to banner headlines announcing that the EU has decided to place an oil embargo on Iran. It was only when we got past the bombast that we discovered that the embargo is only set to come into force on July 1.

Following its European colleagues, the Obama administration announced it is also ratcheting up its sanctions against Iran... in two months. Sometime in late March, the US will begin sanctioning Iran's third largest bank.

At the same time as the Europeans and the Americans announced their phony sanctions, they reportedly dispatched their Turkish colleagues to Tehran to set up a new round of nuclear talks with the ayatollahs. If the past is any guide, we can expect for the Iranians to agree to sit down and talk just before the oil embargo is scheduled to be enforced. And the Europeans - with US support - will use the existence of talks to postpone indefinitely the implementation of the embargo.

There is nothing new in this game of fake sanctions. And what it shows more than anything is that the Europeans and the Americans are more concerned with pressuring Israel not to attack Iran's nuclear installations than they are in preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Obama has a second target audience - American Jews. He is using his fake sanctions as a means of convincing American Jews that he is a pro-Israel president and that in the current election season, not only should they cast their votes in his favor, they should sign their checks for his campaign.

Both Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were quick this week to make clear that these moves are insufficient. They will not force Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program. More is needed.

As to American Jewry, the jury is still out.

In truth, American Jewry's diffidence towards taking a stand on Iran, or recognizing Obama's dishonesty on this issue specifically and his dishonesty regarding his position on US-Israel ties generally is not rooted primarily in American Jews' devotion to Obama. It isn't even specifically related to American Jewry's devotion to the political Left. Rather it has to do with American Jewish ambivalence to Israel.

The roots of that ambivalence - which is shared by other Western Jewish communities to varying degrees - predate Obama's presidency.

Indeed, they predate the establishment of the State of Israel. And now, as the US and the EU have given Iran at least another six months to a year to develop its nuclear bombs unchecked, it is worth considering the nature and influence of this ambivalence.

Today's principal form of Jew-hatred is anti- Zionism. Anti-Zionism is similar to previous dominant forms of Jew hatred such as Christian anti-Judaism, xenophobic and racist anti- Semitism, and Communist anti-Jewish cosmopolitanism in the sense that it takes dominant, popular social trends and turns them against the Jews. Anti-Zionism's current predominance owes to the convergence of several popular social trends which include Western post-nationalism, and anti-colonialism.

The problem that anti-Zionism poses for American Jewry is that it forces them to pay a price for supporting Israel. This is problematic because Zionism has never been fully embraced by American Jewry. Since the dawn of modern Zionism, the cause of Jewish self-determination placed American Jewish leaders in an uncomfortable dilemma.

UNLIKE EVERY other Diaspora Jewish community, the American Jewish community has always perceived itself as a permanent community rather than an exilic community. American Jews have always viewed the United States as the new Promised Land.

With the formation of the modern Zionist movement in the late 19th century, American Jews found themselves on the horns of a dilemma. Clearly, the state of world Jewry was such that national self-determination had become an existential necessity for non-American Jews.

But while supporting Jewish refugees and a scrappy little country was okay, support for the Zionist cause of Jewish national liberation involved an acceptance of the fact that Israel - not the US - is the Jewish homeland. Moreover, it involved accepting that there are Jewish interests that are independent of - if not necessarily in contradiction with - American interests. For instance, irrespective of the prevailing winds in Washington, and regardless of whether the US supports Israel or not, it is a Jewish interest that Israel exists, thrives and survives.

In a recent op-ed in Haaretz, Hebrew University political science professor Shlomo Avineri contrasted world Jewry's massive mobilization on behalf of Soviet Jewry in the 1970s and 1980s and their relative silence today in the face of Iran's Holocaust denial and open calls for the annihilation of the Jewish state. Avineri is apparently confounded by the disparity between Western Jewry's behavior in the two cases.

But the cause of the disparity is clear. Supporting the right of Soviet Jews to emigrate was easy. Unlike Israel, Soviet Jews were powerless. As such, they were pure victims and supporting them cost Diaspora Jews nothing in terms of their position in their societies.

Just as important, the cause of freedom for Soviet Jewry was perfectly aligned with the West's Cold War policies against the Soviet Union. The frequent Jewish demonstrations outside Soviet legations provided Western leaders with another tool to fight the Cold War.

In contrast, supporting Israel, and the cause of Jewish freedom and self-determination embodied by Zionism, is not cost-free for Diaspora Jews. At root, to support Israel and Zionism involves accepting that Jews have inherent rights as Jews. To be a Zionist Jew in the Diaspora means that you embrace and defend the notion that the Jews have the right to their own interests and that those interests may be distinct from other nations' interests. That is, to be a Zionist involves rejecting Jewish assimilation and embracing the fact that Jews require national independence and power to guarantee our survival. And this can be unpleasant.

PRO-ISRAEL AMERICAN Jews have historically tried to tie their support for Israel to larger, more universal themes, in order to extricate themselves from the need to admit that as Jews and supporters of Israel they have a right and a duty to support Jewish freedom even if it isn't always pretty. Again, for Israel's first several decades, it was about helping poor Jews and refugees. In recent years, the predominant defense has been that Israel deserves support because it is a democracy.

Certainly, these are both reasonable reasons for supporting Israel. But neither support for Israel because it was poor nor support for Israel because it is free is a specifically Zionist reason for supporting Israel. You don't have to be a Zionist to support poor Jewish refugees and you don't have to be a Zionist to support democracy.

You do have to be a Zionist however, to defend the Jews in Israel and throughout the world in a coherent manner when the predominant form of Jew-hatred is anti-Zionism.

You have to be willing to accept and defend the right of the Jewish people to freedom and self-determination in our national homeland against those who deny that right. You have to be a Zionist to defend Israel's right to survive and thrive even though it is no longer poor and its democratically elected government is not liked by the Obama administration.

And you have to be a Zionist to realize that since Jewish survival is dependent on Jewish power, and anti-Zionists reject the right of Jews to have power, that anti-Zionists seek to bring about a situation where Jewish survival is imperiled.

The weakness of American Jewry's response to Iran's genocidal intentions towards Israel is of a piece with its weak response to the forces of anti-Zionism generally and to Jewish anti- Zionists particularly. Since 2007, the US government has effectively ruled out the use of force against Iran's nuclear weapons program and embraced a policy of pursuing negotiations with ayatollahs while enacting impotent sanctions to quell congressional pressure. At least in part, this policy is due to the US's assessment that a nuclear Iran does not pose a high-level threat to US national security.

Both then-president George W. Bush and later Barack Obama determined that an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear weapons program does pose a high-level threat to the US. As a consequence, both administrations have taken concerted steps to prevent Israel from attacking Iran.

On the merits, both of these policies are easily discredited. But the fact that they continue to be implemented shows that they are supported by a large and powerful constituency in Washington.

To oppose Iran's nuclear program effectively, American Jews are required to oppose these strongly supported US policies. And at some point, this may require them to announce they support Israel's right to survive and thrive even if that paramount right conflicts with how the US government perceives US national interests.

That is, it may require them to embrace Zionism unconditionally.

No doubt, if they do so, their own conditions will improve. They will finally be able to speak coherently against the gathering forces of anti-Zionism - both from within the Jewish community and from without. This in turn will act as a lightning rod for inspiring American Jews to embrace their Judaism.

With their leaders having abjectly failed to contend with the most powerful form of Jew-hatred, it is no wonder that so many Diaspora Jews are leaving the fold. If they reverse course and go after their attackers, American Jewish leaders will give community members a meaningful reason to proudly embrace their identity.

In a speech this week at the Knesset, Netanyahu explained the different lessons the Holocaust teaches the international community on the one hand, and the Jews on the other.

As far as its universal lessons are concerned, Netanyahu said, "The lesson is that the countries of the world must be woken up, as much as possible, so that they can organize against such crimes.

The lesson is that the broadest possible alliances must be forged in order to act against this threat before it is too late."

As for the Jews, Netanyahu embraced Zionism's core principle: "With regard to threats to our very existence, we cannot abandon our future to the hands of others.

"With regard to our fate, our duty is to rely on ourselves alone."

We must hope that world Jewry will recognize today that the fate of the Jewish people in Israel and throughout the world is indivisible and rally to Israel's side whatever the social cost of doing so. But even if they do not recognize this basic truth, the imperatives of Zionism, of the Jewish people, remain in place.

The Most Important Non-Presidential Election of the Decade

2012-01-28T02:33:00.001-08:00

CROSS COUNTRY
JANUARY 28, 2012
The Most Important Non-Presidential Election of the Decade

Wisconsin's Scott Walker is facing a recall after his labor and spending reforms. If he loses, public unions will flex their muscles nationwide.

By STEPHEN MOORE

One Sunday afternoon last spring, as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was working in his front yard, a car rolled slowly by and blared its horn. He and his two teenage sons looked up to see two middle fingers directed their way as the car screeched down the street. A few minutes later another car rolled by and a voice shouted "Hey governor!" Mr. Walker reluctantly looked up—to find two thumbs up coming through the open window.

No American politician had a more polarizing effect on voters last year than Scott Walker. This time last year, thousands of irate protesters were occupying Wisconsin's state Capitol, comparing Mr. Walker to Hitler for trying to reform the pension and collective-bargaining systems of public-employee unions. He needed an entourage of 25 security officers to escort him through the building at the height of the pandemonium.

Now he faces what he predicts will be his most bruising fight of all: a union-funded recall election intended to toss him out of office. His opponents last week submitted one million signatures to trigger a recall election as early as spring or summer. Mr. Walker expects this to be a $70 million brawl—a record for Wisconsin and twice the total spent in the 2010 governor's race. Smiling, Mr. Walker says he hopes to be the "first governor re-elected twice during his first term."

The stakes here "go well beyond who will be governor of Wisconsin," Mr. Walker explains. The recall's ultimate objective is to intimidate any official across the country who's thinking of crossing swords with the empire of teachers and other public-employee unions. "This is about killing reform initiatives in every state in the country," says Mr. Walker.

In Wisconsin, the evidence is mounting that Mr. Walker hasn't brought economic Armageddon but financial stability. Last year's $3 billion deficit is now a $300 million surplus—and it was accomplished without the new taxes that unions favored. "If a business is failing, you don't raise the prices on your customers," Mr. Walker scoffs.

In addition to union reform, Mr. Walker and his allies in the legislature passed a statewide school voucher program, eased business regulation, and enacted tort reform. When Illinois raised its income taxes by 67%, he launched a PR campaign urging Illinois businesses to "escape to Wisconsin."

When Mr. Walker took office, a survey of major business owners by the state's Chamber of Commerce found that only 10% thought Wisconsin was heading "in the right direction." Now 94% say it is. Chief Executive magazine found that Wisconsin's business climate in 2011 showed the greatest one-year improvement of any state in the history of the magazine's ratings. After bleeding 150,000 jobs in the previous three years, Wisconsin added 10,000 jobs in 2011.

All this matters little to public-employee unions looking to regain their perks. Yet granting local governments the legal authority to hire and fire teachers and other workers based on merit—as well as requiring teachers to contribute 5.8% into their pensions (up from 0%) and all public employees to pay 12.6% of their health-care premiums (about half what most private workers pay)—has already saved local governments $475 million.

Rather than assaulting government workers, these reforms avoided mass layoffs and allowed school districts to maintain and in some cases even reduce class sizes. You'd think unions would celebrate this, but no such luck.

Mr. Walker believes the union brass are most furious about his policy to stop automatically withholding union dues from the paychecks of approximately 300,000 municipal workers. He calculates that this "paycheck protection" measure saves as much as $1,400 annually for those workers who freely choose not to pay dues. That welcome pay raise for the workers has been catastrophic for the union bosses. Without the mandatory dues payments, the teachers union had to lay off 40% of its staff last year.

So now Mr. Walker, his lieutenant governor and four state senators will face the voters as early as this spring or summer. Last year a similar effort targeted four other GOP state senators and a Republican on the state supreme court. After unions spent millions on the campaign, two of the state senators were recalled but that failed to flip control of the legislature, and the supreme court justice kept his seat.

A problem for Democrats this year is finding an A-list candidate willing to run against Mr. Walker if he is recalled. A strong opponent could be Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, but the unions are furious with him too for implementing many of the Walker union reforms—saving his city $25 million and balancing its budget in the process. The likeliest candidates to challenge Mr. Walker are two liberals, former Congressman David Obey and Madison County Executive Kathleen Falk.

A new nonpartisan poll by Marquette University shows the governor at 50% job approval (with 45% disapproving), which is up from as low as 37% last summer. Even some of his most loyal followers say that he has never fully explained to Wisconsinites why ending collective bargaining for union benefits was a fiscal necessity. And local Democrats are smelling blood over a recent mini-scandal involving alleged embezzlement of public funds by two of Mr. Walker's top aides when he was Milwaukee County Commissioner.

Still, the national unions have yet to decide whether spending another $30 million or $50 million on a recall roll of the dice is worth it given the higher priority of getting President Obama re-elected. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which has been severely critical of Mr. Walker's power play, recently acknowledged that he has fulfilled his pledge of balancing the budget without new taxes and that "the sky isn't falling."

If unions succeed in getting voters to evict reformers, it could "set back the conservative reform agenda across the states for a generation," Mr. Walker warns. This might be the most important nonpresidential election in a decade.

Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for the Journal's editorial page.

Christie to the 1%: Please Occupy New Jersey

2012-01-28T02:23:00.001-08:00

Christie to the 1%: Please Occupy New Jersey

Now that the governor has controlled state spending, he's pushing tax reform and hoping to steal businesses and residents from neighboring blue states.

By JAMES FREEMAN

Garden State Gov. Chris Christie has a message for the top 1% of income earners: Please occupy New Jersey. "I'm going to start going after a lot of these hedge-fund guys who are in Connecticut and New York and say, 'You're going to get a better deal with us,'" says the country's most important Republican not running for president.

Mr. Christie's new tax-reform plan also offers an improved deal to the bottom 99%, which is why he may be able to move it through New Jersey's Democratic legislature: a 10% cut in tax rates across the board.

The governor is two years into a four-year term. In 2010, he told the Journal's editorial board that the Garden State represented America's best example of a "failed experiment" in rising taxes and bigger government. As he returns to the Journal for another visit, it's time to check the results of his counter-experiment.

Politically, so far so good. A recent Quinnipiac poll gives him a 53% approval rating among the state's registered voters, and Mr. Christie says that private polls show him "in the low 60s."

Economically, unemployment in the state has fallen to 9% from a high of 9.8%. With almost 3.9 million people working, New Jersey has added almost 60,000 private-sector jobs since he took office, while shedding more than 21,000 government jobs. Reforms of the pension and health programs for government employees will save taxpayers an estimated $120 billion over the next 30 years. A new limit on local property-tax increases appears to be working.

Mr. Christie says that he can now push for the tax cuts that he promised would happen if the state controlled its spending. The governor made that promise while seeking the job in 2009, and he recalls the skepticism at various newspapers during the campaign: "They looked at me like I was an alien." Because many media folk couldn't believe the state government could afford to reduce tax rates, "They just basically accused me of lying to get elected."

Now he reports that the state has been running modest surpluses for a very simple reason. He requires the commissioners of all departments to report each month on how they are meeting budgeted spending levels.

"What happened before in state government was that they would just spend, and then in April they would come to the governor's office and say, 'Oh, oops. Sorry, we need another 30 million. We need another 50 million.' And there would be a huge number of supplemental spending bills that would get passed on June 30th along with the budget for the next fiscal year," often with tax hikes to pay for them, says Mr. Christie. "And I said to my folks, 'If you don't manage to budget, you're going to get fired.'"

Mr. Christie proposes to phase in his tax cut over three years. If the state's economy continues to rebound and state revenues grow, he says he'll look to make even deeper rate cuts. Having spent his first two years playing defense against unsustainable spending, Mr. Christie is eager to start competing with neighboring states for jobs, talent and capital. Step one was to decide which tax reform would be the biggest draw for new residents and new businesses. He chose to attack the income tax because "that will be the thing that will make us the most competitive from a jobs perspective." His decision was made easier when he saw neighboring New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo push through an income-tax increase in December.

"When Governor Cuomo raised taxes over here that made it even more attractive for me to go after the income tax . . . from a competitive perspective." He adds that with Gov. Dannel Malloy also enacting a tax increase in Connecticut last year, "it's a strategic decision as much as a philosophical decision."

New Jersey has a long way to go. This week the Tax Foundation again rated it dead last among the 50 states for its overall business tax climate. As for individual income taxes, Mr. Christie notes that since 2003 the top marginal rate has risen to 8.9% from 6.25%. If Mr. Christie succeeds in knocking that top rate down to a flat 8%, Jersey will still be above Connecticut's 6.7%. But since Connecticut now edges New Jersey for the country's highest property taxes, according to the Tax Foundation, the Garden State is at least in the ball game.

As for New York, now that Gov. Cuomo has bumped the top rate up to 8.82%, some Empire Staters may be tempted to cross the Hudson, especially if they live in New York City and now face a staggering combined state and local income tax rate of 12.7%.

To be sure, even a reformed top rate of 8% in New Jersey would still be extremely high and won't necessarily keep residents from fleeing to Pennsylvania's 3% rate or to Florida, where there's no state income tax at all. But Mr. Christie is still catching flak for his baby step toward tax reform.

"We have an incredibly progressive income tax rate system and so when I'm getting push-back now about a 10% cut across the board and people arguing, 'Well it disproportionately benefits people who make more money,' I'm like, 'Well of course, because you made the decision to have an extraordinarily progressive tax code where the top 1% in New Jersey pays 41% of the income tax. So those are the folks who are going to get a large share of the . . . cut.' But everybody's getting a 10% cut."

Mr. Christie's plan also includes a boost in the so-called earned income tax credit—a "tax cut" even for people who don't pay income taxes. Because this credit is refundable, at the lowest income levels it functions as a wealth transfer from citizens who pay income taxes. "It's to get Democratic votes," he concedes, but "given how challenged some of the families are on the lower end of our income scale and how expensive it still is to live in New Jersey . . . I don't have a problem with it."

And for those at the upper end of the income scale, Mr. Christie is setting a different course from the man he has endorsed for president, Mitt Romney. While Mr. Romney has taken pains to ensure that his own tax plan offers little relief to wealthy citizens like himself, Mr. Christie argues that his state can't afford to drive away successful people. Perhaps Mr. Romney should take note of Mr. Christie's unapologetic case for sound tax policy—and his approval ratings.

As for Mr. Christie's plan, since he is already being criticized for allowing the wealthy to benefit along with everybody else, why not go ahead and push for the most competitive reform—a low-rate flat tax?

"I couldn't get it passed. I mean I've made the political evaluation that with solid Democratic majorities in the legislature, they would just never pass a flat tax. And so, you know, I could go through the show of proposing it, having it go nowhere and then trying to retrench and get something else. I'd rather put all my eggs in the basket of what I think I can get and I think I can get this."

Some may wonder how he can get anything after a political redistricting plan last year favored Democrats, who then went on to maintain their legislative majorities in the fall elections. One answer is that the governor of New Jersey holds significant powers, including the ability to impose salary terms if state-employee unions won't agree to contracts. As old contracts expire, he's been negotiating aggressively. Mr. Christie says he's been helped by his earlier success in reining in the cost of benefits and has lately come to terms with two unions on new contracts. They provide no salary increases for the next two years and modest hikes after that.

"They would never have accepted that except for the fact that we've gotten through to them that they are a weight on growth, that they are being unfairly compensated, that they are not part of the shared sacrifice, and that the alternative is continued layoffs and reduction by attrition," he says. Mr. Christie still hasn't cut a deal with the state's largest government-employee union, the Communications Workers of America, but says "I can guarantee you this: They will not get a better agreement than the guys that already signed."

The savings from these agreements can ultimately translate into lower burdens on taxpayers, and so can Mr. Christie's ability to fill two new vacancies on the state's seven-member supreme court. For years, the infamous Abbott decisions have had the courts essentially adopting the role of legislators and dictating how much taxpayers must spend on various school districts.

This week Mr. Christie nominated Assistant State Attorney General Philip Kwon and Chatham, N.J., Mayor Bruce Harris to fill the seats. It's unclear what they think about Abbott, and Mr. Christie says he didn't ask them about specific legal issues. But the governor clearly believes that the court has been seizing powers that belong to the legislature and the executive branch.

"There's going to come a point where the other two branches are going to say, 'Uncle.' Just going to say, 'Enough. Can't take it.' I can't predict when that will be. I hope we don't come to that day because it would be an awful thing for our system to have the executive and legislative branches just defy the judicial branch. But their decisions historically have been so outrageous."

Mr. Christie says that he doesn't favor defying the judiciary but adds, "I need to change the composition of the court and I intend to."

But is he fundamentally changing the political culture of New Jersey? This week's reaction to his tax reform suggests that he is. Democrats largely responded with their own plans to cut taxes, focused on local property bills.

Still, the governor isn't declaring mission accomplished. "I don't want to sit here and take bows two years in, saying I've changed it," he says. "I think I'm making progress toward opening people's eyes and opening their ears to listening to a different approach. And all the Armageddon that the Democrats predicted when I had to do the things I had to do in the first two years, people are waking up this morning going, 'Hmm. Yeah, the sun's still shining. My kids are still going to school. My neighbor's got a job. He didn't have a job before. Maybe this guy knows something. Maybe it's working.'"

Mr. Freeman is assistant editor of the Journal's editorial page.

Barack Obama VIOLATED A Court Order And “Boycotted” His Eligibility Hearing In Georgia!

2012-01-28T01:53:00.001-08:00

Barack Obama VIOLATED A Court Order And “Boycotted” His Eligibility Hearing In Georgia!
Filed under: Uncategorized — theperpetualview @ 9:49 am Edit This
Tags: barack obama, Obama's right to be president, presidential eligibility, usurper
Rate This
Proving, Yet Again, That He Believes That He Is Above The Law, Barack Obama VIOLATED A Court Order And “Boycotted” His Eligibility Hearing In Georgia!
And just in case you’re thinking that he was be too busy performing his presidential duties to comply with a court order, think again. Instead, he campaigned in Las Vegas, Nevada.It’s an outrage. The man who has played over 73 rounds of golf, hits the campaign trail endlessly and has taken scores of lavish tax-payer funded vacations, simply can’t be bothered to comply with a court order and prove that he is indeed eligible to hold and seek the office that so many believe he has usurped.
And while Team Obama would like you to believe that challenges to his eligibility are no big deal, they are extremely worried. Attorney for the plaintiffs, Orly Taitz stated:“Make no mistake about it. This is the beginning of Watergate Two or ObamaForgeryGate. … a sitting president is ordered to comply with a subpoena, and produce documents, which might eventually bring criminal charges to the president and a number of high-ranking individuals.”

Ask yourself the following question: What would happen to you if you violated a court order and refused to show up at a hearing? The answer should be obvious. You’d do jail time!

Far too many believe that Barack Hussein Obama is indeed the Great Usurper and has perpetrated the greatest fraud of all time on the American people. But there’s only one thing worse than committing a great fraud; and that’s knowing that you can commit fraud with impunity. And Barack Hussein Obama KNOWS IT and he must be stopped!

In essence, Barack Hussein Obama is saying: To hell with the law… the courts… and the Congress… I AM THE LAW. That attitude does not simply make Barack Obama a dangerous man, it makes him the first American dictator. And that’s why, no matter what may happen on Thursday, we must take action!

Put Congress On Notice: Demand That Obama Prove That He Is Eligible To Hold The Office He Usurped Or Demand That He Take Himself Off The Ballot In All 50 States!

They thought they could get away with it. The elites in Washington and the media hoped and prayed that this issue would go away.

They must have been thinking: Surely, with an election close at hand, these pesky “birthers” will finally give up, go away, and let the man who never proved he was eligible to run for the office of President of the United States in the first place attempt to usurp the office a second time.

But that’s not going to happen. We can’t let it happen. A number of eligibility cases are still pending and Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse in Arizona is moving full-steam ahead. This issue is not going away, IT’S FINALLY BUILDING UP STEAM!

And now that a judge in Georgia FINALLY had the guts NOT to dismiss a case demanding that Barack Hussein Obama prove he is eligible to run for President, our cause has new life.

When Judge Michael Malihi initially denied Obama’s motion to dismiss the case, Attorney Orly Taitz exclaimed: “Thank you God! I am ready to cry! After 3 years of battles, for the first time a judge has ruled that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied. I can now depose Obama and everybody else involved without any impediment.”

And now that our cause has new life, we must strike. We need an avalanche of faxes. We must demand that they make Barack Hussein Obama PROVE that he is eligible to run for President of the United States or STRIKE HIS NAME FROM THE BALLOT.

“I Can Now Depose Obama And Everyone Else Involved Without Any Impediment.”

Taitz’s statement bears repeating because, up until now, judges have played hot potato with the eligibility issue. AlthoughTeam Obama has falsely stated that judges have ruled in Obama’s favor on the eligibility issue, the TRUTH is that in every single instance, Team Obama filed motions to dismiss these cases on purely procedural grounds and judges have gone along with them and simply used these motions as an excuse to avoid even hearing these cases in the first place.

They ALL simply refused to hear the cases. Far too many lacked the courage to be forever known as the judge who forced the Great Usurper to come clean. But Judge Malihi (at least for now) drew a line in the sand. He obvious understands that no man is above the law and ruled: “The Court has jurisdiction to hear this contested case pursuant to Chapter 13 of Title 50, the ‘Georgia Administrative Procedure Act.’”

But that’s not all. Judge Malihi also ruled: “The Georgia Election Code (the ‘Code’) mandates that ‘[e]very candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.’ … Both the Secretary of State and the electors of Georgia are granted the authority under the Code to challenge the qualifications of a candidate.”

In plain English, Malihi DROPPED A HUGE BOMB. He VALIDATED that public officials can’t hide behind pathetic excuses. They simply can’t “rubber stamp” candidate certifications.

They have a SOLEMN DUTY to ensure that candidates that appear on the ballot PROVE they are constitutionally eligible to seek office and they have a SOLEMN DUTY to CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF ANY CANDIDATE seeking office.

No matter what happens in Georgia, Malihi’s ruling is a HUGE VICTORY. And it is vitally important that our elected officials know that you know it as well… and that you will be watching them!
The Media Is Desperately Trying To Keep This Story Under Wraps.

Make no mistake, there is a media blackout on this story.

You’d think the leftist Barons of Bilge of the Mainstream Media would jump at the chance to report this ground-breaking story so that can twist it and cast more aspersions and heap more character assassinations at Taitz… but they’re not reporting it because they know that there’s no way to twist and distort what is going on. Malihi’s ruling is wonderful news… PERIOD!

According to a number of published reports, Taitz is asking the court to demand that Obama produce:

Any and all certified birth records including a long form birth certificate.
Certified school/university registration records. Certified immigration/naturalization records.

Certified passport records and;

Redacted certified Social Security card applications for each of the aliases and other legal names used by Barack Obama, including but not limited to his legal surname when adopted by step-father Lolo Soetoro.

Requests for these documents should not be diminished because, quite frankly, “highly doctored replicas” of a long-form birth certificate do not prove that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii… birth announcements published in a Hawaii newspaper do not prove that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii… and derisive comments from liberals in the media most certainly do not prove Obama was born in Hawaii.

And moreover, even if Obama was born in Hawaii, the courts must still settle the issue, once and for all, as to whether a child born to a resident alien and a 19 year-old American citizen is a “natural born citizen.”

As litigant Kevin R. Powell wrote in his complaint, “Barack Hussein Obama II has publicly admitted his father Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan native and a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. Barack Obama Sr. never became a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II is not now and never can be a natural born citizen of the United States.”

These questions must be answered and as long as those questions remain unanswered, we are in a Constitutional Crisis. The time to stand up and save our Republic is now. Do not allow your voice to go unheard!

the fox news feminists

2012-01-24T21:30:00.000-08:00

- Accuracy In Media - http://www.aim.org -

The Fox News Feminists
Posted By Cliff Kincaid On January 23, 2012 @ 12:02 am In AIM Column | Comments Disabled

As tens of thousands of Americans stage a “March for Life [1]” against abortion in Washington, D.C., new Fox News Channel paid contributor Sally Kohn will be singing the praises of the abortion industry. Kohn, a lesbian feminist, is an alumnus of the Women’s Media Center, which celebrates the 39th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that struck down all laws against abortion.

Kohn, the latest addition to the “Fox News Family,” has argued [2] that the Republican Party is trying to “kill women” by cutting funding for Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the U.S. The Women’s Media Center was founded in 2005 as a “progressive women’s media organization” by writers/activists Jane “Hanoi Jane” Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem.

The goal of the Women’s Media Center in “making women visible and powerful in the media” has achieved a noticeable objective in the hiring of Sally Kohn by the Fox News Channel. But it’s not the only feminist breakthrough with Fox. Jehmu Greene [3], who became a Fox News contributor in 2010, is a former president of the Women’s Media Center. She is also a Democratic Party operative who was the national director of Project Vote, a group with close ties to the corrupt ACORN organization.

ACORN whistleblower Anita Moncrief, a former Project Vote/ACORN employee, says Project Vote acquired funds to run voter registration drives through ACORN. But the ACORN connection has been curiously omitted in Jehmu Greene’s bios, and she gets extremely upset when it is mentioned, Moncrief told Accuracy in Media.

Moncrief wrote about Greene’s previously unknown relationship to ACORN through Project Vote in a column, “Former ACORN insider infiltrates Fox News,” which appeared on the website Hot Air [4] and other sites on September 7. “In 2006 ACORN was running a massive campaign across the country to raise the minimum wage,” she said. “Their efforts were tied in with Project Vote’s voter registration drive and the subsequent takeover of the House of Representatives by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats.”

Moncrief goes on, “As a tax exempt nonprofit, Project Vote acquired funds to run ‘non-partisan’ voter registration drives but ‘contracted’ with partisan ACORN.” She reproduced a 2004 “Joint Effort Agreement” [5] that provided legal cover for the two organizations “that, during my tenure, operated seamlessly as one.”

The Jehmu Greene connection to the corrupt entity is upsetting to Moncrief, who is trying to hold the organization and its operatives accountable. It is also upsetting, she said, because of Greene’s current employment at Fox News Channel, at a time when some conservative contributors to the channel have been writing and speaking critically about ACORN.

Moncrief wrote, “Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck and other Fox News personalities have been vilified in the mainstream media and threatened in their personal lives for exposing ACORN. It is an insult to them and average Americans to have a former ACORN insider using Fox News to espouse her liberal bias. From attacking Tim Tebow to smugly ‘representing’ blacks during segments called ‘Has Obama Abandoned the African-American Community?’ one has to question the judgment of Fox when folks like Walter Williams, Star Parker, Alfonzo Rachel and a host of others like them exist in the Conservative movement.”

Beck, of course, was fired from the channel last year after he did numerous exposés of the “progressive” community, including ACORN, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Soros-funded entities and Soros himself.

While Greene’s ACORN connection is just starting to attract media attention, Sally Kohn’s involvement in one of the leading Soros-funded groups, the Center for Community Change, is causing concern among long-time viewers of the popular cable channel. Many see her hiring as evidence of Soros acquiring control of, or influence over, the channel. Some believe Fox News is being blackmailed to accommodate the far-left.

The reaction to my January 19 column [6] on this topic has been one of shock and surprise at Fox News hiring far-left personnel. Under the headline, “Fox News Hires Soros Subversive [7],” a reference to Kohn, Atlas Shrugs blogger Pamela Geller wrote, “Unbelievable. Rational voices are continually given the shaft, prohibited from the airwaves, and these agitators and subversives are given respect, salaries and the imprimatur of legitimacy. The right does not have ONE network. Not one.”

Described by one of her fans as “totally the next Rachel Maddow—only funnier,” Kohn once recorded a video [8] mocking Glenn Beck for his political views, during which she claimed that Hitler and Mussolini were “conservative political heroes” and implying that Beck was a fascist. Kohn is now appearing regularly on the channel and writes for the channel’s popular website. Beck, on the other hand, now hosts an Internet TV program, GBTV [9].

On WorldNetDaily, which posted my column on Kohn’s official hiring as a member of the “Fox News Family,” the reaction included comments like this:

Looks like Fox News had fallen into the same black hole as the rest of the mass media. I wonder how much it cost Soros to buy Fox.
FOX has sold out to Soros, I am saddened by this.
Most likely Fox knuckled under to blackmail. Soros went after Murdoch’s Empire with the hacking investigation against News of the World using the left-wing Guardian newspaper.
Let’s see, they hired Juan Williams, kept Colmes and are hiring Kohn. Add them to Beckel, along with firing Beck, and it seems like Fox wants the liberal viewers more than they want to be “fair and balanced.”
Readers of my column at GOPUSA.com said:

We have been seeing a left turn by Fox News. I recommend GBTV, Glenn’s new network is looking good, and Glenn is back in great form. GBTV is more than worth the small subscription fee.
I have noticed this for a while. Every time I turn on Fox News there seems to be a new liberal guest commentator. If I wanted liberal I’d turn on MSNBC, so I rarely watch Fox anymore.
I think it’s fine to have reasonable liberals like Juan Williams and even Beckel on Fox News, but this woman has been bothering me and actually turning me off to Bill’s shows.
What a shame! We are so disappointed in Fox News…I wonder if Soros got to them as he did with Glenn Beck! What else is there to watch??? Maybe someone needs to start a new conservative cable news channel????
The popular Moonbattery blog, whose slogan is, “Driving a stake through the heart of the lunatic left,” commented [10], “Even with Geraldo Rivera, Shep Smith, Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, et al., the suits at Fox News apparently feel they don’t provide soapboxes to enough flaming moonbats to qualify as Fair and Balanced. Now they are importing George Soros-financed ultra-radical Rachel Maddow types. If we wanted to listen to leftists shriek, we would turn the channel to MSNBC. At least if Fox News goes full moonbat, we can save the money spent on cable bills by putting our TV sets out with the trash.”

Fox News Insider, the official blog of the Fox News Channel, hailed her addition to the line-up. It said [11], “Congratulations to the newest member of the Fox News Channel team, Sally Kohn. Today she joined Alisyn Camerota on America Live for the first time as a contributor. Kohn is the founder and chief education officer of the Movement Vision Lab.”

She has already written 20 columns [12] for the Fox News website.

But the “Movement Vision Lab” appears not to exist. Clicking on the group’s [13] website takes you to Kohn’s personal website.

The Movement Vision Lab was once a special project of the Center for Community Change, one of the major Soros-funded groups in the country. It was described [14] as an effort “To create a space in which grassroots organizers and social justice activists can share, rate, and debate progressive, visionary ideas for the future.”

An old press release says the group’s blog would “include podcast interviews with prominent progressive leaders like Service Employees International Union head Andy Stern, who will discuss their ideas for the future.”

Stern has since left his leadership post at the SEIU to travel to Communist China on a junket paid for by the Soros-funded Center for American Progress. He wrote a column [15] for the Wall Street Journal after the trip headlined, “China’s Superior Economic Model.” He praised China’s system of central government planning of the economy.

Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org

URL to article: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-fox-news-feminists/

URLs in this post:

[1] March for Life: http://www.marchforlife.org/
[2] argued: http://twitter.com/#%21/sallykohn/status/35493437834919936
[3] Jehmu Greene: http://twitter.com/jehmu
[4] Hot Air: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/09/07/former-acorn-insider-infiltrates-fox-news/
[5] 2004 “Joint Effort Agreement”: http://media.hotair.com/greenroom/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/JEA.jpg
[6] column: http://www.aim.org../../../../../aim-column/fox-news-hires-soros-funded-activist/
[7] Fox News Hires Soros Subversive: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/01/fox-news-hires-soros-subversive.html
[8] video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL8k-TqHeV4
[9] GBTV: http://web.gbtv.com/index.jsp
[10] commented: http://moonbattery.com/?p=7120
[11] said: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/01/16/welcome-sally-kohn-to-the-fox-news-channel-family/
[12] 20 columns: http://www.foxnews.com/archive/author/sally-kohn/index.html
[13] the group’s: http://sallykohn.com/
[14] described: http://www.causes.com/causes/46458-movement-vision-lab
[15] column: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204630904577056490023451980.html

Universities Abandon Western Civilization

2012-01-23T20:41:00.001-08:00

- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -

Universities Abandon Western Civilization

Posted By Tait Trussell On January 23, 2012 @ 12:00 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 17 Comments

Most students no longer are taught their nation’s triumphs that would equip them to be knowledgeable citizens.

Major universities have turned from instruction in the significance of Western Civilization to the “profound” influence of Lady Gaga, (real name: Stephanie Germanotta), the bizarre recording artist whose commercial success has somehow topped charts around the world. In some colleges today even history majors don’t have to delve into our nation’s influences and beginings.

The national Association of Scholars, in a new analysis, “The Vanishing West: 1964-2010,” describes the tragic near disappearance of the study of Western Civilization from the American undergraduate curriculum.

Four top-tier universities now offer Lady Gaga’s influence in music, the arts, fashion and the LGBT lifestyle. At the same time, shockingly, none of the schools—University of Virginia, University of South Carolina, Wake Forest, and Arizona State require their students to study history to get their diploma.

Western civilization courses have been scratched from the general education requirements. They have been replaced in large part by courses that either undermine traditions in the West or “Balkanize” the curriculum. For example, black studies emphasize the plight of blacks. Women’s studies enthuse over the rising role of women. Yet American history, when it is available and required, emphasizes conflict, exploitation and imperial goals. Third World studies typically relate supposed abuse and unfair dominance by the West.

Polls indicate that students are alienated from their own culture. Witness the Occupy Wall Street Movement., so warmly embraced by Obama forces. Young people who will vote this year and some of whom will eventually be the nation’s leaders are no longer learning about their civilization’s triumphs and its role in transforming the human condition.

“[F]or much of the twentieth century the Western history survey course was the standard means by which colleges and universities provided American undergraduates with a coherent nature of their civilization’s rise,” the National Association of Scholars (NAS) said. The studies told of the exceptionalism of the United States, a national characteristic which Barack Obama disparages.

“Western Civilization courses had deep symbolic importance for those who were seeking to refocus the undergraduate curriculum on multiculturalism and diversity,” the NAS declared. “When in 1987 Jesse Jackson led Stanford protestors in a chant of ‘Hey hey, ho ho, Western Culture’s got to go,’ the object was not to displace mathematics or English literature, but eliminate a course that focused on Western Civilization,” the analysis recalled. Getting rid of Western Civilization courses reflected an ideological hostility. “Western Civilization” had come to be seen by radicals as a form of apologetics for racism, imperialism, sexism, and colonialism.

The first, comprehensive, multi-year investigation of subjects being taught in colleges across the country was “One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America’s Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy,” by David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin in 2009. They cited more than 150 courses revealing the left-wing politics infused in liberal arts curriculum, including attempts to convince students that America is imperialistic and racist. An earlier book (2006) by Horowitz, “The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America,” exposed those with terrorist or non-democratic goals.

Lynne Cheney, former chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, in 1994 launched an attack on the group then developing National History Guidelines for the schools. In an editorial page article in the Wall Street Journal, Cheney described the proposed history standards as a “grim and gloomy” portrayal of American history.

“Imagine an outline for teaching American history,” Cheney wrote, “in which George Washington makes only a fleeting appearance and is never described as our first president. Or in which the founding of the Sierra Club and the National Organization for Women are considered noteworthy events, but the first gathering of the U.S. Congress is not.”

Cheney continued to fight for truthful portrayals of the glorious events leading to the adoption of our Constitution, when she served on the Bicentennial Commission on the U.S. Constitution in the mid-1980s. I was proud to serve with her at the time.

In their new study, the National Association of Scholars found only one in 75 top universities required students to study western civilization. In 1964, more than half required students take a two-semester course covering the history of western civilization from Greece to the modern era. The other half of the universities had required courses guaranteeing that students understood the history of their society.

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni, asking “What Will They Learn,” found that only 20 percent of universities require students to take a U.S. government or history course. Only 5 percent make students take an economics class. The Council said schools should expect graduates to be competitive in the world.

When parents write checks for $20,000 or more a year for college, they expect a young person to be equipped for a job. But Obamanomics has slammed the door on that prospect for many. Most thinking parents also expect the schooling would yield not only an ability to read and write but also some knowledge of history and politics. The widespread political ignorance was shown in 2008 in the election of Obama.

The National Association of Scholars said young people “are no longer learning about their civilization’s great story, its triumphs, its vicissitudes, and its singular role in transforming the human condition. What is the future of a civilization whose heirs have largely become blinded to its history?” it asked rhetorically.

The widespread emphasis on ‘multiculturalism’ is no answer. Historical scholarship, including our knowledge of interactions with other civilizations and cultures would probably have to be included. “The Vanishing West offers 23 recommendations aimed at better studying the problem and rebuilding the curriculum.

Today, at too many colleges thematic fields can include “comparative colonialism,” “gender and sexuality,” “law and society,” “race and ethnicity,” “urban history,” “Africa and the Diaspora,” and “The Border/LaFrontera.” Often no requirements are specified within the concentration or the field of study, leaving student discretion in choosing such courses as “American Sexual Histories,” “Sex, Lies, and Diaries,” or “Elvis, Dylan and Postwar America.”

Certainly as disturbing as the disappearance of the study of the Western ascent toward liberty is the reality that 1960s terrorist Bill Ayers, leader of the Weather Underground, the communist revolutionary group, and former professor at the University of Illinois, was a mentor to Barack Obama.

The Genetic Fallacy

2012-01-23T20:31:00.000-08:00

BEST OF THE WEB TODAYJANUARY 23, 2012
The Genetic Fallacy
Logic and race in 21st-century America.
By JAMES TARANTO

As South Carolina was handing Newt Gingrich his first victory Saturday, New York Times columnist Charles Blow was, not surprisingly, denouncing the former speaker for "appealing to . . . an ugly, gut-level anger and animosity among a sizable portion of the Republican electorate."

This animosity, Blow suggests, is racial in nature, although it takes a curious form: "the belief among many Republican voters that race is inconsequential to one's ability to succeed in this country. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll released this week, Republican voters, particularly those in the South, were more likely than all voters to say that blacks and whites have an equal chance of getting ahead in today's society." What Blow is describing isn't prejudice against blacks but a favorable opinion of America--unrealistically favorable, in Blow's view.

Blow followed up on his column with a Saturday tweet: "Don't need Newt 2 tell me abt blk ppl, work and food stamps. Ancestors worked 4 free, nearly starved 2 death & were branded w cattle stamps!" (The shortened words and numerals are to fit the message into Twitter's 140-character limit.)

We tweeted back: "A RT [retweet] to the first reply that correctly identifies the logical fallacy @CharlesMBlow commits in the tweet I just RT'd." This provoked a flurry of responses, including one directing us to a subsequent Blow Tweet: "I have a full-blown stalker at the WSJ... #block." He did indeed block our Twitter account, which means, among other things, that our tweets mentioning him are invisible to him. We await Julian Sanchez's disquisition about the liberal left's "epistemic closure."

The answer we were looking for, and congrats to Christopher Lewallen for coming up with it, is the genetic fallacy. As the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains: "A critic commits the genetic fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant." Blow's appeal to his own authority based on the injustices his ancestors endured is an especially literal case of the genetic fallacy; his claim is that his DNA supports his argument. But the genetic fallacy can also involve the origins of an idea or an institution.

Here's another example: You often hear conservatives point out that defenders of segregation during the Jim Crow era were almost all Democrats, and specifically that more Democratic lawmakers than Republicans (in proportion as well as number) voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The conclusion, whether explicit or implicit, is that the GOP deserves to be considered the party of civil rights. Although the factual basis for the argument is true, the reasoning is fallacious. The parties have changed so much in their regional and ideological compositions since 1964 that the 48-year-old comparison is irrelevant, or very nearly so, in evaluating them today.

The genetic fallacy is useful in understanding this columnist's own theory of race in contemporary America. Our view is that the prevailing left-liberal understanding of race is based in a genetic fallacy--that liberals view black-white relations in terms of the social and political order that prevailed in the middle of the 20th century, ignoring or denying how thoroughly that order was upended by the civil rights revolution, which culminated in the 1964 act. (They do not, of course, make the error in Republicans' favor that we noted in the preceding paragraph, though they sometimes gloss over the Democratic Party's segregationist past.)

Ta-Nehisi Coates of The Atlantic responds to our Tuesday column--in which we described the previous night's standing ovation for Gingrich as, "next to the election of a black president, . . . the most compelling dramatization of racial progress so far this century"--with a powerfully written and indignant post:

Again if you really want to believe that racism "lives on in the minds of liberals" and that Gingrich's address to Williams stands just below the election of the country's first black president, I'm sure you can marshal some sort of evidence for support. If your chief goal, as a thinking person, is to find a path to making yourself right, you may never amount to much of a thinking person, but you can never be disappointed. . . .
People who are regularly complicit in wrong, are not in the habit of admitting such things. The unwillingness to admit wrong, the greedy claim upon the powers of disappointment, the deep sense of injury is not coincidental--it is a necessary fact of wrong-doing. The charge that the NAACP are the actual racist is the descendant of the notion that abolitionists wanted to reduce Southern whites to "slavery," that the goal of civil rights was the rape of white women. That Barack Obama would have a "deep-seated hatred of white people" is not a new concept.
We should note, as Coates does not, that this column has never taken the position "that the NAACP [is] the actual racist" or that the president has a "deep-seated hatred of white people" (the latter is a 2009 quote from Glenn Beck). Both statements seem quite wrong to us, although we have argued that the NAACP of today (or, to be precise, of 2010) falls short of its professed devotion to the ideal of racial equality.

But it seems to us equally wrong to describe either of these foolish statements as a "descendant" of the arguments once offered in defense of slavery and Jim Crow. Instead, they are ill-considered reactions to a new kind of inequality that developed in the wake of the civil rights revolution, defined by Shelby Steele in his brilliant 2006 book, "White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era":

This is when I first really saw white guilt in action. Now I know it to be something very specific: the vacuum of moral authority that comes from simply knowing that one's race is associated with racism. Whites (and American institutions) must acknowledge historical racism to show themselves redeemed of it, but once they acknowledge it, they lose moral authority over everything having to do with race, equality, social justice, poverty, and so on. They step into a world of vulnerability. The authority they lost transfers to the "victims" of historical racism and becomes their great power in society. This is why white guilt is quite literally the same thing as black power.
It is prudent to acknowledge that the "black power" Steele describes is much more circumscribed than the "white power"--white supremacy--that prevailed in the antebellum or Jim Crow South (and to a lesser extent in other parts of the country). In a culture of white guilt, blacks do not have the power to oppress whites, only to command deference when the subject turns to race or related matters.

Podcast

James Taranto on the genetic fallacy.

Nonetheless, to those whites for whom white guilt is not rooted in experience--those, including this columnist, who are too young to remember a time when full citizenship for blacks was a cruel fiction--the culture of white guilt can seem unfair and irrational, and can be a source of irritation and anger. Why is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People respected while a National Association for the Advancement of White People would be considered racist? Why did Obama get away with calling his grandmother "a typical white person," when a white politician who made the same statement about a black person would be pilloried?

There are reasonable answers to questions like these--answers that are obvious to those who are old enough to remember Jim Crow or who have a sufficiently deep understanding of American history. What is not a reasonable answer is a hectoring assertion of one's own moral authority, either as a black person or as an enlightened white.

White guilt was probably a necessary and unintended consequence of the civil rights revolution. It's an example of Saul Alinsky's "key of converses":

Seeing everything in its duality, we begin to get some dim clues to direction and what it's all about. It is in these contradictions and their incessant interacting tensions that creativity begins. As we begin to accept the concept of contradictions we see every problem or issue in its whole, interrelated sense. We then recognize that for every positive there is a negative, and that there is nothing positive without its concomitant negative, nor any political paradise without its negative side.
What Alinsky describes is a complex interplay, not a zero-sum game. He believed in progress, and so do we. Compared with white supremacy, white guilt represents an enormous moral step forward. For this reason, we do not share the pessimism Steele expresses in his subtitle.

One cannot go backward. White supremacy is as good as dead, and white guilt is dying along with guilty whites of older generations. Both these developments constitute progress toward racial equality. The election of a black president was the most compelling dramatization this country has seen of the death of white supremacy. In our view, it is also hastening the demise of white guilt.

That is why we characterized Gingrich's standing ovation as the 21st century's second most compelling dramatization of racial progress. Here again is what Gingrich said to provoke the applause: "I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness, and if that makes liberals unhappy, I'm going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and learn someday to own the job."

If a politician had said those words in 1964 (minus the swipe at "liberals," which wouldn't have made sense back then), his statement would have constituted a rejection of white supremacy. Today it is a rejection of white guilt. The words are as true today as they would have been then.

Some of those who stood and cheered last week surely had ancestors who believed in white supremacy and would have bristled (or worse) at the suggestion that "every American of every background" is equal. By enthusiastically applauding instead, they gave the lie to the liberal left's genetic fallacy.

Judge Rules Obama Must Prove Presidential Eligibility In Georgia Courtroom On Thursday

2012-01-23T20:16:00.001-08:00

Judge Rules Obama Must Prove Presidential Eligibility In Georgia Courtroom On Thursday

JANUARY 23, 2012 BY DOUG BOOK

For those who have waited 3 years for a judge to finally rule that Barack Hussein Obama must prove that he is legally and Constitutionally qualified to run for or serve as President of the United States, the day may have come at last.

For on Friday, Georgia State Office of Administrative Hearings Judge Michael Malihi ruled that subpoenas demanding the presence of Barack Obama in his Georgia courtroom on January 26th along with the original form of his Hawaii birth certificate and information on his myriad Social Security numbers will remain in force.

Obama ‘s attorney Michael Jablonski had filed a motion to quash those subpoenas, arguing if Obama were made to answer questions before the court it would “…[require] him to interrupt duties as President of the United States…” (1)

It was also Obama’s claim that “presidential electors and Congress, not the State of Georgia, hold the Constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates.” (1)

Well Judge Malihi did not agree with Obama’s arguments that the laws of the State of Georgia were somehow irrelevant to the process, or that his presence in the court would materially interfere with his ability to discharge the duties of his office.

In his decision to allow the subpoenas to remain in force, Malihi wrote, “…Defendant (Obama) has failed to cite any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that testimony…is irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.’ ” (2)

In short, as Judge Malihi so eloquently put it, “”Defendants motion to quash is denied.” (2)

The process before Judge Mahili began when a number of Georgia residents filed 3 separate lawsuits demanding that Barack Obama provide evidence of having met State of Georgia election law requirements before being placed on the ballot. Malihi agreed with the plaintiffs, quoting in his ruling Georgia law which states “…every candidate for federal office shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” (3)

In that ruling, Mahili stated “the court finds that the defendant (Barack Obama) is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” (3)

Though Obama has managed to ooze his way out of legal responsibilities and requirements in the past, this time it really might be a bit thick for the acting president. Even the radically leftist Southern Poverty Law Center has decided to weigh in, giving vent to a typically childish attack of spleen in its “Hatewatch” column no less, where it snivels “…Malihi’s decision has been heralded far and wide as a defining moment for those who have hounded Obama about his lineage.” (4)

Apparently demands that Barack Hussein Obama actually abide by the laws of the land and the Constitution of the United States make for a clear case of “hounding” to an organization known to file suit at the drop of a conservative hat.

Here’s hoping Judge Malihi’s courtroom turns liberal petulance to leftist rage on January 26th. For Malihi’s ruling that day will determine whether or not Barack Hussein Obama may be certified by the Democrat Party to appear on the Georgia ballot in November. And as the Liberty Legal Foundation explains it, “without such a certification from the Party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election.” (5)

To read more use these links: To read more use these links:

(1) http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Farrar-v-Obama-motion-to-quash-subpoenas.pdf

(2) http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-PowellvObama,OrderonMotiontoQuashSubpoenas,GeorgiaBallotChallenge.pdf

(3) http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/court-obama-must-be-constitutionally-eligible/

(4) http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/01/18/georgia-court-to-hear-arguments-on-obamas-eligibility-for-primary-ballot/

(5) http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1209/no-certification-without-verification/

Obama's hidden past unraveled

2012-01-22T20:48:00.000-08:00

http://youtu.be/ZGmZ0fhH5fM

The Islamist Plan for Victory: “Gradualism”

2012-01-19T22:11:00.001-08:00

Accuracy In Media - http://www.aim.org -

The Islamist Plan for Victory: “Gradualism”

Posted By Ryan Mauro On January 17, 2012 @ 1:36 pm In Guest Columns | 2 Comments

One of the mistakes that the West makes is that it doesn’t listen to what the Islamists are saying. If only we listened, we could hear their strategy. On November 20, Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, the top Muslim Brotherhood theologian and arguably the most influential Sunni cleric in the world, called on [1] Muslims to embrace “gradualism.”

The doctrine of gradualism is successful because we fail to appreciate the ability of the Islamists to be skillful political strategists. Gradualism is an intelligent form of jihad based on pragmatism, patience, long-term planning and self-evaluation. The Islamists evaluate their performance and recalibrate their strategy accordingly. The West misinterprets this as being “moderate,” when in reality, not all Islamists are as reckless as Al-Qaeda.

“Gradualism in applying the Sharia is a wise requirement to follow,” Qaradawi declared, stating that Mohammed followed it.

The Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, have always worked in stages. In December, the Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide, Mohamed Badi, outlined [2] six phases: Sharia over the individual; Sharia over the family; Sharia over the society; Sharia over the government; the resurrection of the Caliphate and finally, “mastership of the world.” The Muslim Brotherhood is in the process of completing the fourth phase in Egypt.

In this stage, the Islamists implement Sharia by describing it as their form of “democracy” and “freedom.” They will argue that each democracy is different and so we must be tolerant of their version. Sheikh Qaradawi explains [3], “What I am for is a genuine type of democracy, for a society driven by the laws of Sharia that is compatible with the values of freedom, human rights, justice and equity.”

Qaradawi admits that “our democracy is different.” Secular democracy like that in the West does not honor God and is immoral. “Democracy itself also can make what it wants as lawful, or prohibit anything it does not like. In comparison, the Sharia as a political system has limits. If we are to adopt democracy, we should adopt its best features.”

As far back as 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood had drawn up a 12-point strategy to “establish an Islamic government on earth.” It was discovered when the Swiss authorities raided the home of Yousef Nada in 2001 and is referred to as “The Project.” [4]

The document says to exercise “flexibility at the local level” and “to reconcile political engagement and the necessity of avoiding isolation on one hand, with permanent education and institutional action on the other.” It calls for “controlling the local centers of power through institutional action” and to build alliances with other Islamic groups even if there are disagreements. It supports “temporary cooperation” with non-Muslim groups that are anti-Israel and “struggle against colonialism.”

The strategy document says the worldwide Brotherhood must “support movements engaged in jihad across the Muslim world” but “should not look for confrontation with our adversaries, at the local or the global scale, which would be disproportionate and could lead to attacks.” It talks of constructive “self-criticism” and using the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to further its strategy, “since it acts as the keystone of the renaissance of the Arab world today.” In other words, use the conflict to radicalize the masses.

Hamas, a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, also acts in accordance with gradualism. In December, the leader of Hamas stated [5] that it was working towards the “interim objective of liberation of Gaza, the West Bank, or Jerusalem.” The destruction of Israel, or in the Islamists’ words, the “liberation of all Palestine,” follows.

Wherever the Muslim Brotherhood and similar Islamists operate, there is a phased strategy—even in the United States. The Islamic Circle of North America, one of the most powerful Muslim-American groups in the U.S., explained [6] its five phases in its handbook published in 2010 and it very closely follows what Badie said in Egypt. The phases are: Educating yourself; Converting your family; Outreach into the community; “establish an Islamic society” on the state level and then a “united Islamic state, governed by an elected khalifah in accordance with the laws of Sharia.”

An FBI memo written in 1988 likewise documented [7] that a source, apparently within the ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S., described a six-phased plan. At the time, the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically the International Institute of Islamic Thought and the North American Islamic Trust, were working on the first phase. It included creating “political action front groups with no traceable ties” so that it can “peacefully get inside the United States government and also American universities.” The source told the FBI that Brotherhood operatives “claimed success infiltrating the United States government.”

In 2004, the FBI found seized another Brotherhood strategy document [8] that describes its “work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization within.” It describes 5 phases:

The “secret establishment of leadership”
“…gradual appearance on the public scene.” This phase calls for “infiltrating various sectors of government,” “gaining religious institutions,” “gaining public support and sympathy,” and “establishing a shadow government.”
“Escalation phase.” This focuses on “utilizing mass media” and the document says that this stage is “currently in progress.” Unfortunately, we do not know when this was written.
“Open confrontation with the government through…political pressure.” It also calls for “training on the use of weapons domestically” and says that there are “noticeable activities in this regard.” Could this have something to do with the Jamaat ul-Fuqra training camps on American soil?
The final phase: “Seizing power to establish their Islamic Nation under which all parties and Islamic groups are united.”
The Islamists have a comprehensive long-term strategy for victory that’s been around for decades. It’s about time that we made one of our own.

Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org

URL to article: http://www.aim.org/guest-column/the-islamist-plan-for-victory-gradualism/

URLs in this post:

[1] called on: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3336/muslim-brotherhood-cleric-calls-for-gradualism-in

[2] outlined: http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/574431

[3] explains: http://www.newcivilisation.com/home/middle-east/an-open-letter-to-sheikh-yusuf-qaradawi

[4] “The Project.”: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4475

[5] stated: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/151160#.TxHguG_2bw0

[6] explained: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2373/hand-book-shows-icna-true-goals

[7] documented: http://www.investigativeproject.org/737/forgotten-investigation-emails-offer-insight-into-iiit-probe

[8] strategy document: http://bigpeace.com/teamb/2010/10/26/fbi-captured-muslim-brotherhoods-strategic-plan/

Keystone XL pipeline by Dr. Bob Allen

2012-01-19T21:09:00.001-08:00

January 20, 2012
Keystone XL pipeline by Dr. Bob Allen
Filed under: Uncategorized — theperpetualview @ 5:06 am Edit This
Tags: arkansas tech, keystone xl pipeline
Rate This
Keystone XL pipeline
by Dr. Bob Allen
01.18.12 – 12:00 pm And this person is a professor that is indoctrinating your children at Tech!
The last federal budget kerfuffle involved extending the payroll tax break. Republicans didn’t see this tax break for middle-income workers as appropriate as it would reduce revenues and therefore increase the debt. The Democrats, on the other hand, felt it was necessary to continue supporting the struggling middle class. As the fight went on, the Republicans saw popular support on the side of the tax extension.
To extract their pound of flesh, the Republicans demanded an earlier decision on construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. This is a proposed pipeline that would move crude oil from Canadian tar sands in west central Canada to refineries near the Gulf of Mexico, a distance of more than 2,000 miles.

Contrary to the now famous quote of Rick Perry, “Every barrel of oil that comes out of those sands in Canada is a barrel of oil that we don’t have to buy from a foreign source,” Canada is a foreign country. Granted it is not Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, but foreign just the same.

Currently the No. 1 oil exporter to the United Sates is Canada, sending us close to 3 million barrels of oil per day which is about 15 percent of our total oil imports. Much of the oil comes from tar sand formations which contain a heavy crude oil called bitumen intermingled with sandy soil. The oil is produced by large scale strip mining of the tar sands which then must be heated with steam to lower the viscosity so that the oil can be separated from the sand.

Virtually all of the oil from this source is already making its way to refineries via a network of existing pipelines to in the Midwest so the construction of this pipeline will not decrease our dependance on foreign oil. What it will do is raise the cost of Midwest Refinery products such as gasoline and diesel fuel. This is because there currently is excess supply in the Midwest. If the Canadian oil is diverted to the refineries in the Gulf region, then the lower supply in the Midwest will cause an increase in price there.

So what if the oil goes to refineries in the Gulf region, won’t that mean lower price refined products there? Not necessarily. This heavy crude is destined for refineries which will produce refined products for export to European and Asian markets and on a tax free basis.

What about jobs? Estimates of the number of jobs created range from 20,000 to 100,000, at least from a Republican perspective. The State Department, however, suggested that only 5,000 temporary jobs will be created in the construction, and a pittance for maintenance and operation.

The pipeline will move environmentally destructive foreign oil across the Midwest with the attendant risk of oil spills, and in so doing raising the cost of oil in the Midwest The oil will flow to refineries which will convert it to products for export. Finally it will create a limited number of temporary jobs.

By building the pipeline we risk degrading the environment and increase the contribution to global warming with a negative economic impact to the United States.

Dr. Allen, a chemistry professor at Arkansas Tech University, has been interested in resource conservation and energy issues throughout his career. He has given numerous presentations on his research funded from a combination of private, state and federal grant agencies. The research has included recycling strategies, energy from biological sources such as biodiesel, and photovoltaic energy.

So Canada is a dangerous foreign country sending American environmentally destructive Oil. What a crock!!!

Huntsman to quit presidential race

2012-01-15T20:56:00.003-08:00

Huntsman to quit presidential race – FT.com 1/15/12 10:46 PM

January 16, 2012 3:26 am

Huntsman to quit presidential race By Richard McGregor in Washington

Getty

Jon Huntsman will announce on Monday that he is quitting the Republican presidential race after months of campaigning failed to win him much support within his party’s increasingly rightwing ranks.

Mr Huntsman, a former Utah governor who also served as Barack Obama’s ambassador to China, managed third place in last week’s New Hampshire primary, but did not get a large enough share of the

vote to propel him into the running for the nomination.

As someone who has styled himself as a moderate, the January 21 primary in conservative South Carolina offered only further bleakness. In polls taken ahead of the vote, Mr Huntsman has recorded levels of support of five per cent and under.

While his exit was not unexpected, the timing of his departure caught other campaigns by surprise. After previously declaring that he would carry on after New Hampshire, Mr Huntsman appears to have decided that a dignified exit now would be better than possible and likely humiliation in South Carolina.

His campaign is also running out of money, and he has been reluctant both to spend his own personal fortune, and take money from his father, a successful businessman.

Mr Huntsman is now expected to endorse the candidacy of Mitt Romney, despite in recent weeks saying that the former Massachusetts governor has “no core”. An endorsement for Mr Romney would add to the increasing inevitability surrounding the front-runner’s candidacy.

Mr Huntsman’s spokesman did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Sunday evening.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d3588f9c-3fee-11e1-8809-00144feab49a.html#axzz1jar2Vg2U Page 1 of 2

Is this the next big thing in sports?

2012-01-14T22:17:00.001-08:00

http://online.wsj.com/video/st-paul-hosts-ice-cross-championships/7EFF9771-7153-4ED6-8B33-4EDF5B578BCB.html

To Kill a Military

2012-01-11T22:37:00.001-08:00

To Kill a Military

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On January 11, 2012 @ 12:18 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 3 Comments

In George Soros’ book, “The Bubble of American Supremacy,” he writes that in the clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, the victory would go to the former over the latter. “Although the West has material superiority, Islam will prevail because it has a major competitive advantage: it is not afraid of death.”

Fear of death is certainly one element in Obama’s new skeletal program of defense cuts, which stresses drones and “cyberwarfare” while cutting as many as a hundred thousand troops. Drones and cyberwarriors don’t die or get taken prisoner. They can take out the occasional target with no human cost involved. But they are also impotent in any larger conflict. They can enable us to take out the occasional Al-Qaeda terrorist or slow down Iran’s nuclear program, but they are no match for an outright invasion.

Democratic administrations have a history of favoring these types of bloodless wars that rely on extensive bombardment without exposing troops to any casualties. But cruise missiles and bombing raids can only do so much. The Clinton administration’s bombing of Iraqi targets produced no results. Nor will drones and cyberattacks be effective in stopping any major moves by North Korea or Iran.

The larger element behind the cuts is the Democratic Party’s discomfort with a large standing army. To the left having a sizable military creates the temptation to use it and the only way to check that temptation is to dismantle and weaken it as much as possible. The half trillion in cuts, which will affect everything from next generation fighter jets to troop numbers, will certainly do that. Even after this administration has gone it will have left behind the same legacy of decay and neglect that the Clinton administration did.

Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has boasted that over the next four years the cuts in defense spending would be “as rapid as any we experienced after Vietnam or after the Cold War.” But that isn’t anything to boast about. Both sets of cuts had disastrous long term consequences for military preparedness.

Defenders of the cuts have pointed to how much defense spending has increased during the War on Terror, but these increases were necessary not only due to the conflict, but to compensate for drastic cuts carried out during the Clinton administration. Rearmament after a period of disarmament is more expensive than maintaining consistent but sustainable preparedness just as maintaining a car is cheaper than letting it go to rust in your front yard and then trying to fix it ten years later when you suddenly need a ride. The Obama administration’s defense cuts will translate into more spending as a future administration finds itself rebuilding the military that Obama’s people junked.

Defense spending still represents less than 5 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. That is about half of what it was at the height of the Cold War. Obama is trying to push it back down to the 3 percent that it was under the Clinton administration, which might be more defensible if he had managed to resolve any of the two wars he inherited so that future military intervention became an unlikely prospect. But instead his pullouts in Iraq and Afghanistan have only laid the ground for future conflicts. On top of that Obama began an entirely new conflict in Libya with unknown implications for the future, and failed to neuter the threats from North Korea and Iran.

The Clinton administration’s cuts were mildly defensible, coming as they did in a period when Americans could reasonably believe that there were no major conflicts lingering on the horizon. But no such evasion of responsibility is possible today even as the old Clinton hands are up to their old tricks while the War on Terror remains unresolved. The rose-colored glasses have been stomped underfoot in the rush to escape the Pentagon on September 11. Not even the most irresponsible foreign policy experts believes that we are entering a time of peace, and, therefore, we clearly cannot afford the luxury of unilateral disarmament.

To put the numbers into perspective, the fastest growing part of the budget isn’t defense spending, it’s interest on the national debt. And the interest alone is expected to pass 3 percent of GDP by 2016. If Obama is reelected then by the end of his term the interest on the national debt will cost more than national defense will. We will not have a military capable of reacting to any threats against the United States, but at the least the bulk of those threats will be coming from debt collectors.

The cruelest role is being played by Soros’s Center for American Progress in championing health care cuts for military personnel. Their attacks on the military’s Tricare benefits point to the superior health care benefits for military personnel, both active and retired, over those of civilian Federal employees. But their arguments ignore the larger picture.

There are the unquestionably superior sacrifices made by military personnel in their service, which include serious risk to life and limb. A risk not suffered by bureaucrats at the EPA or the EEOC or any of the other useless leftist bureaucratic entities sucking up taxpayer money and accounting for the 2,500 lawyers hired by the government every year. But civilian federal employees also enjoy better salaries than their military counterparts.

An E1 private in the army will earn 17, 611 dollars. That’s less than welfare payments are in some states. A Second Lieutenant will earn 33,408 dollars. This is well below even the starting salaries for many federal employees which have increased significantly under the Obama administration. The average federal employee has a 75,000 dollar salary. Nearly twenty thousand more than the average military salary. Health care and housing benefits for the military help make life viable for military personnel and their families living on salaries that a parasitic EPA lawyer helping to destroy the economy wouldn’t even sneeze at.

Even while the Obama administration is making drastic cuts to the military, it has plowed more money into the welfare state than ever. Means-tested welfare spending increased to 910 billion dollars in 2011 amounting to a 50 percent increase over Bush administration budgets. That’s 200 billion dollars more than the Department of Defense budget.

These numbers suggest that the Obama administration would rather have potential soldiers on welfare than serving in the armed forces. And that isn’t far from the truth. Welfare recipients are dependent on the Democratic Party while the military tends to lean to the right. Increasing the welfare rolls and decreasing the rolls of the armed forces is another way to increase the voting base for the Democratic Party.

From any angle the proposed military cuts are dangerously irresponsible and as long as the Obama administration refuses to outline a serious defense policy or to cut other forms of spending, then it has no business wrecking the military and betraying the men and women who, unlike it, have fought for this country.

GLOBAL POVERTY ACT IS BACK

2012-01-11T21:45:00.001-08:00

GLOBAL POVERTY ACT IS BACK

by Tom DeWeese

January 11, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

He might be a whiz kid at creating computer software, but beyond that Bill Gates has proven time and again that he hasn’t a clue about why or how freedom works.

He constantly teams up with anti-free market types like the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) to produce “educational programs” in his software packages, misdirecting unsuspecting children with political propaganda. In 2002 he gave the NWF $600,000 worth of software to help these environmental radicals run their programs to block the drilling of American oil. Apparently Gates doesn’t understand that he needs oil to create power to run computers. Most recently his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated $3 million to eight universities to reinvent the flush toilet. Environmentalists call that device “one of the world’s most destructive habits.”

Clearly Gates is a captive of his own wealth, suffering the usual rich man’s guilt over being rich – rushing full speed ahead to “give back to the world.” Funny how such giving back always seems to mean supporting socialist causes with money gained from the free market. Up till now, Gates has just been giving his own money voluntarily. Even if it’s to bad causes, he is certainly free to use his money anyway he chooses.

Now, however, his misguided meddling is about to involve the misdirecting of everyone’s income, and so the world’s richest useful idiot just became dangerous to freedom.

In November, as part of the G20 summit, Gates, representing his foundation, presented a report on a plan to eradicate world poverty. Said Gates, “I am honored to have been given this important opportunity. My report will address the financing needed to achieve maximum progress on the Millennium Development Goals, and to make faster progress on development over the next decade.” Gate’s report proposes a financial transaction tax (FTT) on tobacco, aviation, fuel and carbon (energy), to be enforced by all members of the G20 nations. The financial transaction tax has been excitedly talked about in the halls of the UN for a decade. Called the Tobin Tax, named after a Yale economist who dreamed it up, FTT would give the UN almost unlimited funding by taxing every stock and monetary transaction in the world.

Gates didn’t just dream this up on his own accord. He is actually resurrecting legislation a bill introduced in 2008 by then Senator Barack Obama. It was called the Global Poverty Act. Obama introduced the bill during his one abbreviated term in the U.S. Senate.

The bill was one of the only pieces of legislation ever introduced by Senator Barack Obama, and it wasn’t just a compassionate bit of fluff that Obama dreamed up to help the poor of the world. This bill was directly tied to the United Nations and served as little more than a shake down of American taxpayers in a massive wealth redistribution scheme. The Global Poverty Act would provide the United Nations with 0.7% of the United States gross national product. Estimates indicated that would add up to at least $845 billion of taxpayer money into UN coffers, to be spent (or wasted) by UN bureaucrats. The excuse for the taxing, of course, is to help end poverty in third world countries. The bill died in Congress in 2008 after passing unanimously in the House. Now Bill Gates has resurrected it.

Of course the United States has had an ongoing program of supplying billions of dollars in foreign aid and assistance to the poor for decades. In addition, the U.S. pays most of the bills at the UN for its many unworkable poverty programs. So what’s new about the Global Poverty Act, and why is it dangerous?

First, some history that led up to the Global Poverty Act. In 1999 and 2000 non-governmental organizations, NGOs held numerous meetings around the world to write what became known as the Charter for Global Democracy. The document was prepared as a blue print for achieving global governance. In reality it was a charter for the abolition of individual freedom, national sovereignty and limited government.

The Charter for Global Democracy outlined its goals in 12 detailed “principles:”

• Principle One called for the consolidation of all international agencies under the direct authority of the UN.
• Principle Two called for UN regulation of all transnational corporations and financial institutions, requiring an “international code of conduct” concerning the environment and labor standards.
• Principle Three explored various schemes to create independent revenue sources for the UN – meaning UN taxes including fees on all international monetary transactions, taxes on aircraft flights in the skies, and on shipping fuels, and licensing of what the UN called the “global commons,” meaning use of air, water and natural resources. The Law of the Sea Treaty fits this category.
• Principle Four would restructure the UN by eliminating the veto power and permanent member status on the Security Council. Such a move would almost completely eliminate U.S. influence and power in the world body. In turn Principle Four called for the creation of an “Assembly of the People” which would be populated by hand-picked non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which are nothing more than political groups with their own agendas (the UN calls NGOs “civil society”). Now, the UN says these NGO’s will be the representatives of the “people” and the Assembly of the People will become the new power of the UN.
• Principle Five would authorize a standing UN army.
• Principle six would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies “as part of a multinational global security system” under the authority of the UN.
• Principle Seven would require individual and national compliance with all UN “Human rights” treaties and declarations.
• Principle Eight would activate the UN Criminal Court and make it compulsory for all nations — now achieved.
• Principle Nine called for a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring “Sustainable Development.”
• Principle Ten would establish an International Environmental Court
• Principle Eleven demanded an international declaration stating that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a “high level action team” to allocate carbon emissions based on equal per-capita rights – The Kyoto Global Warming Treaty in action.
• Principle Twelve demanded the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions and for the “equitable sharing” of global resources, as allocated by the UN – here is where Obama’s Global Poverty Act comes in.
Specifically, the Charter for Global Democracy was intended to give the UN domain over all of the earth’s land, air and seas. In addition it would give the UN the power to control all natural resources, wild life, and energy sources, even radio waves. Such control would allow the UN to place taxes on everything from development; to fishing; to air travel; to shipping. Anything that could be defined as using the earth’s resources would be subject to UN use-taxes. Coincidentally, all twelve principles came directly from the UN’s Commission on Global Governance.

There was one major problem with the Charter for Global Democracy, at least as far as the UN was concerned. It was too honest and straightforward. Overt action displeases the high-order thinking skills of UN diplomats. The UN likes to keep things fuzzy and gray so as not to scare off the natives. That way there is less chance of screaming headlines of a pending takeover by the UN. So, by the time the UN’s Millennium Summit rolled around in September 2000, things weren’t quite so clear.

At the Summit, attended by literally every head of state and world leader, including then-president Bill Clinton, the name of the Charter had been changed to the Millennium Declaration and the language had been toned down to sound more like suggestions and ideas. Then those “suggestions” were put together in the “Millennium Declaration” in the name of all of the heads of state. No vote or debate was allowed — just acclamation by world leaders who basically said nothing. And the deed was done. The UN had its marching orders for the new Millennium.

Now the principles were called “Millennium Goals,” and there were eight instead of twelve. Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty; Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education;Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women;Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality; Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health; Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases;Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability; Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development.

Yes, these are sneaky guys, well trained in the art of saying nothing. Who could oppose such noble goals? The Millennium Project, which was set up to achieve the “goals” says on its website that it intends to “end poverty by 2015.” A noble goal, indeed. So what happened to the 12 Charter principles? Take a hard look – they are all still there.

Principles One, Two, and Twelve are right there in Goal 8 – to develop a global partnership for development. Now almost every world organization such as the World Bank carries a section on their web sites calling for “Millennium Development Goals” which control international banking and loan policy. They set policy goals for each country and sometimes communities to measure if nations are keeping their promise to implement the Millennium goals.

Principle Seven is clearly Goal 3, the only way to assure Gender Equality is to enforce compliance with UN Human Rights treaties. Principle Eight has already been achieved. Principle Nine is Goal 7. Al Gore is doing his best to enforce Principle Eleven. Global Warming, no matter how well the theory is debunked, just won’t go away because it is one of the Millennium Goals.

And then there is Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act. Can you see which Principle that is? Of course, Principle 12 and Goal 1. Obama’s 2008 bill specifically mentioned the Millennium Goals as its guide and the 0.7% of GNP is right out of UN documents. In order to eradicate poverty by 2015, they say, every industrial nation must pony up 0.7% of their GNP to the UN for use in eradicating poverty.

The UN is now becoming an international collection agency, pressing to collect the promises the world leaders made at the Millennium Summit. The UN wants the cash. In 2005 former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, “Developed countries that have not already done so should establish timetables to achieve the 0.7% target of gross national income for official development assistance by no later than 2015…”

At the Summit in 2000, the UN set clear goals to establish its power over sovereign nations and to enforce the greatest redistribution of wealth scheme ever perpetrated on the world. Now it has the Criminal Court; Sustainable Development (Agenda 21) is fast becoming official policy in every corner of the nation—only today we call it “going green;” and there is a full court press on to enforce Global Warming policy, in spite of the fact that there is now overwhelming evidence pouring out of the scientific community to fully debunk the scam.

Obama introduced the Global Poverty Act as he campaigned for the Presidency with the obvious and clear intention of showcasing the then little known Senator as a world leader. But the bill died in the Senate. Now, Bill Gates is proving his “useful idiot” status (a term coined by Lenin to describe capitalists who would sell the rope to hang capitalism), by serving as Obama’s lackey to resurrect the Global Poverty Act.

Clearly, Obama needs to show that, under his leadership, the United States is falling in line with the Millennium Declaration and its 2015 deadline for implementation. Truth, science and American taxpayer interests be hanged, as Bill Gates offers the rope, Harkin and DeFazio provide the knot, and Obama gets to pretend to be a “world” leader.And right on cue, just after Bill Gates made his report to the G20 Summit calling for a financial transaction tax, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) introduced legislation to put a tax on “certain trading activities undertaken by banking and financial firms.” The bills, of course, are the Tobin Tax and in line with Gate’s report.

© 2012 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved

Related Articles:

1- Tea Party Candidate Warns of UN and Obama's Agenda 21

Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.

A native of Ohio, he’s been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age of 23. In 1989 Tom led the only privately-funded election-observation team to the Panamanian elections. In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge Union, a 200 year old debating society. Today he serves as Founder and President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese Report

For 40 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s need to keep moving forward while protecting our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia. (540) 341-8911

E-Mail: admin@americanpolicy.org

E-Mail: ampolicycenter@hotmail.com

Website: www.americanpolicy.org

Obama and Panetta Uses Military Brass as Props

2012-01-11T20:56:00.001-08:00

Obama and Panetta Uses Military Brass as Props
Cliff Kincaid — January 11, 2012
“As President Obama stood on the podium in the Pentagon briefing room Thursday to outline the nation’s defense priorities, the military stood with him,” reported The Washington Post, as if the military brass had any other alternative than to serve as props for the President. Pentagon chief Leon Panetta, who opposed the Reagan defense buildup when he was a left-wing congressman from California, was there as well.

“For a president denounced by Republican rivals as a weak and irresponsible commander in chief, the show of military support(emphasis added) represented a political windfall for Obama as he begins campaigning in earnest for a second term,” the paper added.

Obama’s unprecedented trip to the Pentagon’s briefing room to make the announcement was significant and newsworthy, but there is no evidence that the military officials were there voluntarily in support of Obama’s defense cuts.

On the contrary, there is reason to believe they would not support Obama’s plan. Indeed, The Washington Post editorial page noted that defense spending represented more than 9 percent of U.S. gross domestic product under President Eisenhower and under Obama’s plan would drop from about 4.5 percent to under 3 percent. The paper went on, “Meanwhile, other than cuts to finance the new entitlements in his health care bill, the president has yet to propose meaningful trims in the exploding costs of entitlements such as Medicare, which did not exist during Mr. Eisenhower’s presidency. Would Ike have regarded what Mr. Obama is proposing as ‘balanced’? It’s hard to see how.”

The editorial also noted that the administration “already has cut or canceled 30 weapons systems,” amounting to some $300 billion.

This figure is taken from a speech by Robert Gates, before he stepped down as defense secretary, when he told the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in May of last year, “All told, over the past two years, more than 30 programs were cancelled, capped, or ended that, if pursued to completion, would have cost more than $300 billion.”

Gates also drew the comparison to Eisenhower, saying, “When President Eisenhower warned of the ‘Military Industrial Complex’ in 1961, defense consumed more than half the federal budget, and the portion of the nation’s economic output devoted to the military was about 9 percent. By comparison, this year’s base defense budget of $530 billion—the highest since World War II adjusted for inflation—represents less than 15 percent of all federal spending and equates to roughly three and a half percent of GDP—a number that climbs to about four and a half percent when the war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan are included.”

Gates’s successor, Leon Panetta, the former CIA director, had a record of opposing weapons systems and military action when he was a left-wing congressman from California. This was Panetta’s record:

Panetta in 1983 endorsed the nuclear weapons freeze, a concept backed by the Soviet Union which would have frozen in place a Soviet nuclear advantage in Europe.
Panetta supported a ban on the testing and deployment of new nuclear ballistic missiles.
Panetta opposed CIA covert operations to undermine the Communist Sandinista regime, calling Reagan’s support for the Nicaraguan freedom fighters a “dirty war.”
Panetta opposed the neutron bomb, an enhanced radiation weapon designed to counter a Soviet tank build-up in Europe.
Panetta opposed the B-1 bomber, which was funded under Reagan and is today a key part of the fleet.
While most members of Congress were saluting Reagan and our troops for liberating Grenada, Panetta criticized the Reagan action and warned against the dispatch of a U.S. naval task force to the vicinity of Cuba. “This is not a time to seek out new targets to flex our military muscle,” Panetta said.
Panetta opposed the MX “Peacekeeper” missile, arguing it would jeopardize arms negotiations with the Soviets. Reagan had warned that defunding the system would “weaken our ability to deter war…”
Yet, Gates pointed out in that AEI speech, “The Reagan build-up of the 1980s fielded a new generation of weapons platforms that continue to be the mainstay of the force today—the M1 tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, Burke guided missile destroyers, F-15 fighters, and much more.”

So Panetta was wrong on the Reagan buildup. But he has apparently not learned his lesson, as The New York Times reports that Panetta favors radical cuts in the size of the Army, even beyond what has been publicly reported, from 570,000 down to 490,000 troops.

Going even further, the Times said that Panetta is expected to propose cuts to next-generation weapons, including delays in purchases of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet.

We were virtually alone in predicting this. We had reported extensively on Panetta’s anti-defense views and his personal ties to radical left-wing forces and Communist Party member Hugh DeLacy.

Panetta has been portrayed in some media as opposed to cuts, even while he unveils them.

But his real attitude toward America’s enemies was on display on the January 8 edition of CBS’s “Face the Nation,” when he said about Iran, “Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.”

One day later, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that Iran had begun uranium enrichment at a facility in the northern part of the country.

Two days later, the U.S. State Department issued a statement condemning Iran’s decision to begin those enrichment operations, saying it was “contrary to its obligations under multiple United Nations Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors resolutions…The circumstances surrounding this latest action are especially troubling. Iran only declared the Qom facility to the IAEA after it was discovered by the international community following three years of covert construction. Iran has announced it intends to consolidate and increase its production of uranium enriched to a near 20 percent level at this facility. There is no plausible justification for this production. Such enrichment brings Iran a significant step closer to having the capability to produce weapons-grade highly enriched uranium.”

Appearing on the Sean Hannity program on Fox News, GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Panetta was “ignoring the facts.” Candidate Ron Paul, by contrast, agrees with Panetta.

While Iranian Press TV has showered lavish praise on Paul, it has attackedSantorum for criticizing Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear program.

Ron Paul Campaign Uses Soros-funded Research

2012-01-11T00:13:00.000-08:00

Accuracy In Media - http://www.aim.org -

Ron Paul Campaign Uses Soros-funded Research

Posted By Cliff Kincaid On January 9, 2012 @ 2:40 pm In AIM Column | 12 Comments

Rick Santorum told [1] Ron Paul in Saturday’s debate: “You should know better than to cite George Soros-like organizations.” The comment came in response to attacks on Santorum’s record from the Texas Congressman and libertarian running in the Republican presidential primaries.

Exposed for using Soros-funded research in an attack ad [2] charging that Santorum had been “one of the most corrupt” members of Congress, Paul had no explanation or response, except to say that “somebody” had done a survey attacking Santorum and he used it in the ad. The Ron Paul ad includes the line, “I’m Ron Paul and I approve this message.”

The exchange adds to Republican fears that Paul is trying to weaken or divide Republicans in order to guarantee Obama’s re-election.

The Soros organization alluded to by Santorum is the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). It is the source of the corruption charge against Santorum in the Ron Paul ad.

In the debate [3], Paul said that “…somebody did make a survey and I think he came out as one of the top corrupt individuals because he took so much money from the lobbyists.”

That “somebody” was CREW, a Soros-funded group that targets Republicans and conservatives.

Santorum shot back: “Let’s talk about the corruption issue. The person who—the group that called me corrupt was a group called CREW. If you haven’t been sued by CREW, you’re not a conservative. CREW is this left-wing organization that puts out a list every election of the top Republicans who have tough races and calls them all corrupt because they take contributions from PACs. It’s a ridiculous charge. And you should know better than to cite George Soros-like organizations to say that they’re corrupt.”

Former Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell was the subject of a false complaint from CREW, which was dismissed in July of this year. O’Donnell reacted by saying [4], “We are, of course, very pleased that the U.S. Attorney’s office has finally seen through the bogus CREW complaint and concluded it is without merit, because there was never any evidence to support their allegations. CREW interjected itself into the campaign within hours of my winning the Delaware GOP primary, even though CREW had no actual basis for its complaint. Even more troubling is that CREW, as a 501(c)(3) organization, is prohibited by law from intervening in political campaigns—but they more than intervened in the campaign, doing everything they could possibly do to sabotage my election.”

As a result, O’Donnell’s group, ChristinePAC, has asked the IRS [5] to strip CREW of its tax exempt status for engaging in partisan political activities in violation of federal law. O’Donnell’s PAC has also released a video [6] exposing CREW’S “illegal, partisan agenda” and highlighting Soros’s funding of the group. The video includes excerpts of an interview with CREW executive director Melanie Sloan talking about how the Soros-funded Open Society Institute (OSI) is “a very big donor” and that the OSI is “very happy with what we do.”

Another website [7] devoted to exposing CREW says, “An analysis of CREW’s ‘watchdog’ activities reveals a systematic effort to disproportionately target Republicans and conservative-leaning groups with often-frivolous lawsuits, ethics complaints, and petitions for investigations by law enforcement agencies. An analysis of CREW’s activities demonstrates that it disproportionately targets conservatives by a ratio of more than 8-to-1. At the same time, the corresponding federal oversight agencies responsible for investigating CREW’s complaints indicates that, historically, Democrats have been investigated far more often for ethics violations.”

A Washington Times column [8] by Robert Knight, “Time to disarm partisan CREW,” noted, “Like the American Civil Liberties Union, CREW occasionally goes after Democrats, if only to maintain a facade of nonpartisanship. For instance, CREW targeted disgraced New York Rep. Charles B. Rangel and Louisiana Rep. William ‘Cold Cash’ Jefferson, who hid $90,000 in his freezer. Its current list of ‘most corrupt’ members of Congress includes 10 Democrats in addition to 15 Republicans, up from just three Democrats and 17 Republicans in 2006. But overall, most of CREW’s bullets are fired at conservatives and Republicans.”

CREW went after Santorum years ago but its current Republican target is former House Speaker and Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. A review of its current news releases [9] shows two attacking Gingrich and one highlighting Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corporation, parent of Fox News, as “scoundrel of the year.”

Perhaps this has something to do with Fox News running a story [10] on CREW’s frivolous complaints against Republicans.

Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org

URL to article: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/ron-paul-campaign-uses-soros-funded-research/

URLs in this post:

[1] told: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KDODsVoJEhU

[2] an attack ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Aohgrn1peA&feature=youtu.be

[3] debate: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/2012-abcyahoowmur-new-hampshire-gop-primary-debate-transcript/2012/01/07/gIQAk2AAiP_blog.html

[4] saying: http://christinepac.com/news/2011-07-16/crew-complaint-against-christine-odonnell-dismissed-delaware-us-attorney

[5] asked the IRS: http://christinepac.com/news/2011-09-21/will-irs-defang-soros-funded-crew

[6] a video: http://www.christinepac.com/wreckingcrew/

[7] website: http://activistcash.com/citizens_for_responsibility_and_ethics_in_washington_CREW/

[8] column: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/29/time-to-disarm-partisan-crew/?page=all

[9] current news releases: http://www.citizensforethics.org/

[10] a story: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/27/odonnell-wants-irs-to-revoke-crews-tax-exempt-status/

Click here to print.

ENVIRONMENTALISM PATH TO GLOBAL DICTATORSHIP

2012-01-10T22:07:00.001-08:00

ENVIRONMENTALISM PATH TO GLOBAL DICTATORSHIP

By Paul McGuire
January 10, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

In 1970, I was participating in the first “Earth Day,” celebration in New York City where radical activist Abbie Hoffman was giving a fiery speech about, “The world becoming as one.” The streets of Manhattan were jammed with thousands of people as far as the eye could see. As I shared in a previous article, I happened to be gathered with the leaders of the counter-culture and I was there when they openly stated that, “The Environmental” or “Green Movement” will become the central organizing force for the World Communist Revolution. It is essential to understand, that the Environmental Movement is an antichristian and pagan religious movement. It is centered in the pagan belief about worshipping the earth. Today scientists call this Gaia and that is the belief the earth is a living organism with consciousness. Gaia is a god to be worshipped!

Now many years later, our entire world is being restructured around environmentalism. Everything is about being eco-friendly, green, the environment, sustainable development, recycling, hybrid cars, and the list is endless. But, what most people don’t know is that the Environmental Movement and ecology is a Trojan Horse being used to create a New World Order, a New World Economic System, and a Coming One World Religion.

In my new 3-DVD series, entitled, “Are You Ready for the Coming One World Government, One World Economic System and the Coming One World Religion?” I expose the hidden agenda behind the events that are going on in our world politically, economically, scientifically, theologically, and culturally to create manufactured crisis and a coming event that will bring about a one world government, one world economic system and one world religion. As the author of 22 books, I have had the privilege of meeting with Presidents. Prime Ministers, leading scientists, military intelligence from several nations, and economists, the “Are You Ready?” DVD-series exposes the master plan that was predicted by the Old Testament prophets and New Testament disciples.

As an internationally recognized expert on Bible prophecy, I have spoken to over 32,000 people in person, in the last 3 years at major conferences. I am a professor at an influential university and seminary where I teach prophecy. The History Channel did a 2-hour special with me, entitled “Seven Signs of the Apocalypse,” and I am a frequent guest on the Fox News Network, CNN, and other media. I personally met with the Prime Minister of Israel before the breakout of a war. This Prime Minister had read my books on prophecy and wanted to ask me questions on how Bible prophecy affected current events. Since then, I have been contacted by high-level leaders in a number of fields wanting to know if prophecy gives answers to a number of global catastrophes ready to explode on earth. You can order my brand new 3-DVD series, “Are You Ready for the Coming One World Government, One World Economic System and the Coming One World Religion?” right now on News With Views and get inside information on the future of the world.

Despite the incoherent ramblings of the environmental-fundamentalist, Al Gore, who looks like he has had one too many bowls of organic hemp cereal, with a healthy topping of organic magic mushrooms, environmentalism is a plot to redistribute wealth. Under the guise of energy conservation, the United Nations and their programs, like Agenda 21, are designed to transfers trillions of dollars of wealth from the American Middle-Class to Third World Nations where they will be squandered by dictators. The end game is a totally controlled society where you are forced to live in small apartments in cities and ride a bicycle to work. Once upon a time in America, even the average American drove large cars. But now most Americans have been brainwashed to believe they are saving the planet by driving very small cars. As an added incentive, the price of gas is so costly, that the average American is looking for a small and energy-saving car. Do you think the elite drive small cars? No. They are driven in massive limousines and large SUVs. The issue is not about saving energy! People have been brainwashed into accepting wealth redistribution and a lower standard of living under the pretense of saving energy. Next on the agenda is the end of home ownership and the American dream. Karl Marx, author of the “Communist Manifesto,” understood that a true Communist State could not emerge unless the concept of private property is destroyed. Marxists, who are often smarter than Christians, understand the deep psychological connections between a free individual and homeownership and a healthy individual and the family. The attack against homeownership and the traditional family is part of a mind control war designed to destroy the individual and raise up the Collective.

In Genesis 1:26, something very profound is revealed about the true identity of mankind. “So God created man in His own image: in the image of God He created him: male and female.” Every man and woman is a unique individual created by God for a special purpose! When it says, “God created man in His own image,” the word man comes from ‘adam (ah-dahm.) The meaning of the word has nothing to do with maleness, but humanness or mankind. When someone chooses to receive the mark of the beast, they are choosing to live in the image of the beast and not God.

Communism stems from the Satanic teachings of the Illuminati and Karl Marx who was a practicing Satanist. Christians in America, when they embrace socialism and communism disguised as Christianity, are choosing to worship the Beast. This is the spirit of the antichrist moving in the world today. It is extremely subtle, but powerful. Destroying the individual through collectivism, communitarianism, and consensus building, is an occult act with profound implications! The State becomes God. We have millions of Christians in America and Europe who claim to be Christians, but in their hearts they are worshipping the State and not God. The Apostle Paul called this spiritual adultery. In theological terms, it is fornication with the spirit of antichrist or Mystery Babylon, the Great Harlot. When someone stands in the pulpit and teaches doctrine inspired by the spirit of antichrist, are they not false teachers and false prophets? It does not matter how many Bibles they wave. How big their smile is or how warm and fuzzy their message is, at its root, it is the worship of Lucifer. It is the great apostasy that the Apostle Paul warned us about that would come before the coming of the Antichrist.

The public is being conditioned to accept the mark of the beast-type technologies as normal. Why do you think your power company is installing a Smart Meter at your residence, to measure your electrical consumption? The Smart Meter is designed to ration your power usage by remote control! In addition, if you read the label on your Smart Meter, you will discover it is an FCC wireless communications device. The Smart Meter is an electronic surveillance device which records who lives, visits, or leaves your home by tracking their cell phone numbers, enhanced driver’s license, and Internet signal. In addition, it can monitor your internet and television viewing. However, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. No pun intended towards Al Gore, but there is a reason that your cell phone, computer and television screens have cameras built in them. We now live in the Big Brother world of George Orwell’s “1984.”

The elite globalists who finance the environmental movement have an agenda that goes far beyond clean water, blue skies, and green hills. First of all, the water is not clean. It is filled with tranquilizing drugs like fluoride. Adolph Hitler immediately put fluoride in the water in Germany after he took control. Do you really think Adolph Hitler was concerned about cavities? In 1924, I.G. Farben, a German chemical company, began receiving money from American bankers that led to the creation of the huge I.G. Farben cartel. In 1928, Henry Ford and American Standard Oil Company, owned by the Rockefellers, created American I.G. Farben that was controlled by the international bankers who controlled the Federal Reserve. It was later discovered that the German General Staff used sodium fluoride in the water supply as a method of delivering mass medication to fluoridate occupied countries, because fluoride targets a specific part of the brain that make people submissive to authority and lose their will to defend their freedom. Fluoride is a very powerful anti-psychotic and is used in over 25% of major tranquilizers. Why is the so-called “Green Movement” silent about these non-healthy chemicals in the water supply? Is it because they are funded by the same globalists who pollute the earth and produce GMO’s which destroy the immune system?

The real purpose behind the United Nations Agenda 21 and the Environmental Movement is to establish a wide range of social agendas, from population control to governmental take-over of private property.

In an article for the Wall Street Journal titled “The Wetland’s Gestapo,” writer Max Boot details an account of how an honest American businessman was sentenced to twenty-one months in jail and over $1 million in fines for the crime of creating a scenic pond to enjoy out of unusable wetlands. Boot writes, “To any rational person, what Mr. Wilson did was an improvement—replacing some forbidding, damp woods with lakes and open spaces that attract wildlife and local resident alike.” According to the Wall Street Journal, “This son of an Irish rebel who fought against British rule along Michael Collins won’t go quietly: “If the good Lord gives me the time, I’ll be back to fight this battle against the subversion of our basic Constitutional rights by the government.”

Environmental-radical, Al Gore and other members of the American ruling class, despise the Constitution because they are opposed to the idea that it is God who gives the common man rights like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Al Gore and his elite friends call the Constitution an “evolving-document,” because this way they can use their power and money to take away your rights! Only someone whose brain is not fully functional through something like fluoride in the water, can’t grasp that making the Constitution an “evolving-document,” is simply a way to circumvent your Constitutional protections.

The hidden agenda of the so-called “scientific elite,” who rule our world through the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, and the Council on Foreign Relations is to “cull the heard,” which means to reduce the world’s population by several billion people. They codified their goal on the Georgia Tombstones and they will use the Malthusian techniques of artificial food shortages, disease, epidemics, wars, abortion and sterilization to accomplish their goals of bringing down the world’s population from 7 billion to 500 million.

The U.N. Convention on Biodiversity, which was signed by Bill Clinton in 1993, is an attempt to go around the Constitution and mandate a radical plan developed by ecologists called the Wildlands Project. Although, the Senate refused to ratify this U.N. Treaty, President Clinton ignored the Constitution and used an executive order to get around the Senate. This master plan is part of an agenda to transform a large portion of the United States into an enormous “eco-park.” The goal is to herd us to live in cities. Wildlands was the dream of the founder of the eco-terrorist group, Earth First, headed by Dave Foreman. Dave Foreman would like to see us to get back to the civilization America had in 1492 before it was populated by Europeans. The elite will be able to live in private areas inside of these Wildlands and use all the latest technology.

Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12986, which helped empower the International Union for Conservation of and Natural Resources (ICUN). The ICUN is used by the United Nations to promote a global environmental policy and the World Heritage Convention which allows the U.N. to take control of our natural parks like Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Statue of Liberty, Carlsbad, etc. This is part of the U.N. Agenda 21 program which will allow the U.N. to take control of national governments through environmental policy! Bush and Obama have continued these radical environmental programs.

All of this is part of a total control grid that will give the coming global government, predicted in the Book of Revelation, a planetary dictatorship consisting of two classes, the serfs and the ruling elite. Although, there are healthy signs of millions of people waking up, we are in a race against time. In this so-called Scientific Dictatorship, new classes of human beings are being bred through advanced Eugenics. First, a super race, that Hitler dreamed of, is being genetically created in laboratories through posthuman and transhumanist technologies. Secondly, a genetically dumbed down slave race is being created, along with a DNA enhanced race of warriors that will act like Cyborgs. This is not something far off in the land of science fiction. It is happening now through interspecies breeding and the manipulation of the DNA code.

In the Book of Revelation we read two interesting passages that describe what could be armies of genetically modified Cyborgs:

“The shape of the locusts was like horses prepared for battle. On their heads were crowns of something like gold, and their faces were like the faces of men. They had hair like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. And they had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the sound of chariots with many horses running into battle. They had tails like scorpions, and there were stings in their tails. Their power was to hurt men five months. And they had as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon. “Revelation 9:7-11

“Then the sixth angel sounded: And I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, saying to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, “Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.” So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released to kill a third of mankind. Now the number of the army of the horsemen was two hundred million; I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision: those who sat on them had breastplates of fiery red, hyacinth blue, and sulfur yellow; and the heads of the horses were like the heads of lions; and out of their mouths came fire, smoke, and brimstone. Revelation 9:13-17

Many people, in what is termed the New Age, along with the elite, believe there must be some kind of massive planetary cleansing to destroy Western industrial civilization, in order to rebuild the environment and reduce the population. The horrifying and apocalyptic pictures at the Denver International Airport seem to indicate this along with rumors of giant underground bases and cities that are being built for the elite to survive an apocalyptic event. It is even rumored that below the Denver International Airport there is some kind of underground base.

© 2012 Paul McGuire – All Rights ReservedRemember, there is a way to legally and peacefully preserve America. First knowledge is power. It is important to understand history and your Constitutional rights. Secondly, because we live in a multi-dimensional universe, a spiritual or philosophical battle can be waged in the spiritual realm or parallel universe. Our Founding Fathers understood this through the Great Awakening. When you grasp the real meaning of the Apostle Paul’s words, “For the weapons of our warfare are mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds,” you understand the power of legal and peaceful spiritual energy. If you insist on waging a conflict in three dimensions, you are doomed to extinction. The Universe is a big place and the God who exists is infinite. What was the power that resurrected Jesus Christ from the dead? That same power is available to us today. The early apostles understood this. That is why just twelve ordinary men, transformed the world.

Paul McGuire: radio talk show host, author, feature film producer and television commentator.

Paul McGuire is the author of 22 books, such as the best-selling, “The Day the Dollar Died” and “Are You Ready for the Microchip? Paul is the host of the syndicated television show, The Paul McGuire Report. Paul McGuire hosted the nationally syndicated talk radio show, “The Paul McGuire Show” for 10 years. Paul McGuire is a television commentator and has been a frequent guest on the Fox News Network and CNN.

Paul is the producer of two science fiction films in Hollywood. The History Channel did a 2-hour special with Paul McGuire entitled “Seven Signs of the Apocalypse.” Paul has interviewed numerous world leaders, Presidents and Prime Ministers. Paul lives in Los Angeles, California.

At fifteen years old, Paul was demonstrating with radical activist Abbie Hoffman and made an honorary member of the Black Panther Party. However, while studying “Altered States of Consciousness” at the University of Missouri, Paul had a miraculous experience hitchhiking in a remote area similar to the movie “Field of Dreams.” Paul re-thought his socialist and humanist world view and rejected it as completely false. Paul has devoted his life to communicating truth to people.

Website: PaulMcGuire.org

E-Mail: newmediavoice@aol.com

WHO CAN DEFEAT THE TWO MOST POPULAR PEOPLE ON EARTH?

2012-01-10T01:13:00.001-08:00

WHO CAN DEFEAT THE TWO MOST POPULAR PEOPLE ON EARTH?

By J.B. Williams
January 9, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

According to ABC News, The Washington Times and a recent Gallup/USA Today poll, Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton are the two most popular people in the entire world. The entire world didn’t vote in the poll, a few Americans did. But that’s how we count polls these days…

In 2008, the Democrat Party put forth two stone cold losers… A nobody with a totally blank résumé that few had ever heard of before and a lady with so many bones rattling around in her closet, you would have thought there was a voodoo shaman living in there.

Deep divisions were created in the Democrat Party when “sure thing” Hillary Clinton was bumped from her high perch by a nobody from nowhere, who didn’t even have a birth certificate to his name. The Clinton War Room had all the dirt on Barack Obama and could have put him away for good in 2008.

Why didn’t they and what happens now?

The Saudi muscle behind Barack Obama turned out to be more than the Clinton War Room could manage and in the end, Hillary was forced to make a deal with the devil, accepting Secretary of State as a consolation prize in return for quietly stepping aside and allowing a constitutionally ineligible international thug to assume the Oval Office.

Four years later, Joseph Biden is history and the Democrat Party prepares to reunite party factions with a ticket that can’t lose -- the two most popular people on earth, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The U.S. press is already greasing the skids for Hillary to slip Biden off to pasture and preparing the American electorate to support Obama/Clinton in 2012. Who wouldn’t vote for the two most popular people on earth, according to an adoring American and international press?

No matter who wins the GOP presidential nod, they will face Obama and Clinton this fall in the general election, not Obama and Biden.

Who Can Defeat the Two Most Popular People on Earth?

They are not the two most popular people on earth, but they may in fact be the two most popular people in America today, even with only 17%. The fact that 83% voted for someone other than these two people indicates that they are not actually all that popular.

However, at a moment in history when Americans don’t like anyone in politics very much, 17% support is a pretty good number, maybe enough to win an election.

The poll is not so much an indication of how popular these two people are, as it is a demonstration of how unpopular everyone else is, not to mention how divided the electorate is today.

The GOP field is already thinning, the Tea Party candidates already gone. After Iowa, it’s at best a four man race, Romney, Santorum, Paul and Gingrich. Can any of the four defeat an Obama/Clinton ticket this November?

Obama has driven the nation into unsustainable debt and destroyed free-market mechanisms necessary for any real recovery, while dismantling the military and allowing foreign terror organizations to operate on U.S. soil.

Hillary has ignited a firestorm across the Middle East placing The Muslim Brotherhood at the helm of every Middle Eastern state, while making enemies of old friends around the globe and insuring America 3rd World status into the new millennium.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, in terms of damage done to America on the watch of Obama/Clinton. Still, the American press will make sure that Obama and Clinton are the two most popular people in America by November.

Can any of the GOP candidates compete?

A current Rasmussen poll shows the divide within the anti-Obama electorate. To defeat Obama/Clinton in 2012, the GOP will have to come up with a no-nonsense ticket capable of uniting the anti-Obama electorate across all lines.

According to this poll, 44% of GOP voters think Romney has the best chance to defeat Obama in 2012. Only 17% bet on Gingrich and 15% on Santorum. Ron Paul finished last in single digits among GOP voters. As far as GOP voters are concerned, we have a three man race here.

The anti-Obama electorate is a numerical majority in America today. But it is a much divided majority at present, and unless the GOP can find a way to change that reality, there is no chance that any of the GOP candidates can compete head-to-head with an Obama/Clinton ticket backed by the entire American press.

Obama is in huge negative numbers, with only 24% strongly approving and 41% strongly disapproving today. He cannot turn these numbers around without Hillary Clinton.

Before any GOP candidate will have a chance to turn this country around, they will have to unseat Obama/Clinton in November. Lose that contest and there is no way to turn America around.

How can the GOP win that contest?

I honestly don’t think that any of the four GOP candidates can defeat Obama/Clinton in 2012, and I have no confidence that any of the four would turn this country around, even if they did.

But, we have to play the hand we are dealt, to our best ability -- Hope for the best and prepare for the worst…

The only certainty is that America cannot survive four more years of Obama or Clinton. Whatever it takes to remove these two from office should be the highest priority in every patriotic heart and mind today. If it isn’t, the fools deserve what they get.

Based upon current polling data, Romney is set to win New Hampshire by good margin. But the road gets much less certain in South Carolina andFlorida, where Newt Gingrich is favored to win. Santorum is surging out of Iowa, but is not likely to have the staying power through Florida. Ron Paul had his moment in Iowa, where an open caucus system plays well for the libertarian, with democrat and independent voters participating.

By Florida, we are very likely to see the GOP field narrow to two, Romney and Gingrich. Can either or both, defeat Obama/Clinton? It’s just the way the numbers play out.

If they cannot unify all anti-Obama voters, the answer is no. The majority of voters will oppose Obama/Clinton in 2012, but will the majority vote for any GOP candidate in order to defeat Obama/Clinton in the general election?

American voters are fed up with “lesser evil” choices in elections and they are unlikely to unifybehind the eventual GOP nominee, even though they know that they cannot afford to allow Obama/Clinton to win.

I have heard many readers talk about “voting their conscience.” My conscience will not allow Obama/Clinton to retain Marxist leadership over my country. I have no clue what kind of conscience would allow that to happen, but many think that they will sleep better at night with Obama/Clinton in office, than with Romney or Gingrich in office. I cannot relate to this type of conscience… in fact, it demonstrates no conscience at all.

But as a result, four more years of Obama and Clinton are all but certain. There is something to like and dislike about every GOP candidate. There are no perfect candidates, ever. In the real world of modern politics, only one candidate has demonstrated the ability to rally and potentially defeat Obama/Clinton.

Romney has been stuck in the mid-20s for years. No matter how vigorous and passionate his army of supporters, Paul remains steady in single digits or lower-teens, his popularity chart flat-lined for decades. Perry was a flash until people outside of Texas got to hear him speak and Santorum blew his campaign war chest on Iowa.

Only Gingrich has demonstrated the ability to peak above all others and only Gingrich has demonstrated the ability to make things happen, and confront an opponent in tough combat and win. I don’t love the guy either, but these are the facts as they exist.

Instead of pretending like there is a perfect candidate in the race, the people should be making a much more coherent decision. Is there any way to force Obama to do the right things? NO!

Is there a way to force Gingrich or Romney to do the right things after the election? YES!

The people who can’t live with a lesser evil while they do what must be done to save their nation, will have to learn to live with a greater evil, again. But this time, they will lose any hope of restoring their nation, now or in the future. Four more years of Obama and Clinton will mean the end of the Constitutional Republic for good.

My conscience calls me to do all that I can to keep that from happening. How about yours?

Wrong Chicago Guy Resigns from White House

2012-01-10T01:03:00.001-08:00

ANUARY 10, 2012

Wrong Chicago Guy Resigns from White House

By John Ransom

1/10/2012

In a trade that made a lot of sense for Democrats, Chicago Mayor Richie Daley decided to take a powder as Mayor-for-Life in October 2010, while Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel succeeded Daley as mayor of the big, broken city by the lake.

The player to be named later in the trade was William Daley, Richie’s brother. Bill Daley took Emanuel’s place as chief of staff with the charge to be the White House’s bridge to the business community. The Obama administration was hoping that Daley’s business savvy would help them repair a rocky relationship with big business- and with Republicans.

It’s the kind of forward looking vision that less powerful dictators, like Moammar Gadhafi, could only hope for.

The Daleys, after all, made quite a life for themselves in Illinois peddling influence on both the right and the left, making sure everyone- Democrats and Republicans and “legitimate” businessmen who just happened to own garbage trucks, parking meters and the occasional, hidden, video poker machine- got their share.

But the trade now is officially a bust.

While Rahm cruised to an easy victory as head of the Democrat patronage army that today goes by the name of Chicago, there has been no cruising for Daley or Obama.

The trade was a bust for both Daley and the White House because Daley couldn’t do his job.

Between a GOP Congress that refused to cut deals and an Obama administration that refused to cut regulations, Daley had trouble dividing the spoils for Obama and Republicans. Turns out Congress doesn’t run on garbage trucks and parking meters.

So, the White House announced yesterday that Daley was leaving his post as chief of staff only one year after accepting the post. That he’s leaving in the middle of a presidential election year, tells you all you need to know about Chicago’s view of Obama’s chances on the second go ‘round.

I mean, they don’t call them wise guys for nothing.

Daley likely got tired of the left hand of Obama’s administration not knowing what the other, radical left hand was doing.

By June of last year the Washington Post reported that Daley couldn’t even defend the policies of the Obama administration.

At a meeting with business leaders, Daley could only offer a mea culpa for the administration’s anti-business and anti-jobs policies without promising any remediation.

From the Washington Post:

At one point, the room erupted in applause when Massachusetts manufacturing executive Doug Starrett, his voice shaking with emotion, accused the administration of blocking construction on one of his facilities to protect fish, saying government “throws sand into the gears of progress.”

Daley said he did not have many good answers, appearing to throw up his hands in frustration at what he called “bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend.”

“Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible,” he said.

For Daley, the days of defending the indefensible have drawn to a close sooner rather than later.

While Daley already pre-announced that he would not be returning for a second Obama term, the president was surprised when Daley decided to speed up his departure by a year by handing Obama his resignation last week. Given 24 hours by Obama to think about withdrawing his resignation, Daley stuck to his guns and quit.

For the Obama administration, it’s the latest crisis in a presidency that’s turning out to read more like a mini-series than a history.

I’d like to say that the country will be worse off without Bill Daley in the White House. He at least knew the difference between the defensible and indefensible. But I lived way too long in Chicago to have rose-colored glasses on about Bill, Richie or any other Daley.

The best I can say is that if I had to pick a Chicagoan to leave the White House, it wouldn’t be Daley.

John Ransom

John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance. You can follow him on twitter@bamransom and on Facebook: bamransom.

Sackett v. EPA: Supreme Court Takes Up Property Rights Case

2012-01-09T19:01:00.001-08:00

- The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation - http://blog.heritage.org -

Sackett v. EPA: Supreme Court Takes Up Property Rights Case

Posted By Paul Larkin On January 9, 2012 @ 10:24 am In Rule of Law | 6 Comments

Today the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Sackett v. EPA, one of the most important property rights cases to reach the Court in recent history. The case involves a complicated statutory scheme created by the Clean Water Act (CWA), which (as relevant here) is enforced by the EPA.

In brief, the CWA seeks to protect the “navigable waters of the United States” against pollution. What makes this case interesting and entertaining (at least for observers) is that the EPA has interpreted the term “navigable waters” to include in some cases (quite paradoxically) “land,” called a “wetland.” The definition of a “wetland” is a matter of great complexity, one that even expert geologists and hydrologists can find daunting to apply consistently (let alone with unanimity), but does require at least some connection with water, however brief and infrequent. The EPA can enforce the CWA by issuing an order to an alleged offender to cease polluting a wetland and to remedy any violation, or by bringing a civil lawsuit against the alleged offender for the same relief. The CWA authorizes a $37,500 per day fine for violating the CWA by polluting a wetland without a permit, a fine that can be doubled if a court finds that the alleged offender also violated an EPA order to halt the pollution.

Nearly five years ago, the Sacketts sought to build a home on an undeveloped lot in a subdivision with houses on almost every other lot surrounding their property. The EPA issued them an order stating that their property was a wetland and directing them both to cease further construction and to remedy the harm already done. The Sacketts disagree with the EPA and ever since have sought to have a federal court resolve this dispute. So far, they have failed. Now they have a shot at persuading the Supreme Court that a federal district court should referee this dispute. The Sackett case involves the question whether a property owner – here, the Sacketts – can obtain judicial review of an EPA wetlands order even though the EPA itself has not brought its own lawsuit.

Philosophers and linguistic scholars probably could write Ph.D. dissertations on the meaning of the statute and EPA’s regulations ( e.g. – “The Hermeneutics of the Clean Water Act”), and on the metaphysical concept of how “water” actually can include something that, at least in part (and sometimes that part can be 99%) is “land” (e.g. – “The Greeks Were Wrong – It is Just Air, Fire, and Water, Not Earth”). The Sacketts, the Department of Justice and EPA, and a variety of amici already have filled a good-sized briefcase with briefs arguing about the proper meaning of the various soundly-based or thoughtlessly-drafted, neatly intersecting or hopelessly conflicting, eminently sensible or mind-numbingly irrational (all depending on your point of view), provisions of the CWA. But what is worth considering for the average person (read: someone whose mind has not been polluted by legal training) is this: How far we have come from the actual problem that Congress sought to remedy in this law? And how did we wind up in this predicament?

Congress enacted the CWA to deal with factories using pipes to dump staggering amounts of potentially-hazardous pollutants into the nation’s rivers, threatening the quality of the nation’s riverways and drinking water, and the lives of its people. Congress could have dealt with this problem by vesting in the federal courts the power to devise a form of federal common law governing interstate pollution of the nation’s waters, a common law that would be used in tort actions resembling well-known products liability actions. Instead, Congress dealt with this problem by enacting an admittedly complicated statutory scheme that empowered a federal agency — the EPA — to issue regulations to control such practices for the betterment of the public and to see to the enforcement of such regulations. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, and reasonable people can differ over how best to resolve this problem.

What reasonable people cannot differ over is this: It impossible to believe that any Member of Congress could have imagined that the CWA would apply to a case like this one. The CWA deals with “navigable waters”; this case deals with “wetlands,” which, although not always “wet,” always are “land.” The Sacketts are not Fortune 500 companies running factories that daily pour out thousands of gallons of RBS (the acronym for what in the trade is known as Really Bad S#*t) into a river used downstream for drinking water; the Sacketts are private parties who want to build a home on their property in a partially completed subdivision. Yet, this is where the current state of environmental law leaves us. Regardless of the outcome of this case, we ought seriously to consider thinking twice before passing another complex federal law that, while noble in its intent, leaves private citizens facing a crushing burden of potential financial liability merely for trying to stand their ground before the federal government. Private citizens should not be forced into bankruptcy as the penalty for pursuing what has been called the “American dream.”

The Sackett case resembles a game of dominoes – or perhaps the childhood game of “telephone” – because where we are today in no way resembles where we started. Yet, I doubt that anyone who ever played either game stood a chance of being hammered with a penalty of $75,000 per day, over what now is nearly five years worth of days, just for losing. The Sacketts do, and that is a shame in a society that believes in law and justice.

Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org

URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/09/sackett-v-epa-supreme-court-takes-up-property-rights-case/

Click here to print.

Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.

Sharia Law enforced in Texas!

2012-01-07T21:45:00.001-08:00

Sharia Law enforced in Texas!

Posted on February 9, 2008 by creeping
Originally posted in February, 2008; updates below.

It’s not scary enough that some archbishop in England has submitted to Islam and has declared that sharia law in the UK is unavoidable – right here in the USA a Court of Appeals in Texas has ruled that the Texas Islamic Court (did you know that existed?) is legit!

The parties will ask the courts to refer the cases for arbitration to Texas Islamic court within “Seven Days” from the establishment of the Texas Islamic Court panel of Arbitrators. The assignment must include ALL cases, including those filed against or on behalf of other family members related to the parties. Each party will notify the other party, Texas Islamic Court, and their respective attorneys, in writing of the assignment of all the above Cause Numbers from the above appropriate District Court to Texas Islamic Court.

Hence my motivation to start documenting this disturbing trend. Why disturbing, check back frequently and you’ll soon see why.

From the zTruth blog, Ever heard of the Texas Islamic Court?:

Islamic Court in Texas may have a role for Muslims. An appellate court appears to have upheld sharia law in a divorce which is shocking.

Isn’t this a dangerous precedent for our democracy? We all have to abide by the laws of our city, state and country. Anytime, any religious law is allowed to take precedent, it should alarm you.

Critiques [sic] have been arguing that Islamists are chipping away at out laws. This may be a great example:

1. The Parties agree to arbitrate all existing issues among them in the above mentioned Cause Numbers in the appropriate District Court, which includes the Divorce Case, the child custody of the [sic] Noor Qaddura and Farah Qaddura, the determination of each party’s responsibilities and duties according to the Islamic rules of law by Texas Islamic Court.

2.All parties agree to sign the Texas Islamic Court required legal forms, and each party pays his required fees.

3.The panel of arbitrators of Texas Islamic Court will be formed according to the rules and regulations of Texas Islamic Court. However, the parties agree and suggest the following names for the panel:

Mujahid Bakhash, the Imam of the Islamic Association of Tarrant County, Fort Worth, Texas. .Main El-quda, the Imam of the Islamic Society of Arlington, Arlington, Texas. .Abdel Salam Abu-Nar, the Imam of Dar Assalam Islamic Center, Arlington, Texas

4.Each Party will submit all of his documents, exhibits, and evidence to Texas Islamic Court.

5.The parties agree that the Ruling of the Texas Islamic Court in the above mentioned Cause Numbers is Binding, and Final, and no party will take any appeal or future legal action of any matter afterwards.

…We reverse the trial court’s orders denying Appellants’ motions to stay litigation and to compel arbitration in these two consolidated cases. We render judgment that the Arbitration Agreement signed by the parties is valid and enforceable and covers all disputes between the parties that arose prior to the date the parties signed the Arbitration Agreement, including all matters that were the subject of the partial summary judgment previously granted by the trial court.

Texas State Court

More: Islamic sharia court also functioning in Minnesota (surprise).

Iran sanctions 'acts of war': Ron Paul

2012-01-05T22:24:00.001-08:00

Iran sanctions 'acts of war': Ron Paul

Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:34AM GMT
US Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul says Western sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran are “acts of war” which can pave the way for a real conflict in the Middle East.

"I think we're looking for trouble because we put these horrendous sanctions on Iran," Paul said in a speech to a gathering at the Hotel Pattee in Perry, Iowa, on Thursday.

He added that Iranians are "planning to be bombed" and would understandably make the necessary arrangements to counter the threat, even though there is "no evidence whatsoever" that they have "enriched" uranium.

In an earlier article titled, 'The Folly of Sanctions,' the Texas congressman had criticized the US foreign policy for imposing more sanctions against Iran and warned about its "unintended consequences."

"Sanctions were the first step in our wars against Iraq and Libya, and now more sanctions planned against Syria and Iran are leading down the same destructive path," he had warned. "Sanctions against Iran are definite steps toward a US attack."

Paul went on in his address to compare the western penalties against the Islamic Republic to an imagined move by China to block the Gulf of Mexico, which the US would regard as an act of war.

Referring to Iran, he further pointed out that, "If you want to quiet things down, don't put sanctions on them" as it is "just going to cause more trouble."

Iran's threat to block the strategic Strait of Hormuz, he explained, is the most probable response to stricter sanctions because Tehran has "no weapons of mass destruction" whereby to deter menaces.

Paul finally concluded that, "I think the solution" to the existing friction with Iran "is to do a lot less a lot sooner and mind our own business and then we would not have this threat of another war.”

Drugs, Guns and Madness in the Ron Paul Revolution

2012-01-05T21:35:00.000-08:00

- Accuracy In Media - http://www.aim.org -

Drugs, Guns and Madness in the Ron Paul Revolution

Posted By Cliff Kincaid On January 4, 2012 @ 5:50 pm In Special Report | 36 Comments

Ron Paul didn’t do as well as the media thought he would in Iowa, but he is moving on toward New Hampshire, where the candidate has what the media call a good “ground game.” But the “Ron Paul Revolution” in New Hampshire looks a lot like what Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn tried to accomplish with the 1960s generation. Disillusioned young people, brainwashed with illegal mind-altering drugs and armed with weapons in the name of “liberty,” are being taught to hate their government and the police. They believe Ron Paul is their savior.

Remember that communist terrorist Dohrn had said, “We fight in many ways. Dope is one of our weapons. The laws against marijuana mean that millions of us are outlaws long before we actually split. Guns and grass are united in the youth underground.”

The same attitude is apparent in some of the libertarian-anarchist groups backing Paul in New Hampshire.

In order to grasp this phenomenon, consider what happened at the Porcupine Freedom Festival [1] (PorcFest) held in New Hampshire in June of last year.

A film called “Guns and Weed: The Road to Freedom [2]” was screened for the PorcFest participants. The “weed” is marijuana. This very disturbing video, which carries a warning, features many objectionable scenes, including one of a rapper with a gun dancing in front of a huge poster of marijuana leaves. “Today,” says the narrator, “many cops who enforce pot laws do so because it provides them with cushy jobs, good benefits, and a chance to push people around.”

Another video, “PorcFest marijuana users & their supporters lose fear [3],” covers one aspect of the PorcFest—open drug use. It shows participants smoking dope while paying tribute to one Stefan Molyneux, a self-styled “freedom advocate” who is described [4] as a frequent guest on the Moscow-funded Russia Today (RT) propaganda channel’s Adam Kokesh program, which has since been cancelled, and RT’s Max Keiser Report [5]. On the eve of the Iowa Caucuses, Molyneux recorded a 14-minute rant in a video [6] for Paul, saying that the Congressman’s stance against “imperialism and foreign wars” would save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. He called Iowa “make or break” for the Paul campaign and urged people to vote in the caucuses and send money immediately.

This video, “Armed slam dancing & other PorcFest scenes [7],” shows a rock concert on the grounds of PorcFest, with the lead singer wearing an “End the Fed” T-shirt while two young men, one armed with a gun in his belt, practice “slam dancing.”

The PorcFest was sponsored by the Free State Project [8], a political movement trying to recruit tens of thousands of “libertarian-leaning people” to move to New Hampshire. It became a gathering of the “New Hampshire Liberty Movement [9]” and other such organizations from around the nation. This is Ron Paul’s constituency.

But the mixture of drugs and guns with an anti-government philosophy that borders on paranoia can have disastrous consequences.

One only has to recall that John Patrick Bedell, a 36-year-old marijuana addict, had used “medical marijuana” cards to get legal dope in California, before he drove to Washington, D.C. in March of 2010 to murder people at the Pentagon. Bedell, who injured two security guards before getting killed in the crossfire, was a libertarian who thought the government was out to get him. He was devoted to legal marijuana, believed in the 9/11 “inside job” theory, and accused the U.S. Government of murdering a Marine Corps colonel, James Sabow, in California in 1991.

Anarchy and Gay Rights

National Public Radio covered the PorcFest event [10], where New Hampshire correspondent Josh Rogers interviewed the lead organizer, “an anarchist who goes by the name Sovereign Curtis.” Rogers reported, “Curtis was between pulls on a marijuana pipe outside an event called the big gay dance party. Curtis thinks many Porcfest attendees will probably skip the 2012 elections because he says government is corrupt, period. But Curtis admits a soft spot for a certain Congressman from Texas.”

Sovereign Curtis explained, “I’m a big fan of Ron Paul. I tell people he’s my favorite government thug. But he’s still a government thug, you know.”

Rogers reported that some participants at PorcFest “wore pistols and knocked back cocktails, and others practiced yoga and traded silver as currency.”

One is tempted to laugh at some of this, except for the fact that young people disillusioned with American society and government are being drawn into the “guns and weed” philosophy and leaving their families. It’s much the same thing that happened with the New Left, the SDS and the Weather Underground in the 1960s. I have talked to a distraught mother who says her daughter was brainwashed into joining the Ron Paul movement. “I just wonder if the voters know what kind of political groups are backing Ron Paul’s campaign,” she tells me.

These are young people who have “dropped out,” to use the vernacular of LSD guru Timothy Leary, but are dropping back in through the Ron Paul campaign. They have certainly become cannon fodder for the Ron Paul Revolution. Ron Paul is their Messiah, with Gary Johnson, the libertarian former New Mexico Governor and drug legalization advocate, waiting in the wings. The “Next Ron Paul,” as he has been called, has openly talked [11] about the joys of smoking marijuana.

It’s of course worthwhile that these young people have taken an interest in politics, but their political activities resemble something that we used to associate with the New Left and the anti-government radicals and communists of the 1960s. They are not only destroying their lives with drugs, but embracing a political philosophy that would leave America defenseless against real enemies abroad.

Left-Right Alliance

If this sounds like an area where the extreme left meets the extreme right, it is not the only one. Rep. Paul joined with Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts liberal, to advocate massive defense cuts and the legalization of marijuana. It seems to be a deliberate strategy of Paul’s to seek the votes of the liberal/left on such issues.

Ron Paul was apparently not at PorcFest, but presidential contender Gary Johnson was. Reporter Rogers wondered if “embracing such a counter-cultural crowd would be good politics for a would-be president” and said, “Gary Johnson seemed to think so.” Indeed, Johnson, who dropped out of the current Republican presidential primaries to seek the Libertarian Party presidential nomination, was mingling with the crowd seeking votes. His campaign platform [12] features “drug policy reform,” which is a fancy way of saying that drugs should be legalized so that the government can regulate, tax, and distribute them.

A video [13] shows Johnson being interviewed by the reporter, who says to him, “A lot of people would say it’s a courageous candidate that would come to an event where there’s people walking around open carrying weapons, there’s gay disco, there’s people smoking marijuana. What do you make of that?” Johnson replies that he’s not courageous for being there and “Those things don’t bother me at all.” How’s that for a political leader concerned about the future of America and its youth?

One of the featured speakers at PorcFest was Adam Kokesh, the Ron Paul supporter who had a program on the Russia Today (RT) propaganda channel before he got fired apparently for improperly raising money on the air for Paul’s campaign. The scandal [14] revealed a cozy relationship between the Paul campaign and a state-funded channel run by the regime of former KGB officer and now Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Paul is also one of Iranian Press TV’s favorite U.S. politicians [15], obviously because of the Congressman’s indifference to the Iranian regime developing nuclear weapons.

An Official Ron Paul Connection

Allison Gibbs [16], who worked for Kokesh when he ran for Congress, was director of outreach for Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty before becoming advance coordinator for the 2012 Ron Paul presidential campaign. She has attended the PorcFest in the past, where she received this neck tattoo [17]. Like Ron Paul, Gibbs is a supporter of accused Army traitor Bradley Manning and calls him a “patriot.” She also started the “Ladies of Liberty” group and was one of their 2010 pin-up calendar girls. A video [18] features Gibbs describing her transformation from left-winger to libertarian anti-war activist. She explains that she changed careers because she didn’t want to work for the Defense Department and be complicit in “atrocities.

One of Gibbs’s associates in what they call the “liberty movement” is Mike Gogulski [19], sponsor of nostate.com and self-declared “stateless person” and anarchist. “I renounced my American citizenship in protest of what has become an American Empire, a nation that I see riding an express train to police state dictatorship with flags flying, anthems blaring and deluded, complicit masses cheering it along the track,” he says. He currently serves as a press spokesman for the Bradley Manning Support Network.

Gibbs’s video interviewer and associate, Pete Eyre, first went to the Porcupine Freedom Fest in 2005. “It was the first time I was around people who openly carried weapons and were living the free lifestyle,” he says [20]. He became a libertarian and then an anarchist. He is now with CopBlock.org [21], an anti-police organization which depicts [22] police officers as demonic figures with blood on their hands and batons. “We’re watching” the police, it says.

Eyre’s animus for police may have something to do with the fact that he obtained an undergraduate degree in law enforcement but was then turned down for jobs in various police departments. “I tested with New York City Police Department, Seattle PD and LAPD, and scored at the 94%, 98% and 100% levels, respectively. But, after a questionable reading on the lie detector test administered by the LAPD, they found that I hadn’t been truthful about my use of ‘illicit’ substances. Consequently, they dropped me from consideration,” he admits [20].

Eyre promoted the incident [23] in which Kokesh, then with Russia Today television, disrupted tourism at the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. and got himself arrested. Their strategy was to break the law and provoke a confrontation with police so that officers would be accused of brutality.

Eyre’s bio [24] says that he interned with the Cato Institute and was a Koch Fellow [25] at the Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance. This is significant because the Koch Brothers are considered enemies of the “progressives.” It seems that, on the matter of ending the war on drugs, the Koch Brothers and “progressive” philanthropist George Soros agree. Eyre also worked at the Institute for Humane Studies [26].

One of the other interests listed on Eyre’s Facebook page [27] is the “International Peace Movement [28],” which features speeches by Moammar Gadhafi, information about the 9/11 Truth movement, and tributes to Ron Paul. This video [29] shows Ron Paul discussing civil disobedience with Pete Eyre.

“Marijuana Muscle”

But another video [30] is perhaps the most interesting and frightening. It shows Eyre, described as a “marijuana muscle-sponsored anarchist/athlete,” talking in some detail about why he believes the war on drugs should be ended. As incredible as it may seem, Eyre promotes “Hemp Protein Powder,” advertised [31] as a “vegan green protein,” for health purposes. It appears to be entirely legal. The website declares, “True freedom and liberty means using your body the way you choose. Freedom is to whatever it is that you choose into your own body no matter if it is healthy or not.”

Like Allison Gibbs, Eyre enjoys tattoos. This Pete Eyre website [32] features his various tattoos, including one depicting a snake wrapped around an assault rifle. He also displays one tattoo called amagi, which is supposed to be the first written word for freedom or liberty. Another person has a “Come and Take It” pistol tattoo on his left forearm, with the “anarcho-capitalist flag” in the gun detail.

The heavy turnout of young people at Ron Paul events, including their loud and obnoxious behavior on behalf of the candidate at presidential debates, has been mentioned by the media throughout the campaign. Some of these young people are on news programs saying they are concerned about the national debt. Others oppose U.S. involvement in foreign wars. These are respectable views but they do not tell the whole story about what is going on in the “Ron Paul Revolution.” The media should take a much closer look.

Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org

URL to article: http://www.aim.org/special-report/drugs-guns-and-madness-in-the-ron-paul-revolution/

URLs in this post:

[1] Porcupine Freedom Festival: http://porcfest.com/

[2] Guns and Weed: The Road to Freedom: http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DIJSG55jq8LU

[3] PorcFest marijuana users & their supporters lose fear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvb_unsaDXU

[4] described: http://freedomainradio.com/About.aspx

[5] Max Keiser Report: http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/

[6] video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-26c7WxaiE&feature=youtu.be

[7] Armed slam dancing & other PorcFest scenes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aECMKqwwr1Q

[8] Free State Project: http://freestateproject.org/

[9] New Hampshire Liberty Movement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKCwOeNnKN4&feature=player_embedded

[10] covered the PorcFest event: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/26/137429473/porcfest-voters-ponder-which-candidate-will-leave-them-alone

[11] openly talked: http://www.tnr.com/article/magazine/78543/Gary-johnson-2012-republican-candidate-new-mexico?passthru=MWFjY2RkZDlmYWRlY2U5YmIyYTk1N2NhZDczMzA2ZDc

[12] campaign platform: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/drug-policy-reform

[13] video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-a2hy_WQaA

[14] scandal: http://www.aim.org../aim-column/ron-paul-reportedly-cuts-ties-to-russian-channel/

[15] one of Iranian Press TV’s favorite U.S. politicians: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/218416.html

[16] Allison Gibbs: http://www.linkedin.com/in/allisongibbs

[17] neck tattoo: http://peteeyre.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/allison-gibbs-amagi.jpg

[18] video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KO572c1nQ8

[19] Mike Gogulski: http://www.nostate.com/about/

[20] says: http://www.voluntaryist.com/howibecame/eyre.html

[21] CopBlock.org: http://www.copblock.org/

[22] depicts: http://www.copblock.org/beactive/

[23] incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4D1Zl1OvZ0

[24] bio: http://peteeyre.com/about/

[25] Koch Fellow: http://www.theihs.org/koch-summer-fellow-program

[26] Institute for Humane Studies: http://www.theihs.org/

[27] Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/peteeyre

[28] International Peace Movement: http://www.facebook.com/iPeaceMovement

[29] video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdKlFtxbt9o

[30] video: http://marijuanamuscle.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/marijuanamuscle-sponsored-anarchist-athlete-pete-eyre-talks-about-freedom-of-what-to-put-in-your-body/

[31] advertised: http://www.marijuanamuscle.com/

[32] website: http://peteeyre.wordpress.com/tattoos/

Click here to print.

Copyright © 2010 Accuracy In Media. All rights reserved.

Are you eating meat glue?

2012-01-05T20:32:00.000-08:00

STOP MESSIN' WITH MY MEAT!!!!!
http://d.yimg.com/nl/australia/site/player.swf?vid=24472661&repeat=0&browseC