February 13, 2012
Why the Babies? Why?
By Lloyd Marcus
In their isolated inside-the-Beltway arrogance, it appears the Obama administration did not anticipate the huge blowback resulting from Obama’s decree that Catholic institutions provide birth control, abortion drugs, and other contraceptive services to their employees.
This latest attack on the unborn is simply more of the same from Obama. As an Illinois senator, Obama voted against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which authorized hospital staff to give medical assistance to babies who survived failed abortions. Before the Born-Alive Act, hospitals were legally forced to leave an unsuccessfully aborted baby to die. Some died quickly; some clung to life for several hours. Obama voted against Born-Alive Act three times.
But folks, Obama is not alone in his callousness towards the most innocent of human life.
Think of the secular-progressive movement as a pro-abortion patchwork quilt of various anti-America groups. These people hate everything about America, from the light bulbs we use to our consumption of beef to our love affair with the automobile. They believe that America is the greatest source of evil in the world; everyone else in the world has too little because America has too much.
Now get this, folks — a large number of these environmental zealots are mega-wealthy Hollywood people and Democratic politicians who live in mansions and travel everywhere in limos and private jets. They consume more fuel and resources per month than most of us will consume in our entire lifetimes. I was shocked when I picked up a government-funded brochure at my local library which laid a huge guilt-trip on young couples, instructing them to “save the planet” by not having a baby.
Abortion is the thread which joins each wacko anti-America patch of the secular-progressive quilt. Why? Why is the left so fanatical about killing human babies? If it is about “choice,” as they claim, why are they infuriated when a woman “chooses” to have her baby? Case in point: the left’s hysterical outrage over the Super Bowl ad in which Tim Tebow thanked his mom for not aborting him.
“Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” So said Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Seventy-eight percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are in black neighborhoods. Blacks make up only 12% of the population, but 35% of America’s aborted babies are black. Half of black pregnancies end in abortion. Is this an intentional genocide?
“The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb,” according to Pastor Clenard Childress, Jr. Blacks are the only minority in America experiencing a declining population.
So why would Obama, the NAACP, Rev. Sharpton, and other black leftists be passionate supporters of Planned Parenthood? Why did Al Sharpton threaten to protest a pro-life billboard which exposed the devastatingly high number of black abortions?
Why? Why are these leftist blacks more loyal to their Holy Grail of abortion than they are to their fellow blacks — all the while claiming that rich white Republicans and the Tea Party are the enemies of black America?
Why are so-called African-American activists, all Democrats, at odds with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s niece, Alveda King who is a committed Christian pro-life advocate?
What is up with these people on the left? Why do the same folks who passionately defend the life of a whale, a spotted owl, a baby seal, a toad, and a death-row serial killer get extremely angry at the mere suggestion that a woman consider not killing her baby? Why?
I can only conclude that it is a spiritual thing. I know what some of you are thinking: there you go again, Lloyd, bringing God, good, and evil into the mix. Well, there is something extremely evil and godless about the left’s obsession with killing babies.
Obama’s obsession is so strong that he is willing to risk re-election. How else can you interpret Obama basically giving Catholics, of which a majority supported him last election, the finger?
I once thought Obama voted against the Born-Alive Act and passionately supported Planned Parenthood to secure the hardcore radical feminist vote. I was wrong. Obama’s commitment to abortion goes far deeper. Limbaugh nailed it: “Abortion is the sacrament to the religion of liberalism” – a religion of which I, Lloyd Marcus, believe that Obama is a zealot.
Arrogant egomaniacs have a tendency to overreach. Who was the guy in Greek mythology who flew too close to the sun despite being cautioned not to do so? Oh, yeah — Icarus was his name. The wax which held his wings together melted, and Icarus fell to his death.
Mr. President, you may have flown a bit too close to the sun with your latest in-your-face attack against people of faith. Even the superglue of your race will not be able to hold your wings together this time. I pray that come November, your fall will be great.
Lloyd Marcus, proud unhyphenated American, is the chairman of The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama and the spokesperson for the Tea Party Express. Please help Lloyd spread his message by joining his Liberty Network. Lloyd is singer/songwriter of the American Tea Party Anthem and author of Confessions of a Black Conservative, foreword by Michelle Malkin. LloydMarcus.com
February 13, 2012
CNN Tilts East, Fires 4 Jewish Journalists in Jerusalem
By Michael Widlanski
CNN has reportedly fired most of the Jews in its Jerusalem bureau, cutting half the bureau but leaving Arab workers and reviving charges of CNN’s pro-Arab slant.
CNN denies the charges, claiming a budgetary downsizing, but two producers in the CNN Jerusalem office confirmed that four of the eight-person bureau, all Jews, were told they were being fired, leaving only one Jewish producer.
We strongly reject any suggestion that the reorganization in the Jerusalem bureau is in any way based on the small number of contract employees concerned being Israeli, particularly given CNN’s long history of working with locals in the region, declared a CNN spokesman, cited by Media-bistro.
Media Bistro, Dreuz.info, and several Israeli media sources confirmed that CNN had fired Jewish workers with between ten and 25 years of experience. But several of the sources suggested that CNN’s was not so much anti-Jewish as pro-Arab.
“They are moving more and more of their activities to the Gulf,” said an ex-CNN correspondent who asked not to be quoted on the record. CNN made Abu Dhabi its fourth global hub in late 2009, along with New York, London, and CNN headquarters in Atlanta.
Sources in the foreign press in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv said that other media were cutting back in Jerusalem and following the money and moving resources to the Gulf. CNN seems to be leading the pack, hosting many shows out of its new studios in Abu Dhabi City as well as CNN’s Arabic shows from Dubai City, also in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
So economic considerations, alongside politics, may explain the Jerusalem dismissals, but they sit in the long shadow of CNN’s record of sucking up to Arab extremists, like Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat, and trying to ingratiate itself with both.
Well after the Gulf war, CNN’s news director Eason Jordan admitted trading soft coverage of Saddam in return for exclusive access in Iraq. So it might be a good idea to be wary of CNN claims of not discriminating against Jews or sucking up to Arabs.
CNN has often belittled terror attacks on Israelis, as in the 2011 murder of the Fogel family (i.e., the stabbing murder of both sleeping parents, a four-year-old, and an eleven-year-old, and the beheading of a three-month-old baby). CNN described the massacre as “what the Israeli army calls a ‘terrorist attack.’”
Israel protested CNN’s report at the time, and CNN did not respond publicly.
On other occasions, CNN’s top reporters and commentators have minimized Iran’s nuclear plans and suggested that Arab-Islamic terror is a minor problem or that Arab-Islamic terror is equivalent to Jewish or Christian terror. Christiane Amanpour’s series “God’s Warriors” compared Arab terrorists to Jewish settlers and Christian preachers.
For his part, Fareed Zakaria has spent the best part of the last three years in the psychological state of denial, repressing the idea that Iran wants atomic weapons. Zakaria praised Barack Obama’s original idea of engaging Iran, and he recently criticized President Obama for putting pressure on Iranian leaders who really just want to be talked to, Zakaria said. The host of CNN’s GPS show said that even if Iran gets nuclear weapons, it is not a big problem, because Iran’s leaders are rational.
CNN is supposed to cover events on this planet, and instead of firing its Jewish employees, perhaps it should jettison some of its space cadets. Whatever CNN claims, it is time to realize that CNN does not really stand for Cable News Network, but rather Certainly Not News.
Michael Widlanski is the author of Battle for Our Minds: Western Elites and the Terror Threat, to be published next month by Simon & Schuster/Threshold.
February 12, 2012
Fond Memories of Ronnie
By Lloyd Marcus
Our 40th president’s birthday earlier this month caused me to reflect upon how Ronald Reagan impacted my life.
In 1981, I was a young singer/songwriter, clueless about politics, when Ronald Reagan won the presidency. An event planner asked me to perform at an inaugural ball.
Reporters asked, “Why are you here and why do you like Reagan?” I could not help noticing the baffled looks on their faces upon hearing my reply. “I like Reagan because every time I hear this man speak, I feel good about my country and myself.”
I later learned that as a black person, I was supposed to hate Reagan. Democrats said Reagan’s talk about welfare reform was “code” for his racism and hatred of blacks. As I said, I was young and clueless regarding politics, codes, and such. And yet, in my gut, I knew that Reagan was a good man.
My aunt hated Reagan. She said, “Reagan wants to cut my check!” Even as a non-politically informed person, I noticed my aunt’s bold and arrogant sense of entitlement in her voice when she said, “My check!” Here is a woman who from as far back as I can remember lived in the projects on welfare. I do not ever remember her having a job. In fairness, if my aunt had a disability which prevented her from working, I never knew of it, as it was not visible. She had five kids and a boyfriend, but no husband.
Her daughter got pregnant really early out of wedlock, with both the new teen mother and her baby adding to the welfare roll. My aunt’s drug-using sons, my cousins, impregnated girls out of wedlock, repeating the welfare government dependency cycle.
I overheard my mom commenting to my dad about how her sister practically lived in the Johns Hopkins Hospital emergency room. At the slightest cough, off my aunt went with her child to the emergency room. But why shouldn’t she? It was free.
So, you can understand my being taken back a bit hearing my young, seemingly healthy aunt, who had lived her whole life totally dependent on government, trashing Reagan for daring to suggest she do something for her freebies or receive a little less.
Over the years, I have grown to have compassion for my aunt. Our lives are a manifestation of what we believe. Tragically, my aunt had little or no confidence in her ability to succeed in America. I believe that the Democratic Party’s promoting that America is a racist country, and that blacks can survive only via Democrat-legislated government programs, contributed to my aunt’s distorted view of her country — the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for it.
Ronald Reagan inspired me to believe in myself and America.
I believe that you can tell a lot about the character of a person based on how he treats “the little people” — people who cannot advance their career or social standing.
On TV, a former secret service agent told a great story about Ronald Reagan confirming, in my mind, Reagan’s greatness. The agent said he and Reagan had been out horseback riding. Upon their return, Reagan always prepared his horse to be put away. On this occasion, due to Alzheimer’s disease, Reagan could not remember the procedure for putting away his horse. The agent felt bad for Reagan and was visibly upset. Reagan, feeling compassion for the agent, said, “It’s OK.”
Rather than feeling pity for himself, Reagan chose to comfort his bodyguard/secret service agent. I found the secret service agent’s story quite moving and a window into Reagan’s character. The Bible speaks about Jesus, the master, washing his servants’/disciples’ feet. I believe that Reagan’s attempt to comfort the secret service agent was, in essence, washing his servant’s feet, thus displaying Reagan’s greatness as a leader.
Inspired, I penned a tribute song to Ronald Reagan, respectfully borrowing Mrs. Reagan’s nickname for the president, titled “Ronnie Stayed The Same.”
Despite all of his landmark achievements, Ronald Reagan never forgot who he was. Reagan knew how to connect with us, the American people, and we connected with him. Mr. President, we miss you.
February 13, 2012
Israeli embassy personnel in India and Georgia targeted
The fact that the attempted bombings came on the anniversary of the assassination of Hezb’allah operations chief Imad Moughniyeh points to Iran as the probable culprit. if true, the attacks may also be retaliation for the recent deaths of Iranian nuclear scientists.
Bombers targeted staff at Israel’s embassies in India and Georgia on Monday, wounding four people, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Iran and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah of involvement.
The New Delhi bomb wrecked a vehicle with diplomatic plates and Israel’s parliamentary television channel said the wife of Israel’s Defence attache and her driver were among four people hurt. The Tbilisi bomb was defused safely by Georgian police.
Israel had put its foreign missions on especially high alert ahead of the February 12 anniversary of the assassination, in 2008, of the military mastermind of Lebanon’s Hezbollah guerrillas, Imad Moughniyeh.
Iranian-backed Hezbollah had vowed to avenge Moughniyeh’s death in a Damascus car-bombing, blaming it on the Jewish state.
Israel is also believed to be locked in a wider covert war with Iran, whose nuclear program has been beset by sabotage, including the unclaimed killings of several scientists.
“Iran, which stands behind these attacks, is the largest exporter of terror in the world,” Netanyahu told lawmakers from his Likud party in Jerusalem.
He linked the incidents to allegations of similar but foiled attacks in Thailand and Azerbaijan last month for which, he said, Iran and its “proxy” Hezbollah were responsible.
Hezb’allah has been keeping busy lately. They are apparently advising Syria on how to crush the rebellion against President Assad. They have also been more active in Latin America as well as moving into Mexico and Central America to establish a foothold.
They are now the principle means by which Iran extends its influence – and terror - throughout the world. As their reach grows, Israeli outposts will be in greater danger.
February 12, 2012
Washington Post resorts to guilt by association to tar an Israeli religious
In its Feb. 12 edition, the Washington Post carries an article about suburban Montgomery County putting plans on hold for a sister-city agreement with Beit Shemesh in Israel because of several incidents there involving attacks by ultra-Orthodox fanatical extremists on Israeli women (“Montgomery delays Israeli sister-city pact – News reports of ultra-Orthodox violence worry activists, county” by Victor Zapana, page C1)
The incidents were utterly despicable — a young girl was spat on because her clothing was deemed insufficiently modest; a woman was pelted with stones for daring to assert her rights in public places. And there have been other such incidents in Beit Shemesh.
The Post’s article, however, went way overboard by indicting ultra-Orthodox Jews in general for such outrages when they were actually perpetrated by a small minority of ultra-Orthodox fanatical extremists known as the Sicarii.
Here’s how the Post smeared all ultra-Orthodox Jews in Beit Shemesh:
“In recent months, news reports of the city’s ultra-Orthodox population skirmishing with Israeli police and assaulting some Israeli women have made their way around the world and into living rooms around Washington.
“Israeli cabinet ministers and moderate Orthodox leaders denounced the actions of the ultra-Orthodox.”
Wrong. This is not a conflict between ultra-Orthodox and moderate Orthodox Jews, as the Post would have readers believe. It’s a conflict involving a few hundred violence-bent zealots among the ultra-Orthodox against the rest of Israeli society, including many ultra-Orthodox Jews and their rabbis who denounced the Sicarii.
Israel’s secular press and liberal politicians exploited the incidents by launching attacks against Israel’s religious sector. In turn, foreign media, including the Washington Post, jumped on the bandwagon to take a similar poke at ultra-Orthodox Jews in general.
In his article, Zapana asserts that he relied on “news reports” emanating from Israel. No doubt. The liberal media in Israel are just as ultra-secular in their outlook as U.S. mainstream media. Even to the point of resorting to guilt by association.
Senator Joseph McCarthy meet the Washington Post.
EGYPT: Presidential contender would force all Muslim women to wear
Reprinted from BareNakedIslam
February 13, 2012
Is this what the American Muslim-in-Chief meant when he praised the Arab Spring, saying that “democracy is breaking out all over the Middle East?”
February 13, 2012
Media Matters for America exposed
Looks like Tucker Carlson at the Daily Caller has hit paydirt again. The DC has exposed several juicy stories, including the email group of liberals Journolist and the night on the town spent by RNC staffers at a bawdy house.
Now, an expose of the Soros-funded Media Matters for America. Through interviews with former staffers and a wealth of documentation, the DC has revealed Media Matters to be an arm of White House propaganda, as well as seriously influencing national media to buy into its various narratives of the right.
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.”
David Brock, who founded and heads up Media Matters, is revealed as a paranoid loon with tight security both at home and at the office, warding off threats, he claims, from conservatives.
It promises to be an excellent expose of how wildly partisan “journalists” drive the media narratives explaining conservatives while working hand in hand with the White House to achieve political goals.
February 13, 2012
Can We Rely on the Executive Branch for Unsullied Data?
By Jim Yardley
Some things just never seem to change from year to year, from decade to decade, or even from century to century. The great novelist Mark Twain, an unremitting source for timeless observations of the human condition, once summed up the problem that Americans of all political persuasions, ages, and income levels face when dealing with their own government: “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Poll after poll has shown the economy, and in particular the unemployment picture, as being the dominant issue in almost all political conversation. Everyone would agree that the key information needed for any sort of intelligent conversation is the unemployment rate.
Lots of luck with that. As one of my professors in college once said in class, “there is data, and there is information. Never get those two things confused.”
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) — which, keep in mind, is part of the Department of Labor, which in turn is headed by the Honorable Linda Solis as secretary of labor — is part of the Obama administration. Since the Department of Labor is part of one of the most partisan administrations in recent memory, how can anyone simply assume that the data that issues from the BLS is completely untainted by politics? On the other hand, the Congressional Budget Office has a noted and honorable history of being completely nonpartisan, doing yeoman’s service in supplying data to Congress to help the members draft rational legislation.
Note that the CBO does not supply information, which is an interpretation of data, but merely the data itself.
With this in mind, here is a suggestion for Congress. Congress is a co-equal branch of government with the president and the Supreme Court, and as such, Congress does not need the approval of either of the two other branches when it chooses to reorganize itself. So there is no way Obama can threaten a veto, nor can the Supremes question the constitutionality, of actions that Congress takes that impact only Congress itself. Well, directly impact only Congress itself. The impact on the rest of the nation and government would likely be seismic.
Congress should create a Bureau of Data Integrity. Let this BDI act as the umbrella agency for not only the CBO, but also for the BLS and the equivalent data-collection and summarization functions of any department of the executive branch that might be problematic in terms of accuracy, consistency, or politicization. The existence and reputation of the CBO itself is evidence that such a feat is possible.
The goal of such a Bureau of Data Integrity would be to assure all the players, be they Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, or Progressives, that when the unemployment figure (or any other recurring data, such as the national debt) for a time period is announced, there will not be pages and pages of footnotes, many of which are based on assumptions, adjustments, and interpretations that are completely incomprehensible or merely obscure.
It is tremendously frustrating to constantly be told that the unemployment rate for the prior month is such-and-such, followed by caveats about season adjustments and reporting that ignores the total numbers of job-seekers, whether active or not; the participation rate in the workforce; and so on. A headline that reads “Unemployment Unexpectedly Drops to 3%” is as useless as one that states that “Unemployment Unexpectedly Rises to 13%.”
Knowing that the source data for either headline lies in a realm dominated by politics is not the best way to provide confidence to anyone, be he the president, a member of the Senate or House, or one of the Joe-the-Plumber guys who are trying to decide whether to hire an additional employee or not.
The most pressing need, of course, is the integrity of data concerning the economy. As such, the BLS should be the first to transfer out of the executive branch — but only the first. Similar functions in the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Education, and Health and Human Services (HHS) should follow as soon as possible.
Jim Yardley is a retired financial controller for manufacturing firms, a Vietnam veteran, and an independent voter. Jim blogs at http://jimyardley.wordpress.com, or he can be contacted directly at firstname.lastname@example.org.
February 13, 2012
Barack Obama: In the Footsteps of Twentieth Century Despots
By Steve McCann
How many times will the American people have to be hit over the head before they understand that Barack Obama is the most corrupt, dictatorial, and ideologically driven president in American history? That his entire being and psyche are devoted to transforming the country not only into a socialist utopia, but into a nation permanently governed by a radical oligarchy?
This mindset has been on display since the beginning of Obama’s term, as detailed by David Limbaugh in his book, Crimes Against Liberty. Yet so many seem to not care or are deliberately oblivious to the long-term implications of his actions, many of which mirror those of the despots that ran roughshod over the last century.
The recent ruling by the Obama Department of Health and Human Services forcing religious institutions to provide either directly or through private insurance not only contraceptives, but abortion pills and sterilization is not a matter of so-called women’s rights, but a means of setting the precedent and foundation to force organized religion to be subservient to the state.
The passage of ObamaCare, from which this edict stems, has nothing to do with healthcare; rather, it is a vehicle to ultimately control the day-to-day activities of the American people through the dictates and mandates emanating from an overarching bureaucracy. Once fully implemented, individual liberty and freedom, the hallmarks of the nation’s history, will be eradicated forever.
Further, the Obama regime has shown a callous disregard for the sanctity of life, as no administration in the nation’s past has so aggressively promoted abortion, and, through the rationing mechanism in ObamaCare, the very real prospect of government-sponsored euthanasia.
Nothing reveals Obama’s dictatorial mindset more than his relationship with Congress. His recent actions in unilaterally making appointments that are subject to Senate approval while the Senate is still in session are blatantly unconstitutional and done to marginalize Congress. His appointment of innumerable “czars” is a means of bypassing Congress and their oversight of the federal Cabinet departments. His Department of Justice has been transformed into an advocacy group to enforce the left-wing radical version of social justice while refusing to be accountable to Congress. Obama has resorted to utilizing executive orders and volumes of regulations from various agencies under his command in order to put in place his radical policies and sidestep Congress and thus the will of the people.
In furtherance of Obama’s transformative goals, he and his minions are in the process of shackling the free market through unfettered government control and influence. It is the aim of the Obama presidency to create a so-called “government-business partnership” wherein the government chooses the winners and losers based upon their allegiance to and support of the regime.
The massive spending and debt incurred over the past three years are the byproduct of Obama’s overarching objective to make certain that the overwhelming majority of the populace becomes, by necessity, dependent on the government, thus more subservient and easily controlled. Whether the country becomes insolvent or the middle class ceases to exist is immaterial.
In his public speeches and well-produced appearances, Barack Obama plays the fictional role of someone who cares for the “little guy.” He is the people’s avenger against those he defines as the enemy, be it the wealthy, the corporations, deeply committed religious groups, conservatives and the Tea Party movement, or those intransigent ideologues in Congress who stand in the way of his nation-saving agenda. In this quest for power, there are no lies or obfuscations too egregious to tell or societal tensions too dangerous to create, as he alone can save the nation.
Barack Obama is following in the footsteps of the despots who dominated the 20th century. If given another term in office, he, along with his fellow-travelers in the administration, will be unencumbered in attempting to complete the transformation of the United States. However, they will not accomplish their quest — just as those they admire in the previous century did not. They will succeed only in initiating massive social upheaval and violence.
I had to survive a war that was precipitated by leaders in various European countries who were democratically elected. Yet once in power, these power-crazed ideologues began to systematically usurp and overthrow the rule of law with the ultimate goal of becoming the government themselves.
Their lust for power led them to shred any written constitution or traditions as they systematically imposed new regulations, laws, and executive orders geared primarily to centralize authority in the government as individual rights and liberties were extinguished. Legislatures were abolished or marginalized; organized religion was forced to be subservient to the state, and respect for the sanctity of life was extinguished. The owners and managers of business and industry were intimidated and compelled to be submissive and loyal to the state. By the time the populace became aware of what was happening to their respective countries, it was too late.
The citizens of Germany in the first four years of the 1930s would have found it impossible to imagine what became of their country by 1945 or to think it even remotely possible. Those in Italy in the 1920s, promised so much by the Mussolini regime, eagerly voted the Fascists into power only to end up with a society torn asunder and a nation lying in ruins. The same results were played out in Russia, China, and many countries in Eastern Europe.
The history of the United States and its traditions of liberty and individual freedom should be a bulwark against the successful emergence of someone like Barack Obama and his cronies. Yet the majority of the citizenry, the media, the opposition party, the members of Congress, and the judiciary are not shouting from the highest hilltop and taking action to stop the Obama regime’s unconstitutional acts and power-grabs.
Has this country enjoyed peace and prosperity so long that everyone is jaded and preoccupied with themselves, or in a self-induced stupor, either ignoring the situation or telling themselves that these unconstitutional steps and power-grabs are minor? Is a pre-packaged television image all that matters? Is it because Obama happens to have black skin, and everyone is too intimidated by political correctness to speak out? Are we as a society unwilling to say in the bluntest of terms that a national leader is a liar and a fraud? Why are countless members of the Ruling Class unwilling to learn from history, or is it that their egos are such that they cannot admit a mistake, or do far too many have a vested interest in the current state of affairs?
Perhaps it is as it was in Germany, Italy, and Russia among many — a belief that the worst could never happen here.
For those of us who emigrated from those nations whose societies suffered not only overwhelming destruction, but a devastating loss of freedom and liberty, we can only warn our fellow citizens that the country is going down a road that is becoming eerily familiar. It is not hyperbole to say that we see someone in the White House whose character reflects the worst and most dangerous traits to be found in a national leader, and we are stunned that the majority of the American people do not understand what is happening to the most successful society in the history of mankind. We know that the only viable solution to avoid the stormclouds gathering over the horizon is to relegate Barack Obama and his regime to a footnote in the annals of American history.
Either the citizens, on the 6th of November 2012, will choose to reverse course and return to the basic tenets of freedom and liberty upon which the nation was founded, or the people will choose to blindly follow Barack Obama on a path which will eventuate in internal chaos and violence as well as subservience to those countries who wish to see the end of America’s time on the world stage.
ADMINISTRATOR’S NOTE: Oh, be proud, be so very proud, of our complete unwavering support for all these long years now, of the evil House of Saud with every gallon of gas we consume and pump into our gas tanks…for with every gallon the House of Saud has used double digit figures from their obscene profits to fuel and finance Islamic terrorism worldwide. From the falling towers of New York, to the burning rubble of the the Pentagon, to bombs bursting in nightclubs in Malaysia, to uprisings and bombings throughout Europe and the Middle East. Maybe someone you know and love lost their life as a result. Oh, be so proud America, of our addiction and conviction without constriction as we perpetually bow to the killers and liars of Saudi Arabia, and the evil House of Saud…and you thought you were free and filled with liberty, and America had not ad never would become an Islamic slave nation?
Saudis Prompt Al Qaeda-Iraq Move To Syria: Assad’s Ouster Top Priority
Saudi rulers, seeing Bashar Assad on the verge of defeating the opposition to his rule, are reported by DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources as taking a hand in turning al Qaeda Iraqi cells loose against him. Saudi agents used their pull with Iraqi Sunnis to persuade al Qaeda leaders that Assad and his Alawite regime were their most dangerous foe.
The same message was also broadcast by their Pakistan-based leader Ayman al Zuweiri.
Al Qaeda strength was fast building up in Syria, say US intelligence agencies tracking the jihadists’ Middle East movements – ten days before Zawahri Sunday, Feb. 11 issued his videotaped instruction to all combat strength in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey to converge on the Syrian battlefield.
Monday, Iraq’s acting interior minister Adnan al-Assadi confirmed that “a number of jihadists had gone to Syria,” reporting also that the price of weapons in Mosul had risen because they were being sent to the opposition in Syria “from Baghdad to Nineveh [province].”
DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources estimate that the bulk of the 1,500-strong Iraq-based al Qaeda network– Syrians, Egyptians, Libyans, Mauritanians, Pakistanis, Lebanese and Palestinians – have headed to Syria. This accounts for the sharp drop in terrorist attacks inside Iraq.
Center for Security Policy | Feb 13, 2012
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.
The reaction in Saudi Arabia has been characteristically over-the-top when it comes to such alleged “blasphemy” against Islam. Clerics have denounced Kashgari for apostasy, a capital offense under the totalitarian Islamic code known as shariah. And tens of thousands of his countrymen have expressed indignation, with some 13,000 signing an online petition calling for the columnist’s execution.
Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and one of the finest legal minds and essayists of our time, wrote on the occasion that Obama’s amendments would have the effect of establishing here “an international police force immune from the restraints of American law.” He added that, thanks to the Obama executive order:
“This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.”
The more the so-called “international community” accedes to clearlyanti-constitutional restrictions on freedom of expression, the more an international police force is empowered to act in extra-constitutional ways, the more certain it becomes that the Constitution of the United States risks becoming a dead letter. Or at least our Constitution will no longer be “the supreme law of the land,” as its Article VI declares. Instead, we will have conceded an equal, if not superior, place to shariah and put at risk all who dare toresist its tyranny.
CAIR’s Fight Against Pennsylvania Foreign Law Bill
Posted by David J. Rusin
Feb 13th, 2012
Resistance to a new bill aimed at limiting foreign law in Pennsylvania courts serves as a case study of how Islamists and their allies operate: peddling falsehoods about Shari’a, painting Muslims as victims, and denying that anyone seeks to institutionalize aspects of Islamic law — even as they vigorously promote that very agenda. With similar legislation being debated across the U.S., understanding their tactics is critical.
At issue in Pennsylvania is House Bill (HB) 2029, which stipulates that “a tribunal shall not consider a foreign legal code or system which does not grant … the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges” as guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions. Introduced in November, it follows the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) model and makes no mention of Shari’a. A preliminary memo sent to legislators last June in the name of Rep. RoseMarie Swanger, HB 2029’s chief sponsor, does highlight Islamic law, but she later said that it had been circulated accidentally. Regardless, concerns about Shari’a are warranted due to its many provisions that conflict with the standards of American jurisprudence. For example, it disadvantages women in terms of inheritance, divorce, child custody, and other areas of family law. Shari’a already has shaped numerous cases nationwide, including in Pennsylvania, where one state court decided how assets should be distributed according to Islam.
Pushback against HB 2029 has been led by the Philadelphia office of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-PA) and was punctuated by an interfaith press conference (video here) at CAIR-PA headquarters on December 14. The overall campaign reflects CAIR’s usual recipe of distortion, victimology, and contradiction between words and deeds.
Attacks on bills like HB 2029 begin by sowing confusion about Shari’a. Because Islamic law encompasses virtually every facet of life — governing personal activities such as eating and worship, but also forming an oppressive social and legal structure — suit-and-tie Islamists work to emphasize its unthreatening pieces whenever possible. CAIR-PA executive director Moein Khawaja’s suggestionthat Shari’a should worry Pennsylvanians no more than halal gyros is a fine example of this technique.
Others brazenly misrepresent the unsavory components, as Haider Ala Hamoudi, a University of Pittsburgh law professor, did when he was interviewed by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Hamoudi insisted that women and children would suffer if judges could not consider Shari’a — a stretch, given how it discriminates against women, including in disputes over children. Moving beyond the types of cases that are adjudicated in U.S. courts, he depicted the requirement of testimony by four male witnesses to convict someone of adultery as an exemplar of Islamic enlightenment that protects against false accusations. In practice, however, it can be a nightmare for women in those Muslim countries where the same scriptural passages are interpreted as mandating four witnesses even to prove rape. Robert Spencer further explains, “If the required male witnesses can’t be found, the victim’s charge of rape becomes an admission of adultery,” too often leading to her imprisonment.
Hamoudi also contended that harsh punishments used in Iran and elsewhere, like cutting off hands for stealing, have little to do with Shari’a and are “more a matter of identity politics” in response to Western influence. The man deserves credit for artful misdirection, as it is not every day that brutal penalties prescribed by the Koran itself are chalked up to blowback from cultural imperialism.
When distortion of Shari’a is insufficient, Islamists and their collaborators characterize Muslims as the targets of a shadowy cabal of “Islamophobes.” Hence, Pennsylvanians were treated to Marwan Kreidie, a major figure in the Philadelphia Islamist scene, describing Swanger’s faith-neutral bill as “an exercise in discrimination” and claiming that “there’s a conspiracy afoot here.” CAIR-PA’s Khawaja followed up by taking the ad hominem route, trashing HB 2029 as the brainchild of “anti-Muslim, white supremacist David Yerushalmi.” See Yerushalmi’s recent article for a reply to the typical assaults on his character.
Yet no hyperbole topped that of Rabbi Linda Holtzman, who played the Nazi card at CAIR-PA’s press conference. “The echoes for me are strong of Germany in the 1930s,” she said, “when repeatedly Jewish law was brought forward and defamed in the courts as a means of defaming all of Jewish tradition.” Aside from the sheer ugliness of the analogy, Shari’a could be “defamed” only by spreading inaccuracies about it. HB 2029 does not reference Islam or Islamic law, while the memo correctly labels Shari’a as “inherently hostile to our constitutional liberties.” Sometimes the truth hurts.
Islamists also maintain that bills such as HB 2029 are unnecessary because, they say, there is no attempt by adherents of Islam to undermine the American legal system, but their actions away from the cameras inevitably belie their soothing words. Indeed, not long after it issued a press release dismissing concerns about the advance of Shari’a as “conspiracy theories” to be “mocked,” CAIR-PA announced that its 2012 banquet will be headlined by two men who have expressed support for transforming the U.S. into a Shari’a-run state: Siraj Wahhaj and Sherman Jackson.
Wahhaj, a radical imam who appeared on a federal prosecutor’s “list of unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, has warned that “unless America … accepts the Islamic agenda,” it will fall. He has talked positively of Islamic law supplanting the U.S. Constitution and opined that “if only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.”
Jackson, now a professor at USC, has been equally explicit. Calling him “an outspoken proponent of the Islamist subversion of Western civilization,” Cinnamon Stillwell explains that in a book Jackson coauthored, he “proposes that American Muslims approach the ‘difficult task of penetrating, appropriating and redirecting American culture’ … to ‘influence the legal order in America.’” He writes that “once this is done, there are no Constitutional impediments to having these [Islamic] laws applied in the public domain.” Jackson even muses about how gradual “changes in American culture” could result in the normalization of barbaric punishments such as stoning and flogging.
In short, Islamists do not merely insult the character of those who back bills like HB 2029; they insult the intelligence of all through claims that turn reality on its head and are contradicted by their own actions. Nothing less should be expected. They obfuscate Islamic law and portray Muslims as victims because the facts about Shari’a simply are not palatable to most Americans. Moreover, stealth jihadists shamelessly say one thing and do another because they have faith that the mainstream media will not hold them accountable.
How to proceed? Education neutralizes falsehoods, so Americans need to continue the long-term project of informing themselves about Shari’a and the challenge it presents; useful resources may be found at this website. Likewise, all politicians must learn to speak more precisely about Islamic law, carefully distinguishing between practices that are protected by the U.S. Constitution and those that are not, thus minimizing the confusion that Islamists exploit. As for individuals who equate Nazism with defending Americans from foreign laws that infringe on fundamental rights, they should be called out for affronting both history and decency. Citizens also must encourage legislators to press on with these bills despite Islamist propaganda, biased media, and the occasional scolding from their multiculturalism-obsessed counterparts; readers wishing to contact the primary sponsor of HB 2029 may do so here.
Finally, as Islamist groups often argue against restrictions on foreign law by denying the existence of any campaign to insinuate Shari’a into American society, their own records of participating in this very movement should be hung around their necks for all to see. Given that much of the opposition to ALAC-inspired efforts throughout the U.S. has been helmed by branches of CAIR — an offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood, which dreams of implementing Islamic law worldwide and describes its mission in North America as “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within” — the letters, op-eds, and blog posts can practically write themselves.
While it is important to wade into the details and answer specific criticisms of bills to curb foreign law, the best defense may be a good offense. Just as Islamists make the supporters of such legislation an issue by smearing them as bigots, those supporters must make the opponents an issue by exposing their rank dishonesty and jihadist objectives, which comprise exactly the kind of subversion that these bills are designed to thwart.
Interpol Accused After Journalist Arrested Over Muhammad Tweet
Police in Kuala Lumpur said Hamza Kashgari, 23, was detained at the airport “following a request made to us by Interpol” the international police cooperation agency, on behalf of the Saudi authorities.
Kashgari, a newspaper columnist, fled Saudi Arabia after posting a tweet on the prophet’s birthday that sparked more than 30,000 responses and several death threats. The posting, which was later deleted, read: “I have loved things about you and I have hated things about you and there is a lot I don’t understand about you … I will not pray for you.”
Read more at The Guardian. By Owen Bowcott.
Middle Eastern Christians Increasingly Targeted by Blasphemy, Apostasy
Islamic law is increasingly used by authoritarian governments and extremist forces in the Muslim world to acquire and consolidate power, experts say, which is becoming an increasing threat to religious minorities, especially Christians.
On Jan. 23, a trial of a man accused of blasphemy taking place in post-revolutionary Tunisia caught the attention of the West. The man was Hamadi Redissi, a television director who reportedly faces as many as five years in prison for broadcasting the French animated movie “Persepolis,” which contains a brief scene depicting God that many Muslims have deemed blasphemous.
(Reuters/Stringer)Supporters of various religious parties hold images of Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri and chant slogans in support of Qadri, the gunman detained for the killing of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer. The murder of the politician who opposed the country’s anti-blasphemy laws, a case that exposed deep fissures in Pakistani society. The Urdu on the images read: “We salute your courage”.
One month after security forces raided their Assemblies of God Church (AOG) in …
A Pakistani Christian woman convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death has …
A Christian man in Pakistan has been charged with blasphemy for allegedly …
A young Christian man who was charged under Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy …
Several reports of persecution against Christians from around the globe have …
At a recent Human Rights conference, Iran’s Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Sadegh …
The trial struck a nerve for a good reason – Redissi’s case might serve as proof of what some see as the increasing Islamization of Arab countries, especially following the demise of dictators during Arab Spring uprisings. Blasphemy laws, prohibiting offense to Islam and Muslims in any way, are, alongside apostasy, the most controversial codes of Islamic law. These laws have been on the rise in recent years, and are increasingly posing a threat to free speech and human rights as well as religious freedom across the Middle East as well as, occasionally, in the West, experts claim.
Paul Marshall and Nina Shea, in their recent book, Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide, argue that Islamic law is increasingly used by authoritarian governments and extremist forces in the Muslim world not for religious reasons, but to acquire and consolidate power – a chilling assumption given that Muslim political parties are cherishing great popularity in post-revolutionary Arab countries, like Egypt.
Moreover, Marshall, who along with Shea is a Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, told The Christian Post recently that the controversial laws are causing a threat to religious minorities in the Muslim world, and in particular, Christians.
The area where laws of blasphemy and apostasy are practiced is vast, covering the regions of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Jordan, Morocco, Turkey and Yemen, as well as parts of Africa and South and Southeast Asia.
Marshall emphasized that the laws, which are vulnerable to free interpretation by local authorities, in most cases, are increasingly used for political reasons, but often also by common people, to accuse one another, for example for the purpose of revenge. Muslims can sometimes accuse other Muslims, but Christians are victims to these accusations most often, Marshall told CP.
The punishment for breaking these controversial legal codes can range from a death sentence (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan) to years-long prison sentences (Egypt).
“In terms of what blasphemy laws are, in most cases, there aren’t any precise laws,” Marshall told CP. Only Pakistan, has specific blasphemy laws and a specific penalty for it – death.
These charges are often used to crush or intimidate religious converts and heterodox groups, as well as political and religious reformers, Marshall and Shea explain in Silenced. “The effect goes far beyond what might narrowly be called religious matters to cover a whole range of freedoms, including, most critically, freedoms for the individual of speech, press and religion,” reads the press release for the book. “It has also contributed to the recent growth of more repressive forms of Islam, as these charges are used to silence more liberal or reform-minded religious opponents.”
According to Shea, the topic of blasphemy became far better known in the West in 1989, when a fatwa calling for the execution of Salman Rushdie, a British Indian novelist, was proclaimed on Radio Tehran by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the spiritual leader of Iran at the time.
Since then, multiple public figures have been accused of blasphemy not only in predominantly Muslim countries, but also in the western world. Among those was Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, creator of a controversial cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb in his turban. Also, the creators of animated TV show “South Park” were threatened over an episode in which the founder of Islam is seen wearing a bear costume.
Asia Bibi, a Pakistani Christian woman charged with blasphemy and Iranian pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, a convert from Islam, were both sentenced to death because for leaving Islam. Bibi’s case remains uncertain, while Nadarkhani remains imprisoned despite international pressures on the Iranian government.
The situation for Christians could grow worse, the authors claim in Silenced, which also tells of hundreds of other victims, including political dissidents, religious reformers, journalists, writers, artists, movie makers, and religious minorities, all ensnared by controversial Sharia codes.
Marshall also told CP that such codes are prevalent in countries with Muslim governments, which could potentially mean bad news for Christians in Egypt. Islamic political parties dominated the newly-democratic country’s parliamentary elections, which came after months of violence, including attacks against religious minorities, most notably Coptic Christians, left hundreds dead.
There have also been reports of increasing Islamization in post-revolutionary Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.
“If you have a society that does not believe that Christian minorities are in fact equal in the state, in every way, and that when they do certain things, such as insult the Prophet Mohammed, they are committing such a – to put it in Christian terms – ‘immortal sin’ that in fact mob violence or private violence are justified in a religious sense, democracy won’t work,” Marshall said of countries where blasphemy and apostasy laws are practiced.
Such acts of mob and individual violence against Christians have been plentiful in recent years, including not only Muslims countries, but areas with radical Hindus in India and Bangladesh.
Even though Marshall told CP he does not see it as plausible that blasphemy and apostasy laws would become widely practiced in the West by the Muslim population, such codes will continue to be projected from Muslim countries, as in the cases of Rushdie, Westergaard, or “South Park’s” creators.
Both Marshall and Shea argue in Silenced that the public needs to understand the context, history, impact, and mechanics of the blasphemy phenomenon in modern Muslim societies to know how to effectively respond to pressure “to submit to Muslim taboos regarding expression in the West.”
The book also touches upon the evolution toward “new blasphemy codes” in the West: the increasing use of religious hate speech laws, which commonly function as “surrogate Islamic blasphemy laws” and the “long-standing pressure by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to make Western countries and international organizations enforce laws to restrict speech on behalf of Islam; and the rise in threats to stifle expression that casts anything claiming to be Islamic in a negative light.”