Friday, October 31, 2008

More Change-on Obama's Plane


"You, you, and you-get off my plane!"


This week, three major newspapers endorsed John McCain for President; the Dallas Morning News, the Washington Times and the New York Post. Yesterday, the reporters for those papers who travel with Barack Obama were informed that there were no more seats availbale for them on the campaign plane.

No retribution involved insists the Obama campaign. The move had nothing to do with the endorsements, they insist. It was just that the spaces were needed for others, reportedly writers for Jet and Essence magazines.

Right.

You call this change? You think Barack Obama and his campaign represent something new and fresh in American politics? Whatever Obama's policies, he knows politics. He came up in the rough and tumble Chicago machine style of politics that has always dominated that city. What Obama did to the writers from those three papers is no different from what old Chicago Mayor Richard Daley would have done. You take care of your pals and you screw your enemies.

Change, indeed.

"It's Time for Barney"


Beany (Barney), Cecil (Herb) and the Leakin' Lena (the country)


I remember when I was a kid in the early 50s, one of my favorite TV shows was a ridiculous puppet show called "Beany". In this show, the main character, a kid named Beany, was aboard the "Leakin' Lena", and as he sailed the seven seas, he was accompanied by Cecil, "the seasick sea serpent", who would pop out the water to interact with his pal, Beany.

So, with a couple of minor adjustments, let's return to those days of yesteryear and visit "Barney and Herb, the lovesick Fannie Mae executive".

Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) and former resident of a male bordello being run by his then-boyfriend in Washington, for which he was reprimanded by the House (the Congress House-not the bordello house), has spent long years serving on House committees regulating and overseeing financial institutions in the US. In this regard, Barney has made the phrase "conflict of interest" his middle name.

From the late 1980s to the late 1990s, Beany, I mean Barney was romantically involved with one Herb Moses, who was then a high ranking lovesick executive with Fannie Mae-responsible for the home loan end of the business (he worked for Fannie Mae from 1991-1998). At the time, Frank was sitting on the Banking Committee, which was overseeing Fannie Mae.

Conflict of interest? Naah!

In 2003, Frank (now broken up with Cecil, I mean Herb, but still knowing where his bread was buttered) and other Democrats were defending Fannie Mae against Republican efforts to reign in the quasi-governmental entity, which was showing signs of being out of control. Of course, we now know that Barney has received over $40,000 in contributions from Fannie Mae in the past decade.

Conflict of interest? Naah!

We also know that Barney (now Chairman of the Banking Committee), was putting pressure on Fannie and Freddie Mac in recent years to extend home loans to low-income borrowers-threatening them with investigations into their "discrimitory lending policies" if they didn't.

Did Barney have anything to do with the "Leakin' Lena", I mean financial crisis that is largely due to these insane lending practices? Naah!

In addition, as late as July of this year, Barney was stating publicly that Fannie Mae was sound. We know different now, don't we?

So now, largely due to Barney and his pals, the financial ship of state could be renamed "The Leakin' Lena".

But never mind all that. Now, only one man in Congress can save our economy. Now it is Barney himself who is running for re-election in Massachusetts asking the voters to help him "crack down" on unscrupulous lenders and financial institutions. Talk about chutzpah! Do you think the wise residents of Massachusetts will throw Barney out on his ear?

I seriously doubt it.

What's Going on in Minnesota?

The below article was written by Jeff Davis of Minnesota Majority and was passed to me by Chad Everson of Grizzly Groundswell (blog) based in Minnesota.


Secretary of State
Mark Ritchie employing intimidation tactics in an attempt to suppress
investigation of voter registration irregularities.

"Yesterday afternoon Secretary of State Mark Ritchie called a press conference alleging that Jean Sanford, a volunteer with Minnesota Majority, had inappropriately contacted a voter representing herselfas working with the Secretary of State. Secretary Ritchie further asserted that the volunteer from Minnesota Majority was engaged in voter intimidation tactics.

“The complaint is completely frivolous and Mark Ritchie knows it,” said Jeff
Davis, President of Minnesota Majority. In a sworn affidavit given today by Jean Sanford, she contradicts the voter’s complaint. Sanford said that she never represented herself as being associated with the Secretary of State.

“Jean is a sweet little grandma who is passionate about transparency in
elections,” said Davis, “The voter’s own sworn statement indicates that he found
Mrs. Sanford to be very kind. I can’t imagine how anyone could be intimidated by
this lady.” Minnesota Majority believes that the voter, above all else, was
concerned by the amount of information that is maintained on Minnesota’s public
voter registration records.

“Mark Ritchie’s actions are simply a ruse to deflect attention away from the real issue at hand – the obvious problems with Minnesota’s voter registration records,” said Davis. Minnesota Majority has been investigating apparent irregularities in the Secretary of State’s voter registration records for several days and has uncovered a large number of anomalies including:

POTENTIAL DUPLICATE VOTER REGISTRATION RECORDS: A total of 16,578 exact
voter registration record matches using the criteria of first name, middle name,
last name and birth year. When phone number is used instead of middle name as a
matching criterion, there are a total of 488 matching records.

VACANT AND NON-DELIVERABLE ADDRESSES: A total of 29,006 voters have a voter
registration address which is flagged as being “vacant” by the United States
Postal Service. A total of 62,822 voters list an address which is flagged as
being “non-deliverable” by the Postal Service.

DEFICIENT VOTER REGISTRATIONS DUE TO MISSING BIRTH YEAR: There are a total
of 1,695 voter registrations with registration dates after August 1, 1983 when
birth date was required by law.

VOTER REGISTERING BEFORE THE AGE OF 18: Over 1,800 records have a voter
registration date and a birth year that suggests the voter registered before the
age of 18 years of age (some before they were born).

VOTERS POTENTIALLY CASTING MORE THAN ONE BALLOT IN A SINGLE ELECTION: 76
cases in which it appears that a single voter may have cast more than one
ballot, with thousands of additional records which merit additional review.
Volunteers have been researching these apparent discrepancies by taking
photographs of vacant lots at addresses listed on voter registrations and
telephoning individuals who appear to have duplicate voter registration
records. When contacting people by phone, volunteers give people their name,
identify themselves as being with Minnesota Majority and ask the individual to
verify their address.

Minnesota Majority suspects that Secretary of State Ritchie may be trying to use the power of his office to suppress further investigation. “The citizens of Minnesota should be very concerned when a public official exploits the power of his office to attack a private citizen who is simply trying to ask questions,” said Davis. “We are not deterred by Secretary of State Ritchie’s tactics. We have not done anything wrong. No one should be intimidated by our research, unless of course an individual was contemplating committing voter fraud.”

Minnesota Majority’s attorney has submitted a letter to Mr. Ritchie asking him to immediately present all evidence pertaining to the false allegations. Legal counsel is also exploring what, if any, improprieties may have been committed by Mr. Ritchie or members of his office in the process of bringing this complaint.

While nearly every Twin Cities media outlet was happy to report on Ritchie’s
false allegations on Wednesday, only a few media outlets attended today’s press
conference to get Minnesota Majority’s side of the story (kudos to the Star
Tribune for being one of the few that actually published a story).

TAKE
ACTION:

Contact Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and tell him what you think about his actions. Write a letter to the editor and let them know what you think about the
media’s obvious bias in covering this story."

Jeff Davis
Minnesota Majority

Thursday, October 30, 2008

What About the Civil Rights of Joe the Plumber?


Let's Play, Name That Scavenger!!

The above picture is of:

a Mainstream media going through Joe the Plumber's garbage
b Ohio State Democratic official going through Joe the Plumber's garbage
c Obama campaign worker going through Joe the Plumber's garbage
d All of the above (they're all the same anyway)


I know a lot of you liberals and Democrats are upset about some of the things President Bush has done in the War of Terror that you feel are violations of civil liberties, i.e. Guantanemo and the NSA intercepts. Since Obama has spoken out against these things, I am sure you think that President Obama will protect all our civil liberties, right?

Think again.

Specifically, you might want to ask Mr Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher of Holland, Ohio. (He is better known as Joe the Plumber). As we all know by know, Joe woke up one day and found Barack Obama walking down his street. He used the occasion to confront Obama over his tax plans. More importantly, he drew the comment out of Obama that he (Obama)wanted to spread the wealth around. Joe the Plumber suddenly became a celebrity.

As the days passed, it turned out that Joe was a pretty conservative guy who was also very proud to be an American. It didn't take the Mainstream Media long to decide Joe was a bad guy and had to be taken down. Since the msm is nothing more than an arm of the Democratic Party, they saw the threat that Joe represented. Suddenly we were barraged with stories to the effect that Joe didn't have a plumbing licenses, he was divorced, his real name was Sam and-under Obama's tax plan, Joe would actually benefit.

In addition, Obama himself and his running mate, Joe Biden took some shots at Joe in campaign stop speeches.

What is more worrisome is that Ohio State leaders, overwhelmingly Democratic, have used their offices to discredit Mr Wurzelbacher. First, we learned that Ohio government computers were used to run inquiries on Joe. Today, Ms Helen Jones-Kelley, the Director of the Ohio State Dept. of Job and Family Services, has confirmed that her office has checked to make sure that Joe has kept up with his child support payments. Routine, says the Director, when any Ohioan becomes prominent or wins the lottery etc. By the way, Ms. Jones-Kelley, who is a Democrat has contributed the maximum-allowed $2500 to the Obama campaign.

In addition, someone is rummaging through Joe's garbage-is that the media-or the State of Ohio?

So, if you are looking to Obama to "improve the human rights record of America", you might want to talk to Joe the Plumber.

Obama's Infomercial- Hope?



Hope for what??

"This is the land of opportunity. It is not the land of handouts".

Mike Ditka speaking at a Plain campaign rally in Pennsylvania


I vividly remember back when Gerald Ford was president in the 1970s and game one of the World Series was set to begin. I, like millions of other red-blooded American guys, was sitting in front of the TV, beer in hand and ready to watch the series begin.

Suddenly, without warning, the announcer broke in and announced that they were switching to Kansas City, Mo. for an "important" address by the President. So there we were, Gerald Ford was in KC giving a speech in front of the "Future Farmers of America", a bunch of young men and women who I guess lived on farms.

As I sat there dumbfounded, I kept hoping that Ford's speech would be brief and we could get on with the game. Instead, Ford (who was a terrible speaker on his best days) kept droning on about energy (there was an energy crisis in the country at that time). As the young people behind him started nodding off, and millions of beer cans were being hurled at millions of TVs around the country, Ford would not stop talking. He told us to turn off our lights. He read a letter sent to him from some old woman in Bullnuts, Iowa telling him how she would always turn off her lights whenever she left a room. Ford then told us to "clean our plates" (not let any food go to waste). Finally, after what seemed an eternity, Ford finished his speech and we got back to the game. I always figured that had a bit to do with his defeat to the hapless Jimmy Carter.

I was reminded of that day with Barack Obama's infomercial that pushed back the start of the World Series game 15 minutes. I didn't care much since the Series didn't interest me much after my cursed Cubbies got swept out the playoffs in what was supposed to be "the year". As a result, I didn't watch the speech. I have heard that man's voice enough to last a lifetime-with possibly 4-8 more years to come.

Reading the reviews, it seems Obama appeared in a room (or set) that somewhat resembled the Oval Office. He talked about certain individuals who are going through tough economic times and who are apparently looking to President Obama and his pals in government to ride to their rescue.

He also spoke of HOPE.

Well, at the expense of being the skunk at the garden party, I have something to say about that.

First of all, let's rid ourselves of this liberal illusion that we are living in Bangladesh or Dickensian England. We are not. In spite of our present economic difficulties, we are still living in the greatest and most prosperous country in the world. And guess what? It wasn't our government that made it the greatest and most prosperous country. It was the American people that did-in spite of government (and I say this as one who is a government retiree). If you are sitting around waiting for some president or some political party to make your life successful-you are already a loser.

You want to be successful? If you are working-keep working. The tough times will pass. If you are not working, get up off your duff and get a job. Everything is in place in this country for those people who have the will, the talent, the initiative and the ability to succeed. If you want to sit around and call yourself a victim, it will become a self-profilling prophesy.

Larry Elder, a black, conservative talk show host in LA, says it best, and he says it often: If you can finish high school, stay out of trouble with the law, and not have children before you are 18, you will not be poor in America. Is that a difficult proposition? Do you need government to accomplish that? Do you need a president to bring you hope?

Grow up people. There is only one person in America who is responsible for our success or failure in life, and that person is ourselves. Just because I will be voting for John McCain next week doesn't mean I want or expect anything from him beyond protecting the country. I do not look to McCain to add anything to my life or well-being. I can do that for myself very well, thank you. All I ask government is to stay out of my life.

Which is exactly what this vain-glorious, socialist huckster named Obama will not do. He and his minions that he will bring into government will enter into all our lives. (Don't believe me-ask Joe the Plumber.) And if 95% of you think he will not raise your taxes, you're smoking your socks.

So, if Obama wins, hang onto your wallets-and HOPE for the best. Me, I'm still hoping for a Cubbie pennant.

Update on the African Press International (Alleged Michelle Obama Tape)

In the interest of fairness, I think it appropriate to update my previous post on this African Press International business and their purported taped telephone conversation with Michelle Obama.

At this point, doubt over the authenticity of this tape increases in my mind. API's daily, tantalizing updates on their delivery of the "tape" to Fox News lacks credibility with each passing day.

As we know, for ths "tape" to have any real purpose, it must be released to the public before the elction. The latest report from API promises that they will be aired within 24 hours by Sean Hannity and Greta van Susteren with only a 15 minute advance warning.

Well, all I can say is the proof is in the pudding.

Interestingly, however, I see no disclaimer coming from Fox News, Hannity or van Susteren. If this was all a scam, wouldn't Fox come out and say the story is false? Maybe they are still trying to satisfy themselves that API and the tape are for real.

We won't have long to wait for the results.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Help Barney Frank Crack Down on Those Bad Guys!


"I'm Barney Frank, and I approved this ad-but not this picture."


Have you seen Congressman Barney Frank's re-election TV ad in Massachusetts? If you haven't, it's a hoot. You gotta hand it to Barney. The man has the balls of an elephant! After his dressing down about the Financial meltdown and his role in it by an enraged Bill O'Reilly a couple of weeks back, Barney is using The Factor sound bite on his TV ad.

As the ad runs, showing O'Reilly erupting at Barney like Mt Vesuvius, the announcer urges the voters to help Barney crack down on those (unscrupulous lenders) who caused the whole financial mess. Yet, the ad leaves out some important tidbits:

Like which member of the Congressional Banking Committee (Barney) was having a 10-year affair with a Fannie Mae executive named Herb Moses from the late 80s-late 90s, a man who was involved in the lending activites of Fannie Mae.

Like which member of Congress (Barney) was pressuring lending institutions to give more home loans to low-income borrowers, telling them that he would keep track of which groups the institutions were lending to and to which groups they were not. In other words, Barney Frank was threatening lending institutions with discrimination action.

Like which US Congressman and head of the Financial Services Committee (Barney) was saying publicly in July 2008 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were sound.

Like which member of Congress (Barney) was high on the list of money recipients from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the tune of over $40,000.

But forget all that. The voters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are being asked to "help Barney crack down on the bad guys."

While we are at it, let's;

help Barry Bonds crack down on steroid use
help John Gotti crack down on organized crime
help William "Cool Cash" Jefferson crack down on governmemt corruption
help the Crips and the Bloods crack down on street gangs
help Bob Marley crack down on marijuana use
help Iran crack down on international terrorism

But I digress. Will the voters of Massachusetts help Barney "crack down on those evil lending institutions"? You can bet your mortgage that Barney (Elephant Balls) Frank gets re-elected. After all, we are talking about Massachusetts.

Is it True?


Scenes you'll never see

"Mrs. Obama, is it true?"


Reader warning: I'm just asking, OK-so don't get all worked up.

But-is it true that a news outfit called African Press International (API), a group of African journalists based in Norway, is in possession of a taped telephone conversation between them and Michelle Obama?

(Just asking.)

Here is API's website:

http://africanpress.wordpress.com/

And is it true that API is in the process of releasing this tape to Fox News?

(Just asking.)

And is it true that the Obama campaign has offered API 3 million dollars not to release this tape?

(Just asking.)

Like many who have seen this story, I had thoughts of those e-mails I often get from Nigerian "bank presidents" wanting to share a $250,000,000 bank account belonging to some American who died in a plane crash. However, in looking through API's webpage, they seem to have been writing articles of African interest since 2006. It should be added that many of their recent articles are anti-Obama in nature.

Some blogsites have pronounced this a hoax, pointing out among other things the "temporary delays" in delivering the tape to the US (which I must admit, remind me of the "short delays" we old DEA agents remember all too well when dealing undercover with dope dealers. "Delays" were a regular occurrance. Sometimes, they were real delays and the dope was eventually delivered. Sometimes, the dealer never came up with the dope.) Is it also possible that Mrs Obama herself got stung by a bogus group? (Again, just asking.)

So, rather than make wild accusations, I am merely asking, "Is it true?"

Of course, if it is true, I am sure that many in the mainstream news media have some inside information on this and surely will ask Michelle about it within hours.

Sure they will.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

* By the way. This post has nothing to do with previous posts entitled: "Who is this woman?"

Who is This Woman? Clue # 9

Maybe the Washington Post can get a head start on this clue.

Who stayed at the Hotel George in Washington DC on May 18, 2004?

Who is This Woman? Clue 8


The initials of the mystery woman are:

V.E.B.

I figure the MSM will break this story any minute now.

National Black Republican Association -Articles by Thomas Sewell and David Limbaugh

If you have ever wondered anout what kind of judges President Barack Obama would appoint, read these two editorials by Thomas Sewell and David Limbaugh (brother of Rush). Sewell, in particular, is someone I consider one of the most brilliant thinkers in America.

These editorials were forwarded to me by the National Black Republican Association.


OBAMA AND THE LAW

by Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, October 28, 2008

One of the biggest and most long-lasting "change" to expect if Barack Obama becomes President of the United States is in the kinds of federal judges he appoints. These include Supreme Court justices, as well as other federal justices all across the country, all of whom will have lifetime tenure.

Senator Obama has stated very clearly what kinds of Supreme Court justices he wants-- those with "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old."

Like so many things that Obama says, it may sound nice if you don't stop and think-- and chilling if you do stop and think. Do we really want judges who decide cases based on who you are, rather than on the facts and the law?

If the case involves a white man versus a black woman, should the judge decide that case differently than if both litigants are of the same race or sex?

The kind of criteria that Barack Obama promotes could have gotten three young men at Duke University sent to prison for a crime that neither they nor anybody else committed.

Didn't we spend decades in America, and centuries in Western civilization, trying to get away from the idea that who you are determines what your legal rights are?

What kind of judges are we talking about?

A classic example is federal Judge H. Lee Sarokin, who could have bankrupted a small New Jersey town because they decided to stop putting up with belligerent homeless men who kept disrupting their local public library. Judge Sarokin's rulings threatened the town with heavy damage awards, and the town settled the case by paying $150,000 to the leading disrupter of its public library.

After Bill Clinton became president, he elevated Judge Sarokin from the district court to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Would President Barack Obama elevate him-- or others like him-- to the Supreme Court? Judge Sarokin certainly fits Obama's job description for a Supreme Court justice.

A court case should not depend on who you are and who the judge is. We are supposed to be a country with "the rule of law and not of men." Like all human beings, Americans haven't always lived up to our ideals. But Obama is proposing the explicit repudiation of that ideal itself.

That is certainly "change," but is it one that most Americans believe in? Or is it something that we may end up with anyway, just because too many voters cannot be bothered to look beyond rhetoric and style?

We can vote a president out of office at the next election if we don't like him. But we can never vote out the federal judges he appoints in courts across the country, including justices of the Supreme Court.

The kind of judges that Barack Obama wants to appoint can still be siding with criminals or terrorists during the lifetime of your children and grandchildren.

The Constitution of the United States will not mean much if judges carry out Obama's vision of the Constitution as "a living document"-- that is, something that judges should feel free to change by "interpretation" to favor particular individuals, groups or causes.

We have already seen where that leads with the 2005 Kelo Supreme Court decision that allows local politicians to take people's homes or businesses and transfer that property to others. Almost invariably, these are the homes of working class people and small neighborhood businesses that are confiscated under the government's power of eminent domain. And almost invariably they are transferred to developers who will build shopping malls, hotels or other businesses that will bring in more tax revenue.

The Constitution protected private property, precisely in order to prevent such abuses of political power, leaving a small exception when property is taken for "public use," such as the government's building a reservoir or a highway.

But just by expanding "public use" to mean "public purpose"-- which can be anything--the Supreme Court opened the floodgates.

That's not "a living Constitution." That's a dying Constitution-- and an Obama presidency can kill it off.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2008/10/28/obama_fundamental_change_count_on_it

Obama: Fundamental Change? Count on It
David Limbaugh
Tuesday, October 28, 2008

I am sincerely worried that if Obama wins, the checks and balances incorporated into our Constitution may not be enough to prevent a radical and irreversible diminution of our individual liberties because a confluence of factors has emerged to create a climate conducive to fundamental change.

These factors are: a shockingly unknown candidate, whose mysterious past and numerous shady alliances are deliberately left unexplored by a corrupt, supportive media; the candidate's charismatic qualities that inspire a cultish loyalty; his intellectual trappings that create a fascination and allure among the intellectual elite, including some hypnotized conservatives; a major financial crisis that exacerbates the people's fears and uncertainties; a largely manufactured cloud of negativity placed over America by the media and a grossly partisan Democratic Party that places its self-interest above the national interest; and an apparently discredited Republican Party and conservative movement that have been blamed for our actual and perceived problems.

All of these could lead to entrusting this man with unprecedented power, giving him a license to operate with minimum scrutiny and an opposition party effectively impotent to oppose his radical blueprint for America.

More than ever, perception is trumping reality. An unprincipled Democratic Party, aided by a morally decadent media, has demonized President Bush, the Republican Party and America itself with distortions and polarizing propaganda designed to dispirit and divide Americans on the bases of race, class and gender. Just look at the domestic and foreign policy picture they have painted the past eight years.

While we are having serious financial problems now, we had a strong economy for most of President Bush's two terms, but the media pushed the Democrats' critique that it was in perpetual recession. As for our real financial crisis, objective observers understand Democratic programs and policies primarily caused it, but Democrats have successfully blamed Republicans for it.

Similarly, despite our problems in Iraq, we are clearly winning there now, but the media are suppressing the good news, just as they have refused to credit Republicans for their wisdom on the surge and protected Democrats from their reckless opposition to it.

The only arrow left in the Democrats' Iraq quiver is to perpetuate their "big lie" that Bush led us into war with lies about WMD. Through stunning and numbing repetition broadcast by a conspiratorial media, they have succeeded in making this the majority narrative, even though anyone who lived through this period knows Democrats supported this policy as long as it was politically expedient, having had access to the exact same intelligence. They've also convinced people, contrary to the facts, that Saddam Hussein didn't have ties to and wasn't abetting our terrorist enemies. And they've completely ignored the many other compelling reasons justifying our bipartisan decision to attack Iraq, including Saddam's persistent and ongoing violations of some 17 U.N. and postwar resolutions and treaties.

Democrats and the media, instead of condemning recalcitrant European nations for not joining the coalition against Iraq despite endless diplomatic overtures by President Bush, falsely indicted the Bush administration for its "unilateral" action against Iraq.

They colluded to publish the slander that the Bush administration sponsored abuses at Abu Ghraib, created inhumane conditions at Gitmo, and routinely tortured enemy prisoners. Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama have all blithely and falsely accused our troops of atrocities, from systematic torture and prisoner abuse to raping Iraqi civilians to air raiding Afghan villages. They have mischaracterized our essential National Security Agency monitoring of international terrorist communications as domestic spying on little old ladies.

They have portrayed the Bush administration's phenomenal accomplishment of preventing further attacks on our soil since 9/11 not as an administration success but as proof that we no longer face a serious threat.

All of these factors could coalesce to give Obama a mandate to fundamentally move our economy toward socialism in the name of economic fairness and emasculate our war on terrorists in the name of restoring our international image.

Would Obama win if people believed he might well nationalize health care, unilaterally disarm our nuclear weapons, push the Global Poverty Act, appoint judges to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, pass legislation banning handguns, greatly increase federal spending by euphemistically disguising it as a stimulus package, increase taxes on producers and expand "redistribution," impose limitations on private executive salaries, empower labor unions, further nationalize public education with the leftist indoctrination agenda of the National Education Association, further open our borders, ratify the Kyoto climate change treaty, abandon Israel, retreat and surrender in Iraq, dramatically reduce the defense budget, possibly reinstate the draft in the name of racial equity, nationalize our private 401(k) funds, abuse governmental power to target and investigate dissent from ordinary "Joes," and implement the Fairness Doctrine to shut down political dissent

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Why?


If the LA Times, as they claim, is in possession of a videotape of a dinner in 2001 in honor of radical Palestinian supporter, Khalid Rashidi and attended by Barack Obama, in which several Palestinian speakers made anti-Semitic remarks, why won't they turn that tape over for public dissemination?

Why won't the MSM ask Obama about that dinner and why he didn't leave when anti-Semitic remarks were made?

Why won't the MSM ask Obama why he and Bill Ayres, when they were on the Woods Foundation, directed almost $100,000 to Khalidi?

Why isn't the MSM asking Obama about that 2001 radio interview in which he is talking openly about income redistribution and the tragedy that the Supreme Court never got into said income redistribution, as well as direct their efforts to what the Constitution should guarantee to Americans?

What did Obama mean in those just released recordings when he used the word Nazism to refer to present-day America?

Will the MSM ask him to explain those remarks (sometime before the election)?

Where is the outrage from the MSM over the pictures of Sarah Palin hung in effigy as part of a West Hollywood Halloween house decoration? What would have been the reaction if someone had hung Obama in effigy?

Why all the uproar from the media over the RNC spending $150,000 on Sarah Palin's wardrobe (which will be turned over to charity)and so little attention given to the ACORN issue?

Doesn't the MSM have any concern over the voter fraud that is threatening to take over Ohio-if not several other states?

Don't bother sending me the answers. I already know them. It is because the MSM is doing everything they can to help elect Barack Obama. If that is the kind of news media you want, fine. But if Obama is elected, can you count on this same media to be a watchdog for the abuses that (I think) will follow? Or will they be like the media in dictatorships that do nothing that parrot the government line?

In my view, we are witnessing the death of the American news media. When they lose their credibility, they might as well find another profession.

Who Is This Woman? Clue # 7

I'm feeling generous tonight, so I think I'll pass on a couple more clues to the MSM.

Cape Caribbean LLC (a business)
BizCarib (also a business)

Check out these businesses, MSM, and you may find the mystery woman.

Just trying to help.

Who Is This Woman? Clues # 5 & 6

In my last clue to the MSM, I gave them the name, address and phone number of a company in Washington called Baker-Wambu and Associates. (clue # 4) It appears that the phone number is now disconnected and there is no further information.

If the MSM is interested in finding Ms Wambu, her first name is Muthone. I think Joe Biden might know where she is since she was listed as the political director for Biden's 2008 presidential campaign.

(No, Muthone Wambu is not the mystery woman.)

Another clue for the MSM: This month, a London law firm contacted the UK Daily Mail claiming to represent a woman (the mystery woman) who had been contacted the day before by the Daily Mail in Martinique.

And a question for the MSM: Is it illegal to funnel money to a presidential campaign from overseas, for example...from Martinique?

Not making any accusations here. Just trying to help.

Jamiel's Law Update-No Update

Today, the LA blog, "Mayor Sam's Sister City" reported that no debate came up today at the LA City Council after waiting 6 months for the Public Safety Committee of the Council to take action of council member Dennis Zine's motion to amend Special Rule 40 (which keeps LAPD officers from inquiring about a suspect's immigration status). There was not even a vote to move the Zine motion along. At this point the Council is waiting another 3 months for LAPD to report back on their new "Special Order 40 training.......(I think you get the message).

Translation: the LA City Council is not going to do anything about amending or getting rid of Special Rule 40. In other words, illegal alien gangbangers are still welcome in sanctuary city Los Angeles, just as they are welcome in sanctuary city San Francisco.

Hopefully, the Jamiel's Law petition will get the necessary signatures to put it on the March 2009 ballot. It is up to the citizens of Los Angeles to take care of the problem. Their elected leaders refuse to do so-even in the face of one of their promising young citizens (Jamiel Shaw Jr) being senselessly murdered by an illegal alien gangbanger fresh out of jail.

With the exception of probably only two members of the City Council, no one on that useless body cares. The Mayor of Los Angeles (Antonio Villaraigosa) doesn't care. He's too busy building his political career and enjoying LA's night life. Besides, he likes to have a city full of illegal aliens-even if they belong to gangs. The City Attorney, (Rocky Delgadillo) doesn't care. He's too busy misappropriating government services and vehicles and building his own political career. The LAPD Chief (William Bratton) doesn't care. He's too busy licking the boots of the mayor and other politicos, so he can keep his job.

Only the LA residents can do anything-if they care enough about Jamiel's family and the future of their city.

The Plot Against Obama

I cannot let the news of the arrests of two skinheads for plotting to assassinate Barack Obama pass without comment. As someone who has lived through the assassinations of John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy and a near assassination of Ronald Reagan, I know what such a deed now would do to our country.

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I am a fierce opponent of Barack Obama's candidacy for President. However, the damage to this country that would come from a political assassination would be incalculable. To start with, it would set race relations back 40 years. In addition, it would greatly damage our faith in our country. The assassination of John F Kennedy, followed soon after by the murders of King and Robert Kennedy have left scars that remain to this day.

It appears that this present plot to kill Obama was not motivated so much by a desire to protect America from the policies of a President Obama as it was by pure hate-as evidenced by the reported intention to kill dozens of other African-Americans randomly. Unfortunately, even though I have argued that America is no longer a racist country, there are still pockets of hate such as those demonstrated by these arrests. The skinhead culture, part of which revolves around hatred for non-whites, is a cancer in our society.

Everyone in our country should be relieved that this alleged plot was rooted out and stopped before it could come to fruition. Kudos to the law enforcement personnel who investigated this case.

Finally, all of us, regardless of where we stand politically, should rally around the Obama family and express our support for their well-being. We should all pray that we will never experience a repeat of the assassinations that marked the 1960s. The great thing about America is that our system works in so many ways that no reasonable person would resort to violence to cure our ills, real or imagined.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Who is This Woman? Clue #4

Wambu-Baker & Associates
611 Pennsylvania Ave Se, Washington, DC 20003-4303 (Map)

Phone: (202) 546-2227

SIC:Management Consulting Services

Line of Business:Management Consulting Services


C'mon, msm. Get those ace investigative reporters off their behinds and get to work.

Let's Play, "Name That Voter"


"Let's See. It says Cleveland is 50 miles due north. The resident registration office should be about here. Then the polling station should be about....here. Let's move."

How Dare They Ask Real Questions-For a Change


Vice King Joe

"Who dares ask me tough questions? Take care of em' boys."


Last Thursday, Joe (the Jerk) Biden was interviewed by WFTV Orlando reporter Barbara West via satellite. It must have been the shock of Biden's life. Here he was, the Democratic nominee for Vice President dealing with a news reporter and expecting the usual softball questions that Democrats always get from the media. After all, hardball questions are for the Republicans, right?

Instead, Ms West hit Biden with a series of hardball questions-you know, the kind of questions candidates for president or vice-president should get. She asked him if Obama's desire to "spread the wealth around" didn't equal Karl Marx's line about, "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs".

"Is this a joke?” Biden asked. “Is that a real question?” West replied that it was.

Later in his answer:"...that's a ridiculous comparison with all due respect."

Later, Ms West asked Biden if Obama wanted to make the United States a socialist country “like Sweden,” and whether Biden’s “tested” remarks about Obama meant that Obama’s leadership would result in the United States losing it’s status as the world’s lone superpower.

“I don’t know who’s writing your questions,” replied Joe.

Needless to say, Joe was not amused. He went on to complain about the questions to a public rally. As for the Obama campaign, they are also indignent. They have cut off West's employer from any further interviews.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.

Well, the questions couldn't have been that bad. If you watch the interview, Biden's forehead never even wrinkled once (that's because it can't).

This is what happens when a maverick news reporter gets out of line and asks a tough question to a Democrat instead of a Republican. All Hell breaks loose. Remember when ABC reporters Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulis dared to ask tough questions of Obama during a debate? They were cricified by their peers in the mainstream media. How dare they? How dare Barbara West?

Amazing how thin-skinned Joe Biden is. If you have seen him on one of his committees grilling a witness from a Republican administration, you know he is a high and mighty guy. He is arrogant, to say the least.

That's why it is nice to see him taken down a notch or two.

Ted Stevens Conviction


"Heigh ho, heigh-it's off to jail I go."

Soon-to-be former Senator Ted Stevens


I have a one-word reaction to the conviction of US Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK):

Good.

I have a one-word reaction to Republican fears of losing another Senate seat (Alaska) to the Democrats next week:

Tough.

Now that the jury has spoken and convicted Stevens, his departure from the Senate cannot come too soon. If he happens to be re-elected next week, then he should be promptly expelled.

Stevens is emblematic of what went wrong in the Republican Party after they achieved power in the 1990s through the Contract with America. They were supposed to change Washington, eliminate the pork, stop misusing the public's money and fight for smaller government and conservative principles.

Instead, they fell in love with the system and were corrupted by the high life. Under a Republican-controlled Congress, they proceeded to do exactly what the Democrats do. They engaged in pork barrel politics, schmoozed with lobbyists and let themselves become corrupted. And today, Ted Stevens stands convicted of corruption. Personally, I hope he goes to prison-even though he is 84 years old. Let Stevens be the example for other politicians who use their public trust to enrich themselves at the public's expense.

If the polls are correct, the Republicans will be punished for their misdeeds in the election next week. Frankly they deserve it.

Unfortunately, America doesn't deserve what will happen when the Democrats find themselves with unbridled power.

Who is This Woman? Clue 3


To the mainstream news media: I suggest you call your British colleagues at the UK Daily Mail and ask for help in identifying the previously-mentioned woman.

Here is their phone number:

44-20-79386000

* No, it has nothing to do with Poland or Polish people.

A Bizarre Endorsement for Obama


New University editorial staff meeting

"So that's it...proven leadership experience, judge of character- we're endorsing Obama. Now, let's have (another) drink."


I suppose I should cut more slack for our college newspaper at UC-Irvine (New University) for some of the nonsense they publish. New University is presently completely to the left, which is not unusual for a campus newspaper. True, these are kids-or young adults-however you want to term it. I assume they are also products of the journalism schools that teach them that their job is to right wrongs, correct injustices and expose conservative wrongs. Yet, I can't resist the temptation to point out a few loony statements that appeared today in New University's endorsement of Barack Obama for President.

I won't go into detail and try to pick apart every statement. If they like Obama, that's fine. However, there are a few sentences in that editorial that are absolutely laughable. I have put them in caps.

First, there is this:

"To restore America's image, this country needs someone capable of bringing PROVEN LEADERSHIP to the position (capitals mine), someone who can take control of the conflict in the Middle East, someone who has a consistent stance on civil liberties and human rights, someone who can take care of the little guy, someone WHO IS A GOOD JUDGE OF CHARACTER (caps mine) and someone who evokes confidence.

OBAMA HAS DEMONSTRATED ALL THESE QUALITIES AND MORE."

Exactly what proven leadership is New University talking about?

Judge of character? What about Bill Ayres, Bernadine Dorhn, Khalid Rashidi, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks and Michael Pfleger?

"Beyond civil liberties and human rights, OBAMA ALSO WANTS AMERICANS TO HAVE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS (Caps mine)."

In whose pockets, the ones who earn it or someone else?

"IN CONTRAST, SARAH PALIN IS DANGEROUSLY INEXPERIENCED."

In contrast to Obama??

Now I repeat, this was an editorial-thus an opinion. Of course, a technique of writing an opinion essay is to use facts to support one's opinions. In this case, the New University used outright laughing out loud whoppers to make their points.

And I almost overlooked this quote that appeared under the Opinion page title:

"'Can I interest you in the chicken?' she asks. 'Or would you prefer the paltter of sh-- with bits of broken glass in it?' To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked."-David Sedaris. (The word I cut out was not cut out in the newspaper. This is not the first time New University has printed 4-letter words. It leads me to wonder-are there any adults in charge in the New University? What are they teaching these young aspiring writers?

This is the next generation of the New York Times, LA Times et al.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Who is This Woman? Clue # 2


In connection to my previous post, in my desire to help out the old mainstream news media, here is my next clue (above).

Who is This Woman?



I wonder if the mainstream news media knows the answer to the above question. Why don't we ask them?

Or must I send them clues again?

Are There More Pauls in America Than Peters?


"From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs"

Karl Marx (actually borrowed from Louis Blanc)

Modern-day translation: From Peter to Paul


As the final days draw down on the election, many McCain supporters are becoming more and more disheartened. The polls may not look good, but they are still confusing. I guess it all depends on which poll you accept. At any rate, many are predicting that Obama will, indeed, be our next president. If that be the case, I just hope it doesn't turn on fraudulent votes being cranked out by people like ACORN.

Fortunately, since Joe the Plumber drew a statement out of Obama that he did, indeed want to spread the wealth around (redistribute it, if you will), there has been increased discussion about what Obama's tax plans will mean to most working Americans. Obama insists that 95% of Americans will get a tax break. I don't buy that for a split-second. With all the liberal programs he envisions, he can't give 95% of the people a tax cut and make it up with the top 5%.

That also raises the question of what will happen to small businesses. Again, you can't convince me that they aren't in for tax increase as well.

But if we acknowledge that Obama is going to institute a tax policy that "spreads the wealth around", are there still enough people in this country willing to vote for him and accept the consequences? That is the million-dollar question. If the people realize that Obama is going to rob Peter to pay Paul, could that turn the election to McCain? God, one would hope so.

Yet, will common sense prevail? Just how are the demographics in this country now? Could it be that a majority of voters view themselves as would-be beneficiaries of Obama's largess? One of my favorite talk show hosts, Larry Elder (in Los Angeles), recently said that if you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you will have a lot of Pauls supporting you. That statement makes perfect sense.

So, (with all due respect to the other issues) is that what this election may come down to? Are we reaching the point that the Pauls will outnumber the Peters and put a socialist (yes, I said socialist) in the White House to take care of their lives from day to day (using someone else's money, of course)?

And what do you consider yourself to be-a Peter or a Paul?

Zionist Organization of America on UC-Irvine and UC-Santa Cruz

I am posting the below article regarding the Zionist Organization of America's concern about anti-Semitic activity on the UC-Irvine and UC Santa Cruz campuses. There is also a link below to see the letter that ZOA sent to UC President Yudof.

This article, with a link to the letter appeared on rabbiyonah (blog) and the OC Task Force on Anti-Semitism blog in September 2008. The ZOA letter also refers to the OC Task Force on Anti-Semitism.

ZOA CALLS ON UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESIDENT TO RECTIFY ANTI-SEMITISM PROBLEMS AT UC CAMPUSES

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has urged the newly-appointed President of the University of California (UC), Mark G. Yudof, to address ongoing problems of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing on two UC campuses: UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz. In an eight-page letter to President Yudof dated August 8, 2008, the ZOA described in detail “the pattern of anti-Semitism on both of these campuses, and the hostile environment that the bigotry has engendered for students and faculty.” The ZOA noted that President Yudof has publicly identified himself as a Jewish activist and a strong defender of Israel, and thus presumably would “share our concern about campus anti-Semitism.” The ZOA called on President Yudof to take several “reasonable steps . . . to rectify the ongoing problems.” (To read the ZOA’s letter to UC President Yudof, see below webpage:

http://octask.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/1008zoaletterucpresidentyudof8Aug08.pdf


The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has urged the newly-appointed President of the University of California (UC), Mark G. Yudof, to address ongoing problems of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing on two UC campuses: UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz. In an eight-page letter to President Yudof dated August 8, 2008, the ZOA described in detail “the pattern of anti-Semitism on both of these campuses, and the hostile environment that the bigotry has engendered for students and faculty.” The ZOA noted that President Yudof has publicly identified himself as a Jewish activist and a strong defender of Israel, and thus presumably would “share our concern about campus anti-Semitism.” The ZOA called on President Yudof to take several “reasonable steps . . . to rectify the ongoing problems.” (To read the ZOA’s letter to UC President Yudof, click here.)

With respect to UC Irvine, the ZOA described the events regularly sponsored by the university’s Muslim Student Union (MSU), which “demonize and vilify Jews, Zionism and Israel.” According to the ZOA, “[t]he events’ titles alone convey just how false and hateful the events are,” including “Zionism Hijacking Judaism,” “Israel: The 4th Reich,” and “From Auschwitz to Gaza: The Politics of Genocide,” a program absurdly suggesting that the systematic and deliberate murder of Jews in Auschwitz is comparable to the situation today in Gaza. Last May, the MSU sponsored such programs as “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”; “Death to Apartheid: A Farewell to Zionism”; and “Silence is Consent: Stop the Palestinian Holocaust.” The ZOA pointed out that “[t]hese events promoted the monstrous lie that Israel is committing genocide and perpetrating a holocaust on the Palestinian Arabs.”


The ZOA informed President Yudof that at UC Irvine, speakers accuse the Jews of controlling the media and the government and of being responsible for 9-11. They have compared “Zionist Jews” to Nazis. They have justified and advocated suicide bombings and terrorism against Israeli Jews. And they have called for Israel’s destruction.

The impact on Jewish students, according to the ZOA, has been serious. Students have been afraid to wear anything that would identify them as Jewish or Israel supporters. Students avoid those parts of the campus where hateful speakers and programs are taking place, or they avoid the campus altogether. Students’ academic performance has suffered. Some students have feared for their safety. At least two students have left UC Irvine and went to study elsewhere because they could no longer endure the hostility on campus.

The ZOA noted that UC President Yudof has publicly recognized that university leaders have constitutional rights and the freedom of expression. President Yudof has publicly stated that university leaders have the moral duty to speak out forcefully against anti-Semitism.

Yet UC Irvine’s Chancellor, Michael Drake, has never condemned any of the anti-Semitism that has occurred on his campus in any of his messages to the university community, according to the ZOA. The Chancellor issued a campus message in which he said that he abhorred hate speech, but “[h]e never mentioned the word ‘anti-Semitism.’ And he did not tie his general anti-hate message to a specific program or speaker on the campus,” thus losing “the opportunity to educate the perpetrators and the university community about what he believed was objectionable and why.” (When Chancellor Drake has publicly condemned anti-Semitism, he has done so in general terms, without reference to a particular speaker or program, and he has “conveniently . . . done so off campus, to a predominantly Jewish audience” – at a town hall meeting with members of the Orange County community, at the American Jewish Committee’s annual dinner in Orange County, and at a Hillel Summit in Washington, D.C.)

The ZOA noted that its criticism of Chancellor Drake’s silence has been echoed by others. The independent Orange County Task Force, which conducted a year-long investigation of allegations of anti-Semitism at UC Irvine, condemned the Chancellor and called on him to “publicly identify and denounce hate speech when it occurs” on his campus. The Orange County Register published an editorial criticizing the Chancellor’s administration for “punting in its response” to hateful speech. In May 2008, in response to the MSU’s event entitled “Never Again? The Palestinian Holocaust,” U.S. Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) wrote to the Chancellor, calling on him to condemn the MSU’s event, which “appears intended to encourage violence against the State of Israel and propagate the spread of anti-Semitism.” Congressmen Sherman stated in his letter to Chancellor Drake: “As an American, you have a right to speak out. As Chancellor, it is your duty to condemn anti-Semitism, especially when it occurs at the UCI campus.”

Chancellor Drake has not heeded these calls to clearly and forcefully condemn the anti-Semitism on his campus. The ZOA urged UC President Yudof to insist that UC Irvine’s Chancellor finally exercise his moral leadership and speak out clearly and forcefully against the MSU’s anti-Semitic speakers and programs.

In its letter to UC President Yudof, the ZOA asserted that at UC Santa Cruz, “[a]nti-Semitism is also a serious problem.” It derives in part from the programs and speakers sponsored by a registered student group on campus. It is also coming from faculty in the Social Sciences and Humanities. There have been reports to the ZOA that “since 2001, a number of UC Santa Cruz departments and research centers have sponsored more than a dozen events dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All of them have been biased against Israel. During the same time period, none of these departments or research centers has sponsored events about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that were not biased against Israel.”

Students have reportedly been laughed at when they have expressed a pro-Israel perspective in certain classes at UC Santa Cruz. Students also know that there are courses that they should stay away from because of their anti-Israel bias.

The bias has “spilled over into physical acts of anti-Semitism” at UC Santa Cruz, according to the ZOA. There were two recent acts of anti-Semitic vandalism on campus, neither of which was condemned by UC Santa Cruz’s Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor issued a message, but she never mentioned the word “anti-Semitism,” and never forcefully condemned it, instead weakly referring to the vandalism as “offensive” and “upsetting.”

The ZOA noted that students and faculty have complained to the UC administration about the problems at UC Santa Cruz. The local chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) brought its concerns to the Chancellor, the Dean of Social Sciences, and the Senate Executive Committee of the Academic Senate, each time documenting the pattern of political bias and advocacy against Israel. The response to these raised concerns was so lacking that the ZOA wrote to UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal, urging him to address the problems on his campus. He never responded to the ZOA’s letter. According to the ZOA, his silence sent “the troubling message that the issues we raised – echoing concerns that have already been expressed to him by students and faculty – are not important and can be ignored.”

The ZOA urged UC President Mark Yudof to ensure that Chancellor Blumenthal take several steps: First, the Chancellor should issue a public statement to the entire university community, making it clear that UC Santa Cruz considers the two vandalism acts to be expressions of anti-Semitic bigotry that the university condemns and will not tolerate. Second, the Chancellor should, in the future, condemn, by name, anti-Semitic speakers and programs that are sponsored on his campus. Finally, the Chancellor should undertake a comprehensive analysis of university course descriptions and course materials to ensure that (1) principles of academic freedom are not being subverted, sacrificing facts and historical truths to promote a particular political agenda; (2) students have the benefit of the full range of legitimate scholarly views about Israel, Zionism and the conflict in the Middle East; and (3) students are not being discouraged (whether intentionally or not) or intimidated into not expressing their views supporting Israel and criticizing the actions of its enemies.

Morton A. Klein, the ZOA’s National President, implored UC President Mark Yudof to take action and address longstanding problems at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz: “President Yudof has identified himself as an Israel advocate who understands the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel and criticism that unacceptably crosses the line into anti-Semitism. The line is repeatedly being crossed on at least two of the UC campuses, and yet no one in the UC administration has even acknowledged the scope of the problem, let alone fixed it. Given UC President Yudof’s background and experience, we are looking to him to stop the tolerance on UC campuses of vicious lies about Jews and Israel.

“President Yudof has also identified himself as a constitutional law scholar who understands that university leaders have their own free speech rights and the moral duty to exercise those rights and condemn anti-Semitic bigotry when it occurs on their campuses. We are thus looking to President Yudof to put those principles into practice so that the anti-Semitism at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz is finally firmly addressed.”




The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has urged the newly-appointed President of the University of California (UC), Mark G. Yudof, to address ongoing problems of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing on two UC campuses: UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz. In an eight-page letter to President Yudof dated August 8, 2008, the ZOA described in detail “the pattern of anti-Semitism on both of these campuses, and the hostile environment that the bigotry has engendered for students and faculty.” The ZOA noted that President Yudof has publicly identified himself as a Jewish activist and a strong defender of Israel, and thus presumably would “share our concern about campus anti-Semitism.” The ZOA called on President Yudof to take several “reasonable steps . . . to rectify the ongoing problems.” (To read the ZOA’s letter to UC President Yudof, click here.)

With respect to UC Irvine, the ZOA described the events regularly sponsored by the university’s Muslim Student Union (MSU), which “demonize and vilify Jews, Zionism and Israel.” According to the ZOA, “[t]he events’ titles alone convey just how false and hateful the events are,” including “Zionism Hijacking Judaism,” “Israel: The 4th Reich,” and “From Auschwitz to Gaza: The Politics of Genocide,” a program absurdly suggesting that the systematic and deliberate murder of Jews in Auschwitz is comparable to the situation today in Gaza. Last May, the MSU sponsored such programs as “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”; “Death to Apartheid: A Farewell to Zionism”; and “Silence is Consent: Stop the Palestinian Holocaust.” The ZOA pointed out that “[t]hese events promoted the monstrous lie that Israel is committing genocide and perpetrating a holocaust on the Palestinian Arabs.”


The ZOA informed President Yudof that at UC Irvine, speakers accuse the Jews of controlling the media and the government and of being responsible for 9-11. They have compared “Zionist Jews” to Nazis. They have justified and advocated suicide bombings and terrorism against Israeli Jews. And they have called for Israel’s destruction.

The impact on Jewish students, according to the ZOA, has been serious. Students have been afraid to wear anything that would identify them as Jewish or Israel supporters. Students avoid those parts of the campus where hateful speakers and programs are taking place, or they avoid the campus altogether. Students’ academic performance has suffered. Some students have feared for their safety. At least two students have left UC Irvine and went to study elsewhere because they could no longer endure the hostility on campus.

The ZOA noted that UC President Yudof has publicly recognized that university leaders have constitutional rights and the freedom of expression. President Yudof has publicly stated that university leaders have the moral duty to speak out forcefully against anti-Semitism.

Yet UC Irvine’s Chancellor, Michael Drake, has never condemned any of the anti-Semitism that has occurred on his campus in any of his messages to the university community, according to the ZOA. The Chancellor issued a campus message in which he said that he abhorred hate speech, but “[h]e never mentioned the word ‘anti-Semitism.’ And he did not tie his general anti-hate message to a specific program or speaker on the campus,” thus losing “the opportunity to educate the perpetrators and the university community about what he believed was objectionable and why.” (When Chancellor Drake has publicly condemned anti-Semitism, he has done so in general terms, without reference to a particular speaker or program, and he has “conveniently . . . done so off campus, to a predominantly Jewish audience” – at a town hall meeting with members of the Orange County community, at the American Jewish Committee’s annual dinner in Orange County, and at a Hillel Summit in Washington, D.C.)

The ZOA noted that its criticism of Chancellor Drake’s silence has been echoed by others. The independent Orange County Task Force, which conducted a year-long investigation of allegations of anti-Semitism at UC Irvine, condemned the Chancellor and called on him to “publicly identify and denounce hate speech when it occurs” on his campus. The Orange County Register published an editorial criticizing the Chancellor’s administration for “punting in its response” to hateful speech. In May 2008, in response to the MSU’s event entitled “Never Again? The Palestinian Holocaust,” U.S. Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) wrote to the Chancellor, calling on him to condemn the MSU’s event, which “appears intended to encourage violence against the State of Israel and propagate the spread of anti-Semitism.” Congressmen Sherman stated in his letter to Chancellor Drake: “As an American, you have a right to speak out. As Chancellor, it is your duty to condemn anti-Semitism, especially when it occurs at the UCI campus.”

Chancellor Drake has not heeded these calls to clearly and forcefully condemn the anti-Semitism on his campus. The ZOA urged UC President Yudof to insist that UC Irvine’s Chancellor finally exercise his moral leadership and speak out clearly and forcefully against the MSU’s anti-Semitic speakers and programs.

In its letter to UC President Yudof, the ZOA asserted that at UC Santa Cruz, “[a]nti-Semitism is also a serious problem.” It derives in part from the programs and speakers sponsored by a registered student group on campus. It is also coming from faculty in the Social Sciences and Humanities. There have been reports to the ZOA that “since 2001, a number of UC Santa Cruz departments and research centers have sponsored more than a dozen events dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All of them have been biased against Israel. During the same time period, none of these departments or research centers has sponsored events about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that were not biased against Israel.”

Students have reportedly been laughed at when they have expressed a pro-Israel perspective in certain classes at UC Santa Cruz. Students also know that there are courses that they should stay away from because of their anti-Israel bias.

The bias has “spilled over into physical acts of anti-Semitism” at UC Santa Cruz, according to the ZOA. There were two recent acts of anti-Semitic vandalism on campus, neither of which was condemned by UC Santa Cruz’s Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor issued a message, but she never mentioned the word “anti-Semitism,” and never forcefully condemned it, instead weakly referring to the vandalism as “offensive” and “upsetting.”

The ZOA noted that students and faculty have complained to the UC administration about the problems at UC Santa Cruz. The local chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) brought its concerns to the Chancellor, the Dean of Social Sciences, and the Senate Executive Committee of the Academic Senate, each time documenting the pattern of political bias and advocacy against Israel. The response to these raised concerns was so lacking that the ZOA wrote to UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal, urging him to address the problems on his campus. He never responded to the ZOA’s letter. According to the ZOA, his silence sent “the troubling message that the issues we raised – echoing concerns that have already been expressed to him by students and faculty – are not important and can be ignored.”

The ZOA urged UC President Mark Yudof to ensure that Chancellor Blumenthal take several steps: First, the Chancellor should issue a public statement to the entire university community, making it clear that UC Santa Cruz considers the two vandalism acts to be expressions of anti-Semitic bigotry that the university condemns and will not tolerate. Second, the Chancellor should, in the future, condemn, by name, anti-Semitic speakers and programs that are sponsored on his campus. Finally, the Chancellor should undertake a comprehensive analysis of university course descriptions and course materials to ensure that (1) principles of academic freedom are not being subverted, sacrificing facts and historical truths to promote a particular political agenda; (2) students have the benefit of the full range of legitimate scholarly views about Israel, Zionism and the conflict in the Middle East; and (3) students are not being discouraged (whether intentionally or not) or intimidated into not expressing their views supporting Israel and criticizing the actions of its enemies.

Morton A. Klein, the ZOA’s National President, implored UC President Mark Yudof to take action and address longstanding problems at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz: “President Yudof has identified himself as an Israel advocate who understands the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel and criticism that unacceptably crosses the line into anti-Semitism. The line is repeatedly being crossed on at least two of the UC campuses, and yet no one in the UC administration has even acknowledged the scope of the problem, let alone fixed it. Given UC President Yudof’s background and experience, we are looking to him to stop the tolerance on UC campuses of vicious lies about Jews and Israel.

“President Yudof has also identified himself as a constitutional law scholar who understands that university leaders have their own free speech rights and the moral duty to exercise those rights and condemn anti-Semitic bigotry when it occurs on their campuses. We are thus looking to President Yudof to put those principles into practice so that the anti-Semitism at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz is finally firmly addressed.”



With respect to UC Irvine, the ZOA described the events regularly sponsored by the university’s Muslim Student Union (MSU), which “demonize and vilify Jews, Zionism and Israel.” According to the ZOA, “[t]he events’ titles alone convey just how false and hateful the events are,” including “Zionism Hijacking Judaism,” “Israel: The 4th Reich,” and “From Auschwitz to Gaza: The Politics of Genocide,” a program absurdly suggesting that the systematic and deliberate murder of Jews in Auschwitz is comparable to the situation today in Gaza. Last May, the MSU sponsored such programs as “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”; “Death to Apartheid: A Farewell to Zionism”; and “Silence is Consent: Stop the Palestinian Holocaust.” The ZOA pointed out that “[t]hese events promoted the monstrous lie that Israel is committing genocide and perpetrating a holocaust on the Palestinian Arabs.”


The ZOA informed President Yudof that at UC Irvine, speakers accuse the Jews of controlling the media and the government and of being responsible for 9-11. They have compared “Zionist Jews” to Nazis. They have justified and advocated suicide bombings and terrorism against Israeli Jews. And they have called for Israel’s destruction.

The impact on Jewish students, according to the ZOA, has been serious. Students have been afraid to wear anything that would identify them as Jewish or Israel supporters. Students avoid those parts of the campus where hateful speakers and programs are taking place, or they avoid the campus altogether. Students’ academic performance has suffered. Some students have feared for their safety. At least two students have left UC Irvine and went to study elsewhere because they could no longer endure the hostility on campus.

The ZOA noted that UC President Yudof has publicly recognized that university leaders have constitutional rights and the freedom of expression. President Yudof has publicly stated that university leaders have the moral duty to speak out forcefully against anti-Semitism.

Yet UC Irvine’s Chancellor, Michael Drake, has never condemned any of the anti-Semitism that has occurred on his campus in any of his messages to the university community, according to the ZOA. The Chancellor issued a campus message in which he said that he abhorred hate speech, but “[h]e never mentioned the word ‘anti-Semitism.’ And he did not tie his general anti-hate message to a specific program or speaker on the campus,” thus losing “the opportunity to educate the perpetrators and the university community about what he believed was objectionable and why.” (When Chancellor Drake has publicly condemned anti-Semitism, he has done so in general terms, without reference to a particular speaker or program, and he has “conveniently . . . done so off campus, to a predominantly Jewish audience” – at a town hall meeting with members of the Orange County community, at the American Jewish Committee’s annual dinner in Orange County, and at a Hillel Summit in Washington, D.C.)

The ZOA noted that its criticism of Chancellor Drake’s silence has been echoed by others. The independent Orange County Task Force, which conducted a year-long investigation of allegations of anti-Semitism at UC Irvine, condemned the Chancellor and called on him to “publicly identify and denounce hate speech when it occurs” on his campus. The Orange County Register published an editorial criticizing the Chancellor’s administration for “punting in its response” to hateful speech. In May 2008, in response to the MSU’s event entitled “Never Again? The Palestinian Holocaust,” U.S. Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) wrote to the Chancellor, calling on him to condemn the MSU’s event, which “appears intended to encourage violence against the State of Israel and propagate the spread of anti-Semitism.” Congressmen Sherman stated in his letter to Chancellor Drake: “As an American, you have a right to speak out. As Chancellor, it is your duty to condemn anti-Semitism, especially when it occurs at the UCI campus.”

Chancellor Drake has not heeded these calls to clearly and forcefully condemn the anti-Semitism on his campus. The ZOA urged UC President Yudof to insist that UC Irvine’s Chancellor finally exercise his moral leadership and speak out clearly and forcefully against the MSU’s anti-Semitic speakers and programs.

In its letter to UC President Yudof, the ZOA asserted that at UC Santa Cruz, “[a]nti-Semitism is also a serious problem.” It derives in part from the programs and speakers sponsored by a registered student group on campus. It is also coming from faculty in the Social Sciences and Humanities. There have been reports to the ZOA that “since 2001, a number of UC Santa Cruz departments and research centers have sponsored more than a dozen events dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All of them have been biased against Israel. During the same time period, none of these departments or research centers has sponsored events about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that were not biased against Israel.”

Students have reportedly been laughed at when they have expressed a pro-Israel perspective in certain classes at UC Santa Cruz. Students also know that there are courses that they should stay away from because of their anti-Israel bias.

The bias has “spilled over into physical acts of anti-Semitism” at UC Santa Cruz, according to the ZOA. There were two recent acts of anti-Semitic vandalism on campus, neither of which was condemned by UC Santa Cruz’s Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor issued a message, but she never mentioned the word “anti-Semitism,” and never forcefully condemned it, instead weakly referring to the vandalism as “offensive” and “upsetting.”

The ZOA noted that students and faculty have complained to the UC administration about the problems at UC Santa Cruz. The local chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) brought its concerns to the Chancellor, the Dean of Social Sciences, and the Senate Executive Committee of the Academic Senate, each time documenting the pattern of political bias and advocacy against Israel. The response to these raised concerns was so lacking that the ZOA wrote to UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal, urging him to address the problems on his campus. He never responded to the ZOA’s letter. According to the ZOA, his silence sent “the troubling message that the issues we raised – echoing concerns that have already been expressed to him by students and faculty – are not important and can be ignored.”

The ZOA urged UC President Mark Yudof to ensure that Chancellor Blumenthal take several steps: First, the Chancellor should issue a public statement to the entire university community, making it clear that UC Santa Cruz considers the two vandalism acts to be expressions of anti-Semitic bigotry that the university condemns and will not tolerate. Second, the Chancellor should, in the future, condemn, by name, anti-Semitic speakers and programs that are sponsored on his campus. Finally, the Chancellor should undertake a comprehensive analysis of university course descriptions and course materials to ensure that (1) principles of academic freedom are not being subverted, sacrificing facts and historical truths to promote a particular political agenda; (2) students have the benefit of the full range of legitimate scholarly views about Israel, Zionism and the conflict in the Middle East; and (3) students are not being discouraged (whether intentionally or not) or intimidated into not expressing their views supporting Israel and criticizing the actions of its enemies.

Morton A. Klein, the ZOA’s National President, implored UC President Mark Yudof to take action and address longstanding problems at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz: “President Yudof has identified himself as an Israel advocate who understands the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel and criticism that unacceptably crosses the line into anti-Semitism. The line is repeatedly being crossed on at least two of the UC campuses, and yet no one in the UC administration has even acknowledged the scope of the problem, let alone fixed it. Given UC President Yudof’s background and experience, we are looking to him to stop the tolerance on UC campuses of vicious lies about Jews and Israel.

“President Yudof has also identified himself as a constitutional law scholar who understands that university leaders have their own free speech rights and the moral duty to exercise those rights and condemn anti-Semitic bigotry when it occurs on their campuses. We are thus looking to President Yudof to put those principles into practice so that the anti-Semitism at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz is finally firmly addressed.”

Fousesquawk comment: As one who has taught part-time at UCI for 10 years and has become personally involved in the on-going controversy there for the past 2 years, I am in full agreement with what appears above, at least insofar as it pertains to UCI. I am hoping that President Yudof will personally intervene.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

"That's Why Teachers, Firefighters, Police and Organ-Grinders All Support..."


"Youse gotta vote for Proposition X-for the children"

Is the above guy a cop, firefighter, teacher-or just a union thug?


Here in California, in addition to the madness of the presidential election, we are treated to our local and state elections as well as a plethora of ballot measures, most of which have been put up by our local governments to pass more bond measures.

It's enough to drive you crazy. Talk about insulting the intelligence of the voters...well, on second thought.

Most of California's ballot measures are requests for the voters to authorize new taxes to pay for...saving the state. If you take the ads seriously, you would conclude your choice is between destroying the state and ...destroying the state. You wouldn't believe the arguments we are subjected to; eliminating our dependence on foreign oil, saving the environment, protecting our children-all if we pass one more bond measure or increase one more tax.

Then there are those "endorsements". How many times have you heard that police, firefighters and teachers ALL support this or that? Am I exaggerating? Check this one out.

There is some guy named Mark Ridley Thomas who is running for LA County Supervisor. Anyway, his ad starts off by talking about the people who work 24-7 to serve and protect us-our teachers, firefighters and police. Guess what-they "ALL support Mark Ridley Thomas for LA County Supervisor".

As we used to say in high school,every last swingin' you know what.

Translation: Their unions are endorsing Mark Ridley Thomas.

Then there is CAIR attorney, Todd Gallinger, who is running for Irvine City Council and has put this up on his campaign website:

OC FIREFIGHTERS ENDORSE TODD GALLINGER

"We are very honored and pleased to announce that Todd's candidacy for Irvine City Council has been endorsed by the Orange County Professional Firefighters Association - local 3631. These are the brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day to keep us all safe, and now they are in our corner!"

At least he mentioned the union-that is really in his corner.

But it gets worse.

Proposition 8 is a ballot measure that would make it law in California that marriage is between a man and a woman. A similar measure was passed by voters a few years back only to be overturned by the State Supreme Court. So here we go again. Now whether you agree on the gay marriage issue or not, it should give you pause that the California Teachers Union has spent one million dollars of its members dues to fight Proposition 8. Are they saying that every teacher in California is against proposition 8? Clearly, they can't because there are a lot of teachers in the state who not only support proposition 8, but have spoken out bitterly against their dues being used for political purposes that have nothing to do with education (except the debate about whether gay marriage would be promoted in the classroom)and which do not reflect their personal beliefs. Of course, none of that matters to the all-powerful Teachers Union in California. They are a liberal advocacy group very much into political issues.

All of this, of course, should serve as a monument to the fecklessness of government, whether it be at the local, state, or national level. We, as a people, should be doing everything in our power to limit government's reach into our lives and our wallets. In California that battle has been lost. Hopefully, the rest of the nation is not following close behind.

Friday, October 24, 2008

A Democrat Speaks to the News Media

This news editorial was sent to me via e-mail from a friend. It was written by a Democrat, and I can't resist posting it because I agree with it totally, and I could never have said it better.


Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

"I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city."

This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina

CNN's "Apology"

Now that CNN has been embarrassed over the Sarah Palin interview by Drew Griffin, in which he badly took an article by National Review writer, Byron York out of context to embarrass Governor Palin, CNN has now "made amends".

Well, not quite.

CNN has now removed that portion of the interview from its video, and Griifin has called York and National Review editor, Rich Lowry to apologize for the error in quoting York's words.

What they have not done is apologize to the person who was damaged by the error. That would be Governor Palin.

What they have not done is go on the air to clarify the error publicly for the benefit of those who watched the original interview or read about it.

The fact of the matter is that the average person is not concerned about any wrong done to Byron York or National Review, nor are they probably even aware of York or National Review. What should be done by CNN is to admit their mistake and do it publicly with a public apology to Governor Palin.

Until they do that, they cannot call themselves, "the most trusted name in news".

The Hoax in Pittsburgh

Yesterday, when I read the report of a young woman in Pittsburgh being robbed and assaulted-then badly beaten and mutilated because her car had a McCain-Palin bumper sticker, I was ready to post my comments on the incident. (The woman reported to police that her attacker had carved a letter "B" into her face with a knife.)

Something, however, told me to hold off a day or two until the dust settled. Perhaps, it was because I had been reporting on a recent hoax at Elmhurst College in Illinois, where a young Muslim woman reported being assaulted by a masked man in a college restroom because she was Muslim. A week later, the woman was charged with filing a false police report. It took CAIR five days to remove the original report of assault from their website, a fact I duly noted.

Fortunately for me, I didn't run with the story, and, today, it turns out the Pittsburgh case was also a hoax. So what do I say now? Well, for starters, I am glad that this young woman has also been charged with filing a false police report.

Her action obviously got a lot of people upset. McCain and Palin apparently called the woman personally to wish her speedy recovery. The Obama campaign expressed their concern as well. It certainly didn't help that the woman identified her attacker as an African-American, which only served to open up old wounds.

Manufacturing a phony crime to affect public opinion is a serious offense (though the charges in both cases are actually misdemeanors). Though McCain cannot be blamed for her actions, it does his campaign no good-especially among African-Americans.

So now we are saddled with another bad episode in an election in which I will be glad when it's finally over.

Introducing the Islamic Thinkers Society-A Real Hate Group



Muslim Day Parade in New York

top: Islamic Thinkers Society

below: Peaceful participants


On Ocober 12, thousands of Muslims held a "Muslim Day" parade down New York City's Madison Avenue, which, of course had to be closed to traffic to accommodate the marchers and their event, which included prayers in the street. Many of the marchers brought their children and many others carried flags of their mother countries. While it was mostly peaceful, there were a few verbal altercations that broke out between some marchers and non-Muslim protesters who lined the parade route. Many New York citizens had taken umbrage at the proximity of last year's event to 9-11 (two days previous). No doubt the sea of foreign flags did not sit well with many protesters. A lot of insults went back and forth, and on a few occasions, police and security had to keep people apart. Slides and videos of the event are readily available on the Internet.

While I believe it was the intent of most of the marchers to have a peaceful event, there was one segment of the march that does not have such good intentions. Some of the marchers are members of a Queens, New York-based organization called Islamic Thinkers Society. They should change their name to Islamic Haters Society. This is a radical group of Muslims, who seem to be mostly American-born Muslims and converts. Their world view is anything but peaceful and tolerant.

The Islamic Thinkers Society is reportedly the American wing of Al Muhajrioun, the extremist group which reportedly broke up in the UK and whose leader, Omar Bakri Mohammed, fled the country in the wake of the July metro bombings in London.

Here are some examples from their website (http://www.islamicthinkers.com/index/index.php)

On one page, they have put up posters with pictures of Obama and McCain proclaiming:

"Voting for those who ally with the enemies of Islam is Kufr.
"Oh believers, if any amongst you takes the Jews and Christians as auliya (supporters), then he is one of them." (5:51)

and,

"Voting and supporting those who rule by other than Allah (swt) is Kufr."

Then there is a depiction of the Israeli flag and two Stars of David. The stars are burning while a mushroom cloud is rising over the flag.

In addition, there is a warning that "Spying on Muslims is Haraam".

Then there is this bit of "wisdom" from the "thinkers":

"66 questions about the Holocaust", which lists 66 points implying why the Holocaust never happened.

But don't take my word for all this; visit their website.

By the way, this is the same group of mopes that publicly desecrated an American flag on the streets of New York a couple years ago.

How many members do they have? That's what I want to know. They describe themselves as "less than a handful" of Muslims. Hopefully, that is the case. Their presence in the above-mentioned parade is a blot on any positive message that New York's Muslims wanted to portray.

The Forgotten Refugees-By Reut Cohen

I am pleased to post an article written recently by my friend and colleague, Reut Cohen, a recent graduate of UC-Irvine, who has been outspoken in her opposition to anti-Semitic speakers sponsored by UCI's Muslim Student Union. In speaking out against the MSU, Reut also came into conflict with the UCI Administration.

Reut comes from a Middle-Eastern Jewish family that was driven from their homes in Iraq and Syria. It is a story that has been largely lost amid the Isreali-Palestinian debate.

Here is the story of Reut's family. It is also posted on her own website, which bears her name.


"In May 2007, Jimmy Carter went on a speaking tour and made a stop at the University of California, Irvine. During his talk, the former president made an offer to assist in funding a trip between Jewish and Muslim students to Israel and the Palestinian territories with the intention of bringing awareness to the plight of the Palestinians.

In August 2008 a group of students, primarily composed of Jewish students and students who are involved with the Middle Eastern Studies Student Initiative (MESSI) or the Center for Citizen Peacebuilding, participated in a program to visit Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Jimmy Carter did not subsidize the trip according to the students and departments involved, but Carter's suggestion in 2007 definitely helped to inspire this trip. Now that students have returned to the United States they will be sharing their experiences and the perspectives they heard at a series of events sponsored by university departments throughout the year.

My outlook regarding this trip is neither optimistic nor reassured just because the Center for Citizen Peacebuilding endorsed this program and UC Irvine's vice chancellor briefly met with students during the trip. After all, I am very familiar with the vice chancellor at my alma mater. He is the same vice chancellor who made a rather asinine remark that he would not seek to curtail hate speech against Jews because "one person's hate speech is another's education."

Another concern is that students, who probably had good if not extremely misguided intentions, were only afforded the ability to see two parts of the Middle East — developed Israel and the underdeveloped Palestinian Authority. Certainly students, especially students who went into the trip knowing little about the conflict, will only have a prospering, developed nation to compare the Palestinian territories to. In order for a well-rounded, honest approach to understanding the Middle East, students should have seen how Jordanians and Egyptians live. Anyone who has visited the Middle East will recognize that there are distinct similarities of impoverishment, lack of sanitation, and infrastructure in villages.

Conversely, Israel is not much different than Western nations. Innovation, advancement, proper health, and infrastructure are obvious components of Israeli society.

During this trip words like "refugees" and "oppressed" likely came up in discussion about the situation of the Palestinians. I sincerely doubt that there will be a mention that the infant mortality rate in the Palestinian Authority is actually lower than in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and many other Islamic nations. Israel has continuously provided medical assistance to Palestinians in need, which has very likely made the infant mortality rate lower in the Palestinian Authority. I also cannot help but wonder if the fact that Palestinians cannot become citizens of any Islamic nation or that there are Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon was discussed during this trip.

Furthermore, it is a concern that while the refugee status of the Palestinians is often up for discussion, there is little or no mention of the Jewish Middle Eastern refugees. Certainly, judging from what I have heard and seen about this trip, there wasn't a mention of Middle Eastern Jewry even though these Jews make up more than half of Israel.

I would like to share my own unique perspective on the refugee issue, one that is rarely heard by our media.

I am Jewish, but I am also Middle Eastern. I come from a traditional Sephardic/Mizrahi household. The food we eat, the way we pray, the music we listen to are all Middle Eastern in their style and origins. While I am very familiar with the situation of Middle Eastern Jewish refugees, it has always astounded, and even offended, me that the situation of my relatives who suffered and endured in refugee camps is rarely addressed.

Up to one million Jews lived in the Middle East and North Africa in 1945. These Middle Eastern Jews lived in communities dating back more than three millennia. Yet today these communities have been virtually wiped out by Islamic governments and only a few thousand Jews remain.

Israel was a very poor country with a finite amount of resources, making life very difficult for diverse Jews who were breaking free of repressive regimes. While Israel absorbed the survivors of the Holocaust, it also absorbed an equal number of Jews from the Middle East who faced intense persecution under Islamic regimes that became very Nazi-like in their treatment of Jews.

My paternal grandfather vividly recalls his experiences living as a Jew in Baghdad and the Farhud pogrom, which was a Nazi pogrom coordinated by Haj Amin al-Husseini. In a two-day period Arab mobs went on a rampage in Baghdad and other cities in Iraq. Nearly 300 Jews were killed and more than 2,000 injured; some 900 Jewish homes were destroyed and looted, and hundreds of Jewish-owned shops were robbed and destroyed. My older family members recall witnessing how Iraqi soldiers pulled small children away from their parents and ripped the arms off young girls to steal their bracelets; pregnant women were raped and their stomachs cut open. My grandfather hid his baby brother underneath his t-shirt when the violence began and ran home. My great-grandfather saved his entire family during the riots that broke out in Baghdad by claiming to be a Muslim when Iraqi troops came into their home with the intent of looting, raping, and killing. Eventually, when being a Jew was practically criminalized, my father's family escaped to Israel with only the clothes on their backs — their belongings were confiscated — leaving behind everything that they knew. Their experience was not a unique one and was shared by several thousand Baghdadi Jews.

Other Islamic countries treated their Jewish populations similarly. My maternal grandmother escaped from Syria during the mid-1940s. Her parents had died and she was forced to live with an older sister. As a 16-year-old girl, she decided to pay a Druze man with the gold her mother left to her and made the long, tedious journey to modern-day Israel. Because Syrian officials would incarcerate any Jew fleeing in the direction of Israel, my grandmother and other individuals making their way from Syria to what eventually became Israel would only be able to walk at night. Several Syrian Jews found it nearly impossible to flee. The last few Jews from Syria made their escape in the early 1990s. Our male relatives who arrived in Israel in the 1990s shared their stories with us. They were taken by Syrian authorities and tortured for unspecified amounts of time, experiencing unspeakable cruelty at the hands of Syrian officials.

We rarely hear of the atrocities committed against Middle Eastern Jewry and only hear about the poor Palestinian refugees. Indeed the Palestinian refugees are a poor people, a scapegoat for repressive Islamic governments who despise Israel and who will not allow these people to become immersed in Islamic countries.

My family is also indigenous to the Middle East. They are from communities that lived in dusty tents for years. They helped to build a country that was poor and barely habitable. They were refugees with a plight that has been unrecognized for decades.

Rather than engaging in violence like the Palestinians, Middle Eastern Jews persevered and built new lives. They became Israeli citizens and they ceased being refugees. At first they had to overcome social discrimination, as two very different Jewish populations found themselves interacting so suddenly — European and Middle Eastern. However, it is crucial to note that Israel eventually absorbed populations from Europe and the Middle East without receiving assistance from the international community. The Middle Eastern Jewish community makes up more than half of Israel's Jewish population.

I believe that without honesty or a comprehensive view of the Middle East, individuals are simply deluding themselves into thinking they actually have a firm understanding of a very complicated conflict. I have never heard a single Middle Eastern department at any university bring up this issue. Instead, much of the dialogue surrounding the Middle East attacks Israel, which makes up less than one percent of the Middle East. We cannot omit important narratives simply because they would call to question what we already believe."

Reut Cohen.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Congressman Tim Mahoney's Websites-Good for Laughs


Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-FL) Working for Florida


If you are looking for a few yuks, you might want to check out Congressman Tim Mahoney's (D-FL) webpages-his campaign site (Mahoney for Florida) and his official congressional site.

As you will recall, this month Mahoney, who successfully ran for Mark Foley's vacated seat on a morality platform, became caught up in a scandal regarding his affair with another woman and the question of money paid to that woman for her silence ($121,000). (Mahoney's wife has filed for divorce.)

If you check out the above two sites, you will read all about the various people who are supporting him for re-election; the Fraternal Order of Police, Firefighters for Mahoney, the NRA, etc. You will read all about the great things Tim is doing on behalf of Floridians. You will see pictures of Tim reading to a kindergarten class. There is a section entitled, "Tim in the News"........

But there is no mention of how Tim has been in the news beyond October 9. In fact, neither website seems to have been updated since October 9. The section called "About Tim" is now blank. Photographs of his wife have disappeared.

I wonder why.

Of course, Tim is still asking for contributions with this little blurb:

"We are under attack by the national Republican bosses on two fronts and Tim Mahoney needs your immediate support. They have poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into a harsh, negative television ad that is blatantly false. We need you to immediately make a contribution so we can fight back."

There is no date that I could see attached to that statement. What two fronts is he talking about? Is it the adultery front or possible misuse of public funds front?

But there is good news. According to the polls, Tim is down 26 points.

National Black Republican Association Article on Obama and Bill Ayres

The below article, written by LA-based talk show host, Larry Elder, was posted on the website of the National Black Republican Association and e-mailed to me. I am pleased to post it here.

THE CASE AGAINST BARACK OBAMA, PART 2

http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2008/10/23/the_case_against_barack_obama,_part_2

By Larry Elder
Thursday, October 23, 2008

1) What about this business of Barack Obama and William Ayers?

Ayers and his wife, Bernardine, belonged to a radical terror group in the '60s and '70s called Weather Underground. The organization committed murders, bombings and attempted acts of terrorism. In a Sept. 11, 2001, article about Ayers' book "Fugitive Days," Ayers showed no remorse. Indeed, he said: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

When Obama ran for state senator in Illinois, Ayers hosted what one person present called Obama's political "coming-out party."

Ayers and Obama sat on two boards together. One -- the Chicago Annenberg Challenge -- distributed more than $100 million from 1995 to 2001 to improve Chicago schools. Their own assessments show they failed. The money went for things such as peace initiatives, multiculturalism, Afrocentrism, bilingualism and courses that condemn capitalism and encourage attacking "oppressors."

Obama and Ayers also served on the board of the Woods Fund, an organization that distributed grant money to ACORN, which pushes its leftist agenda -- "tax justice," livable wages, anti-school choice, voter registration and affordable housing. The nearly 400,000-person-strong organization is currently under investigation by state and federal authorities in several states for voter registration fraud. The Obama campaign dismisses any connection to ACORN as tangential.

But on Dec. 1, 2007, Obama spoke at the Heartland Democratic Presidential Forum before leaders of community organizing groups, including ACORN. He said: "Let me even say before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we'll be calling all of you (community organizers) in to help us shape the agenda. We're gonna be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America."

"Meet the Press" moderator Tom Brokaw called Ayers -- a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago -- a "school reformer." Ayers, on the other hand, calls himself a Marxist and a "small 'c' communist." A Venezuelan government Web site, translated to English, calls Ayers "the leader of the revolutionary and anti-imperialist group the Weather Underground, which initiated armed struggle against the government of the USA." Ayers sits on the directorate of a think tank funded by Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.

2) Is McCain's support for the Iraq war a political winner or loser?

McCain needs to clearly state that America and the world sleep easier without Saddam Hussein in power, and that Saddam intended to restart his chemical and biological programs. McCain makes a mistake by conceding, through silence, that the war was a mistake. A recent Rasmussen poll shows that more Americans than not believe that history will judge Iraq a success.

Obama was wrong about the surge, and continues to maintain -- despite clear evidence to the contrary -- that political reconciliation is not taking place. Even The Washington Post, which endorses Obama, editorialized against Obama's insistence on withdrawing troops by a date certain. Furthermore, the Post wrote: "Democrat Barack Obama continues to argue that only the systematic withdrawal of U.S. combat units will force Iraqi leaders to compromise. Yet the empirical evidence of the past year suggests the opposite: that only the greater security produced and guaranteed by American troops allows a political environment in which legislative deals and free elections are feasible."

3) Obama supports the use of our military to stop genocide in Darfur while showing indifference about a possible one in Iraq.

Brokaw, moderating a debate, asked Obama when American combat forces should be used to quell humanitarian crises that pose no threat to U.S. security. Obama -- specifically mentioning Darfur and Rwanda -- said, "When genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us." But after a 2007 interview with Obama, The Associated Press wrote, "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there." So Obama wants to use our military to stop genocide in Darfur -- a tragedy that we did not start. But he wants our military to withdraw in Iraq, possibly resulting in a genocide of our own making. Got that?

4) As for the current financial crisis, does Obama bear some responsibility?

In the subprime crisis, many people took out unaffordable loans, and lenders lent under government policies that encouraged them to make risky loans. As a lawyer, Obama and his firm filed a class action lawsuit against Citibank, alleging that the bank systematically shut out minority borrowers. According to The Associated Press: "The case was settled out of court. Some class members got cash payments, and the bank agreed to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages."

Bottom line. When the Communist Party USA approvingly says Obama would "advance progressive politics for the long term" -- run.

More information about the National Black Republican Association is available at: www.NBRA.Info/

Let's Play, "Name That Ad"






Which is the most outrageous ad? (top to bottom)

a "The Most Trusted Name in News" (CNN)

b "The King of Beers" (Schlitz)

c "More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette" (Camel)

d "Fine Wines From the Vineyards of Bartles and Jaymes" (Bartles and Jaymes)

(I think it's a 4-way tie.)

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

CNN's "Interview" With Sarah Palin


Huh?


Yesterday, Sarah Palin sat down for an interview with CNN's Drew Griffin. What came out of that interview is a textbook example of media twisting facts and taking something totally out of context. Below is an exerpt from that interview.

CNN: "Yeah. Governor, you've been mocked in the press. The press has been pretty hard on you, the Democrats have been pretty hard on you, but also some conservatives have been pretty hard on you as well. The National Review had a story saying that, you know, I can't tell if Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt or all of the above."

Palin: "Who wrote that one?"

CNN: "That was in the National Review, I don't, have the author."


Well, Mr Griffin, the author was Byron York, and here is what he really said October 20th in the National Review (I have included the full paragraph for context):

"Watching press coverage of the Republican candidate for vice president, it’s sometimes hard to decide whether Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, backward, or — or, well, all of the above. Palin, the governor of Alaska, has faced more criticism than any vice-presidential candidate since 1988, when Democrats and the press tore into Dan Quayle. In fact, Palin may have it even worse than Quayle, since she’s taking flak not only from Democrats and the press but from some conservative opinion leaders as well."

What is CNN's motto-"The Most Trusted Source in News"? Was this just an example of Mr Griffin's incompetence-or was this a deliberate twisting and misrepresentaion of the facts? Will CNN apologize to Obama and the public? Probably not.

Is there anybody out there who still believes that the news media (with the exception of Fox News and talk radio)is not totally committed to helping Barak Obama win the election? Perhaps you think that once Obama is in the White House, the media will become his adversary, will "speak truth to power" and all that. Wrong. The media, if Obama is elected, will spend the years of his administration acting as his defender. Why? Because they share Obama's ideology. The media today is nothing more than an arm of one political party-the Democrats.

Is that good for democracy?

CAIR Finally Admits Elmhurst Case a Hoax, But,,,

Five days after a young Muslim student at Elmhurst College in Illinois admitted that her claim of being the victim of a hate crime was a hoax, CAIR has taken down its initial report of the "assault". (I think someone alerted them to the fact that I was keeping a count on how many days it would take them to set the record straight.)

http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=25560&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1

Yet, the article CAIR chose to post (by a Chicago Sun Times writer) almost seems to portray the complainant as a victim and contrasts her case (she was charged with filing a false police report) with another recent incident in which a minor female falsely reported a rape and described her attacker as "Arab-looking" (she has not been charged-see below).

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/10/parents-say-girl-made-up-palos-heights-rape-story.html

Let's not make excuses here. Filing a false police report is a crime and inexcusable no matter who does it. The young woman in Elmhurst did a disservice to everybody, Muslims, non-Muslims and the community as a whole. Yet, according to CAIR, it all came down to giving racists an excuse to hate Muslims-and a disparity in the handling of two separate cases.

I deplore true cases of acts against Muslims because of their religion, but perpetrating false cases of victimhood and hate crimes is inexcusable. We are still awaiting the results of the alleged Dayton Mosque gas attack, but the news has completely stopped after it was revealed that a can of pepper spray was found inside the mosque after the fact.

I would hope that there will be no more false claims of hate crimes against Muslims. That will enable all of us to rally around Muslims when they are the true victims of real hate crimes.

It seems that message is lost on CAIR.

Day 5 and Counting

It has now been five days that CAIR has kept a report up on its web site about an assault on a young Muslim woman at Elmhurst College in Illinois-since the report was proven to be a hoax.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

It's the Law


"Hey Ollie, how come there's nobody in the Giants' new ballpark?"

"Didn't ya hear? They moved back to New York. The city said they had to provide free rides to the games and health care coverage for all the fans. The Giants told em' to stick it."


San Francisco, that insane asylum by the bay, is a model of how not to run a city. Under the reign of Gavin Newsom, the playboy mayor and a lunatic city council, San Francisco has opened its arms to the homeless and illegal aliens of our country, while paying no attention to the blight the homeless have caused and to crime committed by some of the illegal aliens, specifically gang members-even when, as happened this year, a local family was brutally murdered by an illegal alien gang member who, being already in the city's justice system, should have been deported prior to his last crime (murder). Who is not welcome in San Francisco? Anybody associated with our military.

While the city has rightfully garnered a lot of negative publicity recently for the above issues, there is more that should be pointed out. You see, San Francisco, like the State of California itself, is not friendly to business.

For example, the city has established a new ordinance that requires local businesses to provide "commuter benefits" to its employees. Those benefits consist either of an income-tax break of up to $110 per month, an employer-provided transit pass or free rides to and from work supplied by the employer. Failure to comply results in a fine of $500. Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi wants to add a new benefit that would mandate employers to provide $20 a month to those employees who ride to work on bicycles.

Meanwhile, the ultra-liberal 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a San Francisco "right" to charge employers to help pay for universal health coverage(see Orange County Register editorial October 21, 2008).

Now you liberals out there may think it is fine and dandy for government to mandate private businesses to provide this or that for its employees- pay for their transportation to work, provide health care insurance and all that. If a company wants to provide these benefits for its workers, great. I say you should get a job with that company.

However, I believe that these are issues between an employer and his/her employees. It should be the role of government to intervene.

Secondly, as a practical matter, at a certain point, a business owner saddled with all these regulations-not to mention-taxes-is going to do one of several things: They can lay off workers, raise prices, or relocate their business elsewhere-as many California businesses are already doing-and take their jobs with them.

Well, you say. That's California-San Francisco, in fact. That's not going to happen here in Wisconsin or Georgia.

Yes, it can.

If Barack Obama is elected, you know what he is going to do to businesses. He is going to raise taxes on them. He is going to saddle them with more regulations. He doesn't like business. He thinks they are the root of all evil. He forgets that businesses are the engine that drives our economy and provides jobs.

And what do you think will happen when President Obama starts laying the wood to the nation's businesses and mimics San Francisco? Many will move out of the country and take their businesses and jobs with them.

Many would call it unintended consequences. I am not so sure. The far-left leaders and politicians of this country are not so dim-witted not to know these will be the consequences. If they, in fact, know what the consequences of these policies are, then their motive can only be to bring this country to its knees.

Let's Not Forget Obama's Spiritual Mentors


Pastor James Meeks


While John McCain has been hammering Barack Obama on the issue of Bill Ayers and ACORN, he has apparently taken Jeremiah Wright off the table. Apparently, McCain thinks that the issue of Jeremiah Wright is known to everyone, and there is no need to bring it up again.

I have three points for consideration:

In addition to Wright, one figure who has received little publicity is another radical preacher in Chicago, Reverend James Weeks. Weeks is cut out of the same cloth as Wright. A few years ago, at a rally in Chicago, Weeks said (actually shouted) this:


“We don’t have slave masters. We got mayors. But they still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able, or to be educated.”

“You got some preachers that are house niggers. You got some elected officials that are house niggers. And rather than them trying to break this up, they gonna fight you to protect the white man."

Meeks is another man who Obama has, in the past, identified as a spiritual mentor. For a while, Meeks appeared on Obama's campaign website. He was part of Obama's exploratory committee prior to his run for the presidency. While running for the US Senate, Obama campaigned in Meeks' church.

We have also been treated to sound bites from another radical "man of God", Father Michael Pfleger, the radical Catholic priest of Chicago's St Sabina Church, who mocked Hillary Clinton in racial terms in a sermon at Wright's church and physically threatened a Chicago gun store owner at a rally a few years back.

You might never have heard this tape also recorded at Wright's Trinity United Church :

"It's time to move on. It's like saying to a woman who's been repeatedly raped over, and over, and over, and over, over, and over,... You need to get over it. The HELL I do. Get the sucker who's been raping me and make him pay. Well America has been raping people of color and America has to pay the price. America has to pay the price for the rape. I dare you say get over it."


As for Wright, there is one little fact that has appeared on various blogs, but escaped attention from the general public. Remember when the Wright tapes first surfaced, and Obama claimed he had never been present during the more controversial sermons by the fiery preacher?

Cut now to Obama's first book, "Dreams of my Father", first published in 1995. The book never made a dent until it was re-published in 2004 subsequent to Obama's electrifying keynote address at the Democrat Convention.

In the book, Obama describes "The Audacity of Hope" speech by Wright, which he (Obama) borrowed for the title of his second book.

Obama quotes Pastor Wright as describing a world "where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere. ... That's the world! On which hope sits."

And then,

"Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpsville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policymakers in the White House and in the State House."

Don't take my word for it. You can read it in Obama's book or hear it on tape. (a taped audio version of the book in Obama's voice is available.)

The point here is not to bring up another inflammatory statement by Wright. The point is that Obama wrote about these statements as far back as 1995. Then, during the campaign, he told us he never heard them.

John McCain may have decided not to bring up the issue of the "spiritual mentors" who Obama has associated with. It cannot, however, be shoved to the side and neglected as a legitimate issue as we choose our next president.

One of the reasons for Obama's astounding success, in my view, is the fact that so many millions of Americans desperately want to put our troubled racial history behind us. Most all of us do-including those of us who will vote for McCain. I, for one, have a hard time believing that any person who comes from this kind of church background is going to "bring us together."

National Black Republican Association on ACORN

Below is from the National Black Republican Association:

OBAMA'S ACORN ATTACKS OUR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

The below editorial provides a chilling look into the ugly and utterly reprehensible efforts by the Obama/Democrat-controlled ACORN that are undermining the right of all Americans to vote and, thus, our entire American democracy.

Please note that the editorial below does not mention the fact that it was the Democrats who controlled the Southern states for over 100 years after the Civil War. Also, the editorial omits the fact that it was Democrats who enacted those Black Codes and Jim Crow laws designed to keep blacks from voting, because during that era almost all blacks were Republicans.

_______________________________________


http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081018/news_lz1ed18middle.html
The San Diego Union-Tribune
UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
A genuine threat

ACORN targets a weakness in democracy

October 18, 2008

To end the many obstacles Southern states put up before African-American voters as late as the 1960s, Congress worked for decades to make voting much easier. These efforts had a hugely positive effect – until the 1993 "motor voter" law. This measure and some related laws made registration so easy – and so difficult to verify because of a lack of resources and time – that they created nothing less than a structural weakness in American democracy.

This election year, we're seeing a determined, well-funded effort to exploit this weakness, led by ACORN – the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

Using corporate, partisan and taxpayer grants, the nonprofit group has spent $35 million this year to register 1.3 million people in 21 states. But it's highly likely that hundreds of thousands of these registrations are bogus. That's because ACORN relies on canvassers who appear to be paid based on how many signatures they get – an invitation to fraud – and because ACORN as an institution appears to collectively think such fraud is tolerable in the name of "social justice."

ACORN's voter drive in San Diego County – detailed in yesterday's Union-Tribune – is troubling. Nearly 2,000 of the 26,000 forms it turned in were invalid, much higher than the norm. But compared with what ACORN did elsewhere, its San Diego effort was a model of probity. In Ohio, for example, officials say ACORN gets the primary blame in the registration of 200,000 new voters whose forms appear to be bogus.

Unfortunately, many Democrats depict concern over ACORN as Republican hysteria. They are right that voter fraud has been a tiny problem in recent years. But they ignore a key point: the stunning scale of bogus registrations this time around.

Even if a tiny fraction of these fake voters actually fill out a ballot, they have the potential to tip the presidential vote in battleground states – such as Ohio. Or Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina or Wisconsin – all swing states where ACORN has been active.

If we have another very close race, the subsequent court fight could make Florida 2000 seem like a polite tiff.

So, please, spare us the "social justice" rhetoric. What ACORN has done isn't noble. It's reprehensible. We hope that the FBI's investigation into the group is vigorous and thorough.


For more information about the National Black Republican Association please visit: www.NBRA.Info




© National Black Republican Association, 2008. All Rights Reserved.

Well said.

Day 4 and Counting

It has now been four days that CAIR has kept a report up on its web site about an assault on a young Muslim woman-after the story has been shown to be a hoax.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Random Shots in the Dark (7)


Isn't it interesting how the mainstream news media is going after Joe the Plumber? In the case of NBC and its little brother MSNBC, they have virtually their whole task force of "reporters" digging up "dirt" on Mr Wurzelbacher. Is this what our major networks are supposed to be doing?

Here's an example from MSNBC's chief Obama cheerleader, Chris Matthews:

"Seems that Joe the plumber isn't even a plumber."

Seems that Chris Matthews isn't even a reporter.

Speaking of Joe the Plumber, Joe the Jerk Biden keeps putting his foot in his over sized mouth on a regular basis. Recently, he told a crowd of curious onlookers (probably in his "home state" of Pennsylvania), that it was "all about a three letter word- JOBS!!!").

Then he took his own slap at Joe the Plumber by telling another crowd of curious onlookers that, "we didn't have any Joe the Plumbers in my neighborhood."

No, but you sure had one "Joe the Jerk" in your neighborhood, Joe.

And today, came this well-advised prediction from Joe the Jerk (not Joe the Plumber).

"If we win, rest assured that President Obama will be tested by an international incident in the first 6 months". (Translation: What Joe the Jerk is really saying is that our adversaries will regard a President Obama as weak-remember what primary candidate Biden said when he was running against Obama; "The presidency is not for on-the-job training.")

Speaking of jerks, Jack Murtha, pork-barrel congressman from Johnstown, Pennsyvania, called his constituents racists a few days ago when discussing Obama's election chances. And he's asking the same people to vote for him!! Now, he has "apologized" explaining that he meant to say "rednecks", adding that "years ago", there used to be a lot of rednecks in Western Pennsylvania. He really thinks his constituents are idiots (if not racists or rednecks). If they re-elect this boob, they are idiots.

That's right, Jack. And years ago, there used to be dinosaurs in Western Pennsylvania, too.

I hear the Obamas are so convinced this race is over that they're planning the big celebration at the Waldorf Astoria; champagne, steak, lobster, the whole nine yards.

Change indeed.

Speaking of the Messiah, I hear his half brother is living in a shack outside Nairobi, Kenya. Do you think Barack is thinking about spreading the wealth around to him too when he becomes president? He did say once, "I am my brother's keeper."

But not "my half-brother's keeper".

How many of you really think the government is going to fix this financial mess? They had a big hand in creating it, didn't they? This is akin to having graffiti taggers paint over the graffiti. And to think that one of the chief fixer-uppers will be Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. He was the guy who pressured lending institutions to give loans to low-income borrowers and told us that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were sound while he was having a 10-year relationship with some guy named Herb Moses, who was a top Fannie Mae executive, and, and....you get the picture. But Nancy Pelosi tells us that Barney Frank is doing a great job...as is she.

And you want the Government to take over health care and the insurance companies?

Meanwhile, here in Kalifornia, we have a ballot measure in November to make marriage in the state limited to a man and a woman. We passed a similar measure a few years back, but 4 state supreme court justices said nix to the will of 4 million people. So now, we have to do it all over again. Go figure.

And our Governor is on the radio pushing Kalifornianers to buy state bonds. That's right. The state is bankrupt due to our out of control spending policies, so now we are asked to buy California bonds to hold the state over a few more months. We would send this muscle-bound boob back to Austria, but he's already burned those bridges. They don't want him back.

Did'ya hear about the fires that crept up to the northern environs of Los Angeles last week? One afternoon, LA's illustrious mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa (whose real name is Tony Villar from his youthful gang days)showed up at the firelines in a yellow jacket to have his picture taken. That same night, cameras caught him at the Dodgers-Phillies game in a Dodger blue jacket with one of those 12 inch Dodger dogs stuffed halfway down his throat.

Since October 10th to now, CAIR's (Council on American Islamic Relations)website is reporting a story about a young Muslim student at Elmhurst College in Illinois being assaulted October 9th in a college restroom by a masked Islamophobe, who pistol-whipped her, threatened her with death and painted anti-Muslim graffiti on the walls. The only problem is that on October 17th, police charged the girl with filing a false police report. That doesn't bother CAIR, who is still posting the assault story on its website. Don't you guys update your website? Must be a budget problem.

In how many states is ACORN under investigation now?

How's that re-election campaign going, Senator Stevens? Kinda hard commuting every night from a DC courtroom to Alaska to campaign, ain't it?

To Larry Craig-same question.

To William "Cool Cash" Jefferson-same question.

And what about that guy Tim Mahoney down in Florida-the guy that replaced Mark Foley after the latter's attempted sex scandal with pages? Seems Congressman Mahoney was playing "hide the baloney" (hey, that rhymes) with some babe he gave a job to in his office and paid hush money ($121,000)to in order to conceal the affair, and who is now suing him for sexual harassment, but he insists the money was from his personal funds-not federal or contributions, and it was strictly personal, and he will not resign, and his wife is standing by his side because I saw her with him at his press conference, but today it was announced she is filing for divorce although it was not stated whether it was because of the affair or the $121,000. Have you heard this story before? Sure you have (just not in such a long sentence).

Check out Mahoney's official website and read all about "Mr Clean's" 22-year marriage and membership in some church.

Final comment on that story: Unless you are some sort of billionaire, how can you pay $121,000 hush money to some bimbalone without your wife knowing about it?

"Hey, honey. I was just balancing the check book, and there's a check for $121,000 to Daisy May Jones. Do you know anything about this?"

Look for a federal investigation to follow.

Amazing how many folks put their faith in Government.

CAIR Still Pushing the Hoax in Elmhurst

On Friday, I wrote that a young Muslim student at Elmhurst College in Illinois had been charged for filing a false police report on October 9th that she had been assaulted in a college restroom by a masked man who pistol-whipped her and threatened her with death because she was a Muslim. The next day, CAIR reported the incident on its website. Now that the incident has been proven a hoax and the girl charged, it would seem appropriate that CAIR take down the original report of October 10 and write an update-if for no other reason to calm emotions that may have been stirred up by the initial report.

The CAIR report of the incident may be found at:

http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=25551&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1

Over the weekend, I wrote a post entitled, "A Friendly Suggestion to CAIR" outlining the most recent development and suggesting it was time to update their website.

As I write this, CAIR still has the initial report of the assault up on their website with no update. Perhaps, I could understand if no one was working on the weekend, but it's Monday now and time to keep that website up to date, right?

Let's see how many days it takes CAIR to take down that report-and if they report that it was all a hoax.

Today is Day 3.





Sunday, October 19, 2008

John McCain is the Right Choice for President

One of my regular co-respondents (who almost always disagrees with me), challenged me recently to write a piece on John McCain explaining why he should be elected. Since I have written so many negative pieces on his opponent, I was also challenged to focus only on McCain's attributes as opposed to bashing his opponent. I did not support McCain in the primary, and I don't agree with all of his positions. I am not altogether sure I would find him to be a likable sort if I ever came to know him. None of that, however, disqualifies a candidate from getting my vote. I will definitely be voting for McCain in November.

In terms of a life long resume, McCain has an impressive one. There are not too many people in this world that can claim the mantle of "hero"-even from one's enemies. McCain served his country more than just honorably in the Viet Nam war as a pilot, who was nearly killed in the USS Forrestal accident and then when he was shot down over Hanoi and spent over 5 years as a POW subject to constant abuse and torture. As a POW, he actually refused an offer of release from his captors, who wanted to cash in on the fact that McCain's father was a top admiral. Following the code of honor, he would not leave the prison before other captives who had been imprisoned longer. Even from other veterans, McCain is a person to look up to. (McCain eventually retired from the Navy.)

In terms of political experience, McCain has served over two decades in Congress both as a congressman and US Senator. Agree or disagree, he does have a record of legislative accomplishments-often writing bills together with Senators from the other side of the aisle. In a Congress that has enraged many Americans with their petty bickering and mudslinging, McCain has tried to bridge the gap. The above efforts have not always pleased his Republican colleagues in Congress, who have often felt that McCain did not toe the party on line on various issues. That tendency on McCain's part has led to the tag of "maverick".

One of McCain's biggest pluses is his promise to cut spending and fight earmarks. He has acknowledged that all of Congress has been corrupted as an institution by special interests. (McCain himself was touched by scandal in the Keating Five episode though many of his defenders still argue that his name was added to the group of politicians to be singled out because the rest were all Democrats. He was eventually cleared by the Senate Ethics Committee, but received a mild rebuke for exercizing poor judgement.)

In terms of illegal immigration, while I am not sure how far he will go to crack down on the border problem, in recent months, he seems to have learned the public anger on this issue, yet, I feel he will handle the issue in a humane manner.

In terms of judgeships, which doesn't get enough attention, in my view, McCain will almost surely nominate judges who believe in the Constitution as opposed to shaping the law to their own liberal desires.

It is McCain's stand on foreign policy that I really support. He will finish the war in Iraq with an aim for victory and a stable and friendly government in that beleaguered country. In the face of public impatience and frustration over Iraq, he has stood firm that we must win and continue to battle terrorists. Indeed, it was McCain who pushed for "The Surge" that has brought us close to achieving our goal of victory in Iraq. He recognizes the threat that is posed by Iran.

All in all, John McCain is one who is eminently qualified to be president of the United States. To me, he is the sound, sober choice to lead this country in such dangerous times.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

The New York Times "Profile" on Cindy McCain


"All the news that's fit to...."



Once again, the once-great New York Times has shown its ideological bias as well as its ability to disguise editorial opinion as straight news reporting with yesterday's hit piece on Cindy McCain.

The article, written by Jodi Kantor and David Halbfinger, may be found at the below web site:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18cindy.html?bl&ex=1224475200&en=12299783805b8c72&ei=5087%0A

The general gist of the article is that Mrs McCain is a dishonest, politically ambitious woman, who would do anything to advance her husband's political aspirations.

For example,

"From the start, Mrs. McCain’s marriage has been defined by her husband’s ambitions, and despite her sometimes punishing ride in political life, she does whatever she must to help fulfill them."

Fact or opinion?

"Those close to Mrs. McCain say she aspires to be like another blonde, glamorous figure married to an older man: Diana, the Princess of Wales."

Who says that? Unnamed sources, that's who.

"Mrs. McCain expanded her childhood home, turning it into a 10,000-square-foot mansion that struck more than one visitor as a shrine to her husband."

And who are those visitors?

In addition, the article also contains implications that the McCain marriage is less than ideal citing their extended periods away from each other.

In researching the article, co-author, Jodi Kantor, even dug up a schoolmate of McCain's daughter through Facebook and wrote her this note:


Jodi Kantor

Add as Friend

September 29 at 7:21pm

Report Message

"I saw on facebook that you went to Xavier, and if you don't mind, I'd love to ask you some advice about a story. I'm a reporter at the New York Times, writing a profile of Cindy McCain, and we are trying to get a sense of what she is like as a mother. So I'm reaching out to fellow parents at her kids' schools. My understanding is that some of her older kids went to Brophy/Xavier, but I'm trying to figure out what school her 16 year old daughter Bridget attends-- and a few people said it was PCDS. Do you know if that's right? Again, we're not really reporting on the kids, just seeking some fellow parents who can talk about what Mrs. McCain is like.

Also, if you know anyone else who I should talk to-- basically anyone who has encountered Mrs. McCain and might be able to share impressions-- that would be great.

Thanks so much for any help you can give me."

Jodi Kantor
Political correspondent
New York Times


Nice, huh? If only the Times had shown that kind of investigative imagination in the John Edwards story-or the myriad of stories about Barack Obama's lifetime associations that the Times has poo-poohed.

Speaking of Obama, you might want to compare the Cindy McCain story with the Times' May 18, 2008 adoring profile of Michelle Obama, written by Ms Kantor and Jeff Zeleny:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/18/us/politics/18michelle.html

The article on Mrs McCain, compared to their previous piece on Michelle Obama, merely underlines the obvious bias of the New York Times and their mixing of opinion into the main news pages. It should be stated that the NYT is not the only paper guilty of this. You see it in newspaper, after newspaper, after newspaper. It is up to us, the readers, to read between the lines and ask ourselves this simple question:

"Is this fact or opinion?" If it is opinion, why isn't it in the editorial section?

It really makes one wonder if this is what is being taught in journalism schools.

I have my opinion.

A Friendly Suggestion to CAIR

Yesterday, I reported on the charge filed against a 19-year-old Muslim woman at Elmhurst College (IL) for allegedly filing a false police report that she had been assaulted by a masked man in a college restroom, pistol-whipped and threatened with death because she was a Muslim. This supposedly occurred on the evening of October 9th.

The Council on American Islamic Relations website has a posting of the reported incident dated the following day (October 10, 2008). In the wake of the latest developments, not only is the girl's arrest not up on the website, but the original report of the assault is still there.

I would suggest to CAIR that they update their website regarding this whole incident.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Alleged Anti-Muslim Attack in Elmhurst-Apparently a Hoax

While writing about the story of an alleged gas attack on a Dayton mosque recently, I have also been following the alleged assault on a female Muslim student at Elmhurst (IL) college on October 9th. Tonight, it appears the report was a hoax.

Today, Elmhurst police have charged Safia Jilani, 19, with one count of filing a false police report. The article may be found at:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/10/report-student-made-up-campus-attack.html

Jilani had reported that on the evening of October 9th, she had been assaulted in a college restroom by a masked male who pistol-whipped her, threatened to kill her, and wrote anti-Muslim words on the bathroom walls. In the wake of the incident, the school called it a hate crime, students demonstrated in her support, and campus police increased security.

Now the authorities have determined that there was no attack and that the report was false.

After the Dayton incident, which still has not been resolved, I was treating this incident with caution before writing about it. As I said when the Dayton story broke, if Muslims had, indeed, been singled out for attack, I would condemn it. In fact, there is nothing more cowardly than attacking defenseless women and children.

At the same time, manufacturing phony "hate crimes" does nothing to bring Muslims and non-Muslims together. It only exacerbates the problem and widens the gulf.

I also want to point out that I am not using this case to make conclusions about the Dayton incident (as murky as it seems right now) or the alleged telephone death threat this week against LA-based CAIR attorney, Todd Gallinger, who is running for Irvine City Council, and with whom I have sparred. If,indeed, Gallinger received a death threat, then I hope the person responsible is caught and punished.

I just hope the Elmhurst incident will not become a trend.

Polls and Endorsements

The Washington Post has endorsed Barack Obama for president.
The LA Times has endorsed Barack Obama for president.
The Chicago Tribune has endorsed Barack Obama for president.
The Boston Globe has endorsed Barack Obama for president.
The San Francisco Chronicle has endorsed Barack Obama for president.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has endorsed Barack Obama for president.
The Seattle Times has endorsed Barack Obama for president.
The St Louis Post Dispatch has endorsed Barack Obama for president.

And on it goes.

But there is another newspaper you may not have heard of. It's called the Army Times, and it is the official newspaper of the US Army. Obviously, they will make no endorsement one way or another.

They did conduct a poll of the military services, however, and they have just released their results. Here they are: (Tip of the hat to Radarsite)




Overall- McCain 68% Obama 23%



Army- McCain 68% Obama 23%



Navy- McCain 69% Obama 24%



Air Force- McCain 67% Obama 24%



Marines- McCain 75% Obama 18%



Retirees- McCain 72% Obama 20%



White Non-Hispanic- McCain 76% Obama 17%



Hispanic- McCain 63% Obama 27%



Black/African-American- McCain 12% Obama 79%



Enlisted- McCain 67% Obama 24%



Officers- McCain 70% Obama 22%


No wonder Democrats want everybody to vote (dead or alive, citizen or foreigner, child or adult, human or cartoon character, etc)......except our military.

Why do you think the Democrats and their lawyers attempted and succeeded in having hundreds of military absentee ballots thrown out in Florida in the 2000 recount election?

Or did you even know about it?

Let's Play, "Name That Mob"


"Death to Joe the Plumber"


Who are these people, and where are they going?

a Chicago Cub fans chasing Cub players

b Muslim protesters chasing Danish cartoonists

c Racists in Western Pennsylvania going to vote for McCain

d Mainstream media going after Joe the Plumber

National Black Republican Post on ACORN

I am pleased to put up the latest posting from the National Black Republican Association on the activities of ACORN and their direct connection to Barack Obama.

If you don't care about what ACORN is doing-as we speak-then you give a damn about our democracy.


OBAMA'S ACORN VOTER SCAM

The Obama-ACORN Mantra: Let Every Fraudulent Vote Count ! !

ACORN, the radical community organization closely tied to Senator Barack Obama, is being raided by the FBI in state after state, eleven states thus far, for voter registration fraud. Obama served as the lawyer for ACORN in Chicago and as a community organizer trainer for ACORN. Obama also funneled millions of dollars to ACORN from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge while Obama was responsible for distributing funds from the Annenberg Challenge.

ACORN endorsed Obama and, as part of a nation-wide voter scam, Obama recently spent $832,000 of his campaign money to subsidize ACORN activities. ACORN launched a massive electoral fraud scheme, designed to get Obama elected by any means possible—legal or illegal. In typical Chicago-style politics, ACORN trolled the graveyards and registered dead people. ACORN also paid money and cigarettes as bribes to people for signing registration forms, often multiple times. Two witnesses who testified to ACRON's misdeed are Christopher Barkley, a Domino's Pizza worker, and Freddie Johnson who gave testimony during a hearing in Ohio.

Obama's association with ACORN and other radicals and shady characters, such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and convicted felon Tony Rezko, shows that Obama is a radical who lacks the character and judgment to be president.


Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. fought to ensure our right to vote -- one person, one vote. Every fradulent vote cast undermines the value of our vote and should not be tolerated!



_____________________________________________________

Nuts! How ACORN got me into vote scam by Jean MacIntosh provides a report on two Ohio voters, including Domino's Pizza worker Christopher Barkley, who claimed that they were hounded by ACORN to register to vote several times, even though they made it clear they'd already signed up.




The Nuts at ACORN Could Cause Obama's Fall by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann provides details about the Obama-ACORN voter registration fraud.

Obama and the "Professional Black-Victims Cartel" by Tom DeWeese exposes Obama's intimate relationship with ACORN and multiple alliances with dangerous radicals, such as Bill Ayers, a member of the domestic terrorist group the Weather Underground that bombed the Pentagon, the US Capitol and police stations, killing innocent Americans.

Chilling video showing Obama caught saying ACORN and friends will shape his presidential agenda.

Shocking video clips from ACORN meetings proving the close relationship between Obama and ACORN, the radical group that pushes a 1960's-bred agenda of anti-capitalism, victimology and dependency on government handouts in poor black communities. The clips show ACORN community organizers chanting "OBAMA!" while speakers advocate the undisguised authoritarian socialism and anti-capitalism redistribution of wealth that will be led by Barack Obama if he becomes president.

Don't miss this video that exposes how Obama trained ACORN staff in how to intimidate mortgage companies and banks into giving subprime loans to people who could not pay them back. This video demonstrates how Obama is just a Chicago street thug with a law degree.

More information concerning the National Black Republican Association is at: www.NBRA.Info



© National Black Republican Association, 2008. All Rights Reserved.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Why Did the Obama Campaign Give $832,000 to ACORN?

In case you missed it last night in the debate, McCain actually brought up the fact that Obama's campaign has contributed over $800,000 to ACORN, the organization that is working like little busy beavers to register as many fraudulent voters as they can to vote for -you know you.

I always thought political campaigns were trying to receive money, not give it. What gives here? What does the Obama campaign expect to get out of this gift?

Votes. Fraudulent votes. What that $832,000 represents is operational expenses for ACORN workers around the country-or if you prefer, "walkin' around money".

We already know that ACORN is or has been under investigation in about 20 states. In some states, like Washington, ACORN workers have already pled guilty to submitting phony voter registration cards. A week or so ago, their Las Vegas offices were raided by authorities. Today, the FBI has confirmed that ACORN is under investigation nationwide.

And nowhere is the problem more serious than in Ohio, a crucial battleground state. The Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, has admitted that of some 600,00 new registrations, about 200,000 are suspicious. So what does she plan to do about it? Nothing, if she has her way. It's too much work, she says. So now, the Federal courts have ordered her to take action-which she is appealing to the Supreme Court.

Not surprisingly, the New York Times is taking Brunner's side in the controversy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/us/16vote.html

What action can Brunner take? Well, she could re-establish the link between state voter rolls and the DMV, which she took down and refuses to put back up. She could allow the local election boards to check the suspicious registration forms for those that would be voting in their districts. (This is the specific issue the courts are mandating.)

Ohio has a system where people can register and vote the same day. There has been one case uncovered where a bunch of college students moved into Ohio and established residence -at the same residence-then registered to vote. One student, it turns out, has already voted and gone to the UK, where he/she apparently resides.

Given Obama's past association with ACORN added to the organization's obvious corruption and malfeasance, it is clear why a presidential campaign would send $832,000 to this bunch. As we speak, ACORN is engaged in a conspiracy to steal this election for Obama. The fact that the campaign has contributed this much money to ACORN makes Obama complicit-to put it mildly.

If a majority of the American voters truly plan to vote for Obama, and he is elected, then we must accept that verdict. However, if this turns out to be a close election that is decided by voter fraud in this or that state, then we will have lost our democracy.

Could "Joe the Plumber" Turn This Election?


Meet Joe the Plumber


Last night after the debate, I put up a humorous post on Joe the Plumber (Joe Wurzelbacher), who became the central point in said debate. We're not laughing now, and the Obama campaign and their allies on the left are not laughing either.

In the wake of last night's interview, when "Joe the Plumber" was mentioned by both candidates over 30 times, the press has descended on Holland, Ohio to interview the 34 year-old plumber.

And they are not liking what they are hearing.

It seems that Mr Wurzelbacher is letting them know in no uncertain terms that he doesn't like Obama's tax plan. He is also sounding off on taxes in general, the War in Iraq (he favors it), his weariness with people apologizing for America's actions, border security (he wants the borders closed) and on and on. In short, Mr Wurzelbacher is a guy I'd like to have a few beers with-and I'd gladly pick up the tab.

Diane Sawyer of Good Morning America has interviewed him already today, and Joe wouldn't let her put words in his mouth like when she tried to imply that he didn't want to pay taxes at all.

Today, we have this from "Just Plain Joe Biden from Scranton, PENNSYLVANIA (with all its electoral votes):

"We're worried about Joe the guy who owns the gas station, the barber, the grocer," Biden told Diane Sawyer. "Ninety-eight percent of the small business people in America make less than $250,000 a year, and they're going to get a real break under our plan. Joe the plumber, whose making over $250,000, is not going to get any more additional tax cuts with us."

Response from Wurzelbacher: "I don't make any $250,000 a year-not even close."

And the lead head on the Daily Kos now is:

"So Joe (whose name is Sam) the Plumber (who isn't a plumber) was used by McCain to attack Obama's tax proposal, though Joe/Sam actually pays less tax under Obama (if he actually got around to paying his taxes.) Brought to you by the same people who think character attacks are more important than issues."

Then, predictably, I turned on Keith Olbermann, and guess what he was talking about.

"Joe the Plumber"-and not in kind terms.

Says Keith: (I am paraphrasing)

"His real name is Sam."

"He doesn't want to pay any taxes whatsoever."

"Lucas County has a lien on him."

"There is, in an Ohio telephone directory, a listing for a Robert Wurzelbacher (no relation), who is........a stepson of .......Charles Keating. (Dragnet theme music, please).

Did Keith (or one of his staffers) actually search the Ohio telephone directories to dig up this tidbit? I haven't seen such great investigative journalism since watching the movie, "Pelican Brief".

Even the old Gray Lady, the New York Times, has done a hit piece on Joe.

"He doesn't have a plumber's license. There are two liens placed on him." He compared Obama's "tap dancing" (evading his questions) to Sammy Davis Jr. (obviously a racist).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/us/politics/17joe.html

And this from the AP:

"HOLLAND, Ohio – Joe the Plumber's story sprang a few leaks Thursday. Turns out that the man who was held up by John McCain as the typical, hard-working American taxpayer isn't really a licensed plumber. And court documents show he owes nearly $1,200 in back taxes."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081017/ap_on_re_us/joe_the_plumber

What is that I hear about the Right-Wing Republican Attack Machine?

Notwithstanding the above attacks, guess what? Today, everybody seems to be talking about taxes. That is a good thing because Obama's tax plan is all smoke and mirrors. Here we have a big government liberal (who McCain mistakenly called "Senator Government" last night)who wants to spend a gazillion bucks on a bunch of liberal programs, re-distribute wealth, and he says he will cut taxes for 95% of the American people!!??!

Look for the following to happen:

1 The mainstream press interviewers will get out of Holland, Ohio as fast as their feet can take them. No more interviews.

2 The left and the press (like Olbermann) will try to dig up dirt on Joe (which means the investigative reporters and Obama operatives will hang around).

3 McCain and his campaign will use him big-time, which, if Joe is willing, they should.

4 Maybe, just maybe, we will have a story-book ending from some b-movie, in which Joe the Plumber becomes the man who turned an election.

Last night in my posting about the debate, I expressed disappointment that no one brought up illegal immigration, and I asked jokingly; "I wonder what Joe the Plumber would have said." Today, I got my answer.

Here's to you, Joe-and watch your back.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Let's Play, "Name That Plumber"



The full name of "Joe the Plumber" (who stole the show in tonight's debate) is:

a Joe Wienerschnitzel

b Joe Wurzelbacher

c Joe Guwurztraminer

d Joe Donnerwetter

e Joe Weinstube

The answer is-b (I guess).


(All you Germans and German-Americans, save your cards and letters. I am of German descent.)

Debate 3-...and the Winner is.....


"Joe the Plumber"


Obviously, it is not original for me to state that the winner of this evening's debate has to be "Joe the Plumber". Talk about getting an hour and a half of free publicity!

Seriously though, who won between McCain and Obama? On points, I would have to say McCain. He did what everyone said he had to do. He had to be aggressive and hit Obama hard on William Ayres and ACORN. After missing a couple of openings, he finally did that and put Obama on the defense having to explain his relationship with the ex-Weatherunderground bomber and ACORN, who McCain categorized correctly as about to pull off the biggest election fraud in our history. McCain was also able to point out that the Obama campaign had diverted $832,000 to ACORN. (Obama did not address that.)

I thought McCain had his best debate tonight, though Obama was what he has been throughout-cool, calm and collected. Did McCain score a knockout tonight? Not in my view, but we must wait for the "all-important" polls to tell us if McCain shifted the numbers.

According to some of the pundits, one line that may come out of this debate was when McCain told Obama that he (McCain) was not President Bush. That may resonate with voters.

McCain also made note of some of Obama's rhetorical tricks, such as when he referred to "health of the mother" in allowing partial-birth abortions-a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. McCain also pointed out Obama's mention of "taking a look at off-shore drilling"-not exactly a commitment to actually engage in off-shore drilling.

I also liked McCain's defense of the trade pact with Colombia while Obama defended his opposition by referring to the Colombian union leaders who had been "mistreated" (my word-my quotes)in Colombia.

One issue that I would have liked to see addressed tonight was illegal immigration. Unfortunately, it was not. It is, after all, a major issue facing our nation. With all the fuss about our economy, illegal immigration remains a factor.

I wonder what "Joe the Plumber" would have said.

Talk at UCI by Yaron Brook and Wafa Sultan

This Monday evening, I attended a speaking appearance at UC-Irvine by Dr Yaron Brook and Dr Wafa Sultan on "Islamic Totalitarianism" and its threat to the West. This was in connection with Islamic Terrorism Awareness Week", a campaign organized by David Horowitz on some 75 university campuses this week.

Yaron Sultan is an American citizen of Israeli birth, who has served in the Israeli military. He has served as president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and is an adherent to Rand's philosophy of Objectivism (which I won't go into here). Suffice to say that he uses his philosophy to argue that America should support Israel because it is in our self-interest to do so.

Wafa Sultan is a Syrian-born psychiatrist who lives in Los Angeles. She was born into the Muslim faith, but has become a fierce critic of Islamic totalitarianism, which not surprisingly, has placed her in danger. She began to question Islam in the wake of murders carried out in 1979 in Syria by Islamic extremists against innocent Syrians. Since then, in the wake of 9-11, she has participated in several Middle Eastern political debates. In 2006, Time Magazine included her in a list of 100 influential people in the world.

Monday night's presentation centered around the violent and totalitarian aspects of the Islamic movement and what Shariah would mean if applied in the West.

To say that Brook is a "hawk" would be an understatement. While he supports military action against terrorist elements wherever they are, he blasted Bush for not going far enough and for telling Americans to "go shopping" after 9-11. He also pointed out the danger of Iran, which must be dealt with sooner or later (I am paraphrasing.) Brook also debunked the notion that the Muslim Brotherhood is a peaceful, reformist entity. In addition, he stressed that we cannot defeat the terrorist enemy unless we correctly identify it, which means that we should drop the reluctance to use the adjective "Islamic" in front of the noun "terror" (again, I am paraphrasing). We should, according to Brock, forget the pretense that Islam is a religion of peace. To Brook, Islam is more a political ideology than it is a religion. He also stressed the need to educate Americans about the true nature of Islam.

Ms Sultan echoed many of Brook's comments, but was more impressive in my view for several reasons. First of all, being born a Muslim, she has placed her life on the line to speak out. Secondly, she fervently expressed her love for her adopted country, America and praised its freedoms. She described some of the threats she has received and urged the audience as Americans to never allow anyone to take away those freedoms.

The audience? I would say there were about 75 people, more or less. Most were adults and probably from the community. Some were students. I don't believe there were any MSU students there. There may have been a few professors, but I don't know. I think a New University campus newspaper reporter was there. (I can't wait to see what they write about Brook. Surely, he will be blasted as a "war-monger".) They will have a hard time blasting Dr Sultan, however.

In my view, every American should hear the words of people like Wafa Sultan. It is easy to be a critic-something we take for granted here in America. It is not so easy when criticizing puts one's life in danger.

Sarah Palin-Aren't They Taking it Too Far?

I won't review all the nasty things being said about Sarah Palin by people who I have already written about. I would like to say a word about the last items that have risen from the swamp in the past week. Regardless of who you are voting for, I think it would be appropriate to ask some hard questions of ourselves.

It seems someone or some company has come out with T-shirts that read, "Sarah Palin is a C--t" (referring to female genitalia with a crude word.) Is that appropriate? What if someone came out with a T-shirt reading the same about Michelle Obama-or Hillary Clinton? What would be the reaction on the left? I guarantee you, it would be much more than "that is inappropriate, and we don't approve". There would be howls of outrage on the left and in the news media. Investigations would be launched. Congress might even call for hearings and subpoena witnesses.

I understand that many Obama supporters would come back at me and say that they would never wear such an item of clothing and I should not connect them with those people, etc, etc. Fair enough, but doesn't it give you pause?

Secondly, it is now reported that some porn company is coming out with a movie featuring a Sarah Palin look-alike. Classy, huh? Can you imagine the reaction if a porn company made such a movie with a Hillary or Michelle look-alike?

Say what you will about Palin's qualifications to be running for Vice President. Say what you want about this "Troopergate controversy", which I have already written about. But when you begin attacking someone in such a profane manner, doesn't that say a lot about you? Doesn't that bring discredit to your side? (I am sure the Obama campaign has already or will shortly make a statement condemning the above actions-and I am in no way trying to connect them to these outrages.)

As a conclusion, ask yourself this question: Who do you think gets their cars keyed (deliberately scratched by someone using a key) more? Would it be people whose cars have Obama/Biden bumper stickers or those whose cars have McCain/Palin bumper stickers. Of course, no one will go out and compile the empirical evidence to prove this point, but I think all of you know the answer to the question.

Think about it.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Fousesquawk Wins Lebon Prize for Scimonoce


".....4,3,2,1-you're on."



We are covering the Fousesquawk press conference upon the announcement that he has been selected for this year's Lebon Award for Scimonoce. He is approaching the podium now, so let's listen in.

Fousesquawk: "Welcome to my press conference. Any questions?

1st questioner: "Mr Fousesquawk, what were you doing when you recieved the news that you had been chosen by the Lebon Committee for their annual prize in Scimonoce?

Fousesquawk: "I was in the bathroom. Is there a follow-up?

1st questioner: "Uh, no."

2nd questioner: "Sir, I'm a little confused. Could you explain what the field of Scimonoce is?"

Fousesquawk: It's just another one of those "save the world" endeavors that the Lebon Committee likes to give prizes for. Actually, it's sort of a cross between writin' and figurin' out the cost of drinkin' beer in Europe. I think the word is derived from Estonian."

3rd questioner: "Why do you think you were selected? Was it because you knew the right people?"

Fousesquawk: "Hell, no. Actually, it's a question of liking the right people and hating the right people."

3rd questioner follow-up: "But doesn't that suggest that the Lebon Prize has a lot to do with politics?"

Fousesquawk: "Welcome to the world, kid. You'll be a great investigative reporter some day."

4th questioner: "How much money is the prize?"

Fousesquawk: "$6.75."

5th questioner: "Do you plan to travel to Carson City to pick up your prize?"

Fousesquawk: "Doesn't make a lot of sense, now does it? Hotels there cost at least about 9 bucks a night-and who knows what the Bunnytail Ranch would cost me. No, they can send it in the mail."

6th questioner: "Sir, the Daily Kos says giving you this award is a joke. How do you respond"?

Fousesquawk: "'Bout time old Markos got one right."

7th questioner: "Sir, you are an Adjunct Emeritus Teacher of ESL (English as a Second Language) at the University of California at Irvine. Does this mean you'll get a raise?"

Fousesquawk: "Maybe, if my students give me good evaluations for the next 4 quarters, I might get another couple of bucks an hour, who knows." Just as long as they don't ask me to teach a second class.

"Final question."

8th questioner: "Can you tell us who came in second in the voting?"

Fousesquawk: "Yeah, some guy named Krugman. Understand they gave him some sort of consolation prize. Thanks for comin'"

Jesse Jackson's Statements on an Obama Presidency

I am posting this article by Amir Taheri about Jesse Jackson's comments in France because I think it gives a good insight into an Obama presidency. I am particularly concerned about the words Jackson spoke about Obama's predicted lean away from Israel and toward the Palestinian side.


THE O JESSE KNOWS
JACKSON ON OBAMA'S AMERICA

Jackson: Expects Obama to stop "putting Israel's interests first" in making Mideast policy.

Last updated: 12:34 pm
October 14, 2008
Posted: 1:35 am
October 14, 2008

EVIAN, FRANCE


PREPARE for a new America: That's the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at this French lakeside resort last week.

He promised "fundamental changes" in US foreign policy - saying America must "heal wounds" it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the "arrogance of the Bush administration."

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.

Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

"Obama is about change," Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. "And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it."

Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter." But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family." Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.

"We helped him start his career," says Jackson. "And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged."

Will Obama's election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.

"No, that chapter won't be closed," he says. "However, Obama's victory will be a huge step in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades."

Jackson rejects any suggestion that Obama was influenced by Marxist ideas in his youth. "I see no evidence of that," he says. "Obama's thirst for justice and equality is rooted in his black culture."

But is Obama - who's not a descendant of slaves - truly a typical American black?

Jackson emphatically answers yes: "You don't need to be a descendant of slaves to experience the oppression, the suffocating injustice and the ugly racism that exists in our society," he says. "Obama experienced the same environment as all American blacks did. It was nonsense to suggest that he was somehow not black enough to feel the pain."

Is Jackson worried about the "Bradley effect" - that people may be telling pollsters they favor the black candidate, but won't end up voting for him?

"I don't think this is how things will turn out," he says. "We have a collapsing economy and a war that we have lost in Iraq. In Afghanistan, we face a resurgent Taliban. New threats are looming in Pakistan. Our liberties have been trampled under feet . . . Today, most Americans want change, and know that only Barack can deliver what they want. Young Americans are especially determined to make sure that Obama wins."

He sees a broad public loss of confidence in the nation's institutions: "We have lost confidence in our president, our Congress, our banking system, our Wall Street and our legal system to protect our individual freedoms. . . I don't see how we could regain confidence in all those institutions without a radical change of direction."

Jackson declines to be more concrete about possible policy changes. After all, he insists, he isn't part of Obama's policy team. Yet he clearly hopes that his views, reflecting the position of many Democrats, would be reflected in the policies of an Obama administration.

On the economic front, he hopes for "major changes in our trading policy."

"We cannot continue with the open-door policy," he says. "We need to protect our manufacturing industry against unfair competition that destroys American jobs and creates ill-paid jobs abroad."

Would that mean an abrogation of the NAFTA treaty with Canada and Mexico?

Jackson dismisses the question as "premature": "We could do a great deal without such dramatic action."

His most surprising position concerns Iraq. He passionately denounces the toppling of Saddam Hussein as "an illegal and unjust act." But he's now sure that the United States "will have to remain in Iraq for a very long time."

What of Obama's promise to withdraw by 2010? Jackson believes that position will have to evolve, reflecting "realities on the ground."

"We should work with our allies in Iraq to consolidate democratic institutions there," he says. "We must help the people of Iraq decide and shape their future in accordance with their own culture and faith."

On Iran, he strongly supports Obama's idea of opening a direct dialogue with the leadership in Tehran. "We've got to talk to tell them what we want and hear what they want," Jackson says. "Nothing is gained by not talking to others."

Would that mean ignoring the four UN Security Council resolutions that demand an end to Iran's uranium-enrichment program? Jackson says direct talks wouldn't start without preparations.

"Barack wants an aggressive and dynamic diplomacy," he says. "He also wants adequate preparatory work. We must enter the talks after the ground has been prepared," he says.

Jackson is especially critical of President Bush's approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

"Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss," Jackson says. "Barack will change that," because, as long as the Palestinians haven't seen justice, the Middle East will "remain a source of danger to us all."

"Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims," Jackson says. "Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith."

Amir Taheri's next book, "The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution," is due out next month.

UCI Jewish Group Web Site Hacked

Yesterday, the Anteaters for Israel, a Jewish student group at UC-Irvine had its website hacked into. In opening the site, Arabic music blares out. At this point, perpetrators have not been identified.

The incident is ironic since Anteaters for Israel is presently a fairly liberal group that has not been confrontational vis-a-vis the Muslim Student Union.

Also yesterday, a member of the Jewish/Israel advocacy group, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), sent an e-mail to Vice Chancellor, Manuel Gomez, who replied;

"......I find this act reprehensible. Upon investigation it turns out that both the AFI and the Hacker's website are off campus. Since it does not involve a UCI server, we have no jurisdiction, and there is little we can do. I have informed our police department, and our Dean of Students also alerted AFI...."

This is the standard response from UCI officials ("there is little we can do").

When a female Jewish student (Reut Cohen) had her own camera shoved in her face by an MSU member during an MSU event at UCI....."there was little they could do."

When (last May), a female Jewish student was followed back to her car at night by MSU male students (on the UCI) campus after filming a Malik Ali speech, surrounded and harassed in front of at least one witness and campus police....."there was little they could do."

Whem last May after a day-time speech by Malik Ali on the UCI campus, a black Christian preacher was manhandled by MSU students in front of dozens of witnesses, deans and campus police......"there was little that we could do."

When last May during the MSU week-long event, Mohammed Al-Asi was spouting his usual venom, a group of high school students touring the campus was standing directly behind him waiting to get on a bus, they had to be exposed to this hate speech. There were deans and campus police present, but......."there was little we could do."

When, during that same week, MSU erected a mock wall depicting the wall Israel had erected to keep out suicide bombers, there was a drawing of Ariel Sharon with hooked nose, big lips and a sneering look on his face-in the old Nazi style of Der Stuermer. That depiction stayed there on campus all week long, but...."there was little we could do."

So little, indeed.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Joke of the Year: Paul Krugman Wins Nobel Prize (For Worms)



The Worm


So now the Nobel Prize for Economics has gone to Princeton professor and New York Times writer, Paul Krugman. This follows in the grand tradition of giving this prize to left-wing voices-especially those who are busy bashing George Bush. This is a perfect follow-up to giving the prize last year to Al Gore.

Paul Krugman is a leftist worm who, in addition to specializing in economics, is a regular basher of Bush, conservatives and anything connected to them.

Why do I call him a worm? Because he is.

The last time I saw this guy on TV, he was engaged in a debate with Bill O'Reilly, who took umbrage at some things Krugman had said about him. And you know what happens when O'Reilly takes umbrage. It was like watching a doberman cornering a cowering poodle. Every time O'Reilly let him have it, Krugman would put his head down and nervously shuffle his notes in front of him. It was a reflex action. I thought the guy was going to crawl under the table.

Yes, Paul Krugman is a worm. He says and writes damning things about those who don't share his left-wing positions from the safety of the New York Times newsroom or the hallowed halls of Princeton. When confronted by those he attacks, he curls up into a little ball.

His selection for a Nobel Prize is just a reflection of the political agenda of the Nobel Commission. Next year, it will probably be Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos.

Paul Krugman is a worm.

New University Article on Muslim Brotherhood Appearance at UCI

Reading the UC-Irvine campus newspaper is akin to reading the New York Times when it comes to liberal bias. Below is the New University article on the appearance last week of Ibrahim El-Houdaibi, spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood.


"Ibrahim El Houdaiby, 25, visited UC Irvine to discuss his role in the Muslim Brotherhood, a political group formed in 1928 with a code of non-violence.
Ibrahim El Houdaiby, a young member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, visited UC Irvine to give a public lecture entitled, “Religion and Democracy in the Middle East: A New Generation of the Muslim Brotherhood Takes the Stage” on Wednesday, October 8.

The event was hosted by the Department of History, Middle East Studies Students Initiative (MESSI), the Center for Research on International and Global Studies (RIGS) and the Center for Global Peace and Conflict Studies (CGPACS).

Houdaiby, 25, graduated from the American University in Cairo and is a leading young activist in the Islamic religious-political group, the Muslim Brotherhood.

“[The Muslim Brotherhood] is the most important and largest nonviolent Islamic political group in the Middle East,” Houdaiby said.

The group was founded in 1928 and central to its platform is a moral objection to the use of violence. According to Houdaiby, the Muslim Brotherhood’s objectives in Egypt are a gradual nonviolent approach to democracy.

Although the group began as a grass roots movement 50 years before it was established, the Muslim Brotherhood today is the largest opposition group in the Egyptian Parliament and has engaged in elections since the 1960s.

According to Houdaiby some of the biggest challenges to democracy in Egypt are governmental corruption and election manipulation. Constitutional amendments have been made to marginalize the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence in parliament. While in the past, Egypt’s elections were overseen by judicial supervisors, the Mubarak regime has made constitutional amendments to restrict their presence. This has led to an increase in voter fraud and unfair elections.

Houdaiby’s presence on campus has stirred some discontent amongst extreme right-wing critics who called his visit an act of “welcoming terror on campus.” Houdaiby claimed that these misguided associations with violent Islamic groups are a case of misunderstanding and false information.

“For purposes of simplification, Islamists are lumped together,” Houdaiby said. “People tend to see Islamic movements as one large movement … yet we disagree on fundamentals.”

The difference between moderate and extremist Islamic groups, he explained, is their commitment to international cooperation and their stance on the use of violence.

Houdaiby also noted that even in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood often gets the blame for the actions of other Islamist groups. This, too, he claimed, is the result of propaganda and false associations. “You can’t just trust people to give you the information,” Houdaiby said.

Approximately 45 students attended his lecture in an effort to learn more about the political state of the Middle East.

George Chebat, a third-year political science major and co-president of MESSI, appreciated the talk.

“He came and spoke on [an] Egyptian issue rather than go on a tangent about more controversial issues,” Chebat said.

Professor Mark Levine of the history department commented on the presentation. “It is important to bring speakers who are close to the age and have the same life experiences as students and can be an example of where they can be in a few years,” Levine said.

Beyond simply sharing a common age, Houdaiby was able to truly connect with his student audience.As an online columnist Houdaiby is familiar with the benefits of interaction with the online community. With blogs and social networking Web sites aplenty, youth activists can navigate and connect to each other more easily than ever before.

Houdaiby described a grass roots youth movement that organized strikes via the popular Facebook Causes application. The strikes were in response to the policies of Egyptian President Muhammad Mubarak. While it appeared to garner a number of supporters, Houdaiby was skeptical about the possibility of using Facebook as a means for organizing serious youth activists.

Houdaiby laughed, “I never liked Facebook … I only used it to stay in touch with my friends in Egypt.”

Whether or not Facebook is a serious means of activism, the Web site proved to be an efficient means of networking. Before the actual day of the strike, the government caught wind of the plans and issued a threat to those who participated. Despite this, many youths did indeed strike.

Houdaiby continues to give lectures at universities in the United States. His articles can be read in The Guardian, CommonGroundNews.org, and Daily News Egypt."

http://www.newuniversity.org/main/article?slug=brotherhood_from_egypt_to165

The writer obviously puts a happy face on Mr El-Houdaiby's appearance while blasting "right-wing extremists" who have a different point of view. I should add that this article appeared on the front page of the newspaper rather than the editorial section.

What the writer left out were audience questions that expressed doubt about the Brotherhood's wishes for democracy and how that could square with Shariah law. Also missing was the concern expressed by a young Coptic Christian lady for the rights of Coptic Christians in a Muslim society governed by Shariah.

Finally, there was no mention of the Muslim Brotherhood document I gave to Mr El-Houdaiby and read of portion thereof, which described destroying Western society from within. No mention of my exchange with him-just he "was able to truly connect with his student audience".

I have written a letter to the New University via e-mail (which I neglected to save, darn it!) If they publish it next week, I can post it. In addition to the complaints I listed above, I pointed out that opinions should be reserved for the editorial page-something I would have thought was taught in Journalism 101.

But apparently not at UCI.

Dayton Mosque Incident-Response from Dayton Daily News

Mr Lucas Sullivan, writer for the Dayton Daily News, has responded to my request for an update on the Dayton Mosque incident. I am grateful for his response, and it is contained below:


"Mr. Fouse,

Thanks for your e-mail. I don't have an opinion one way or another about the
incident at the mosque. I can tell you that the stories match as much
information I have from all parties involved. The stories speak for
themselves. The latest story you referenced is the last I wrote about the
incident. The can was found inside the mosque. Police and mosque members are
not ruling out that the pepper spray was sprayed inside the mosque. It's
going to come down to forensic evidence. Once that proves anything, I will
follow up with a story.

Thanks,

Lucas Sullivan
Crime Reporter
Dayton Daily News
1611 S. Main St.
Dayton, Ohio 45409
Office: (937) 225-2494
Fax: (937) 225-2489 ""

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Latest Update on Dayton Mosque Incident

Tonight, I sent an e-mail to Mr Lucas Sullivan, who is one of the lead writers on the Dayton mosque incident for the Dayton Daily News. In my message, I asked if he could let our readers know what the current situation is. I have been checking the Dayton Daily News for updates on this case, but it seems there is nothing new since a can of pepper spray was found in the mosque. I may have missed something; hence my e-mail to Mr Sullivan.

A check of the blogs indicate many strong opinions on this incident. Some bloggers are calling it a gas attack on a mosque, in which a 10-year-old girl was gassed in the face by one or two unidentified men-a hate crime against Muslims. Others are implying the incident never happened or that it was a hoax. The Dayton Daily News itself published a posting by a blogger calling it a hate crime after reading about it. That message has been given wide dissemination on the Internet.

Mr Sullivan, of course, is under no obligation to respond to my e-mail. I hope he will since I truly think the truth of this matter should come out. For better or worse, the incident is all over the blogoshere and speculation is running wild. Whatever the truth is, let the chips fall where they may.

Where is Ibrahim El-Houdaiby?

A few days ago, I posted a report on the appearance of Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Ibrahim El Houdaiby at UC-Irvine. (This report has also been posted on Ikhwan-the Muslim Brotherhood's English-language website.)

That night, I got the below response from Mr El-Houdaiby, which appears in the comments section of this blog.

"I am Ibrahim El Houdaiby and my answer is rather simple, and straightforward.
I have already read the entire holyland foundation thing, and there is no proof whatsoever, neither legal nor rational, that this group is associated with the MB, plus a US government has rejected these documents

At any case, even if it did not reject them, the most important point which I made, and you mentioned but kept very low here, is that the Muslim Brotherhood is not in any way associated with that foundation, we do not have presence in North America to start with, and this goes against our ideology and what we stand for
if you want to read (again) about the objectives of shariah I have spoken about during my talk you could find them in a book entitled: How to Deal with Holy Quran by Qaradawy, but I'm not sure thats translated to English

Anyway I hope your mum is fine and that there was nothing serious."

October 8, 2008 10:21 PM

Below is my response (also in the comments section).

Gary Fouse said...

"Mr El Houdaiby,

First of all, I thank you for your good wishes about my mother. She is fine.

As for the document I gave you, I would appreciate any information you could provide that shows that this document is not authentic and has been proven to be false.

I wanted to ask you yesterday if that was the first time you had seen this document, I did not have unlimited time to ask questions. In that forum, a person really should ask only one question.

As for the Muslim Brotherhood not being in the US, that may be true, but the document, if authentic, would indicate that the Brotherhood has contact with US groups, such as the Muslim Student Associations (MSA). It has been reported that the Brotherhood is associated with the MSA as a sponsor or founder. Perhaps, you could enlighten me on that.

As for the current philosophy and aims of the Brotherhood, I want to believe that they are as you say. As for the government in Egypt, which you oppose, I take no sides in that issue. I too would like to see Democracy come to the Middle East, but I don't see how Sharia law and democracy come together, at least our idea of democracy.

Let me take this opportunity to tell you why I have spoken out against the UCI-MSU (which I am sure you are now aware.) As a Christian, I have very strong feelings about anti-Semitism (Jewish). I have spent years in Germany, and am very-well versed in the Third Reich and Holocaust. The MSU at UCI regularly brings in virulent speakers who are not only anti-Semitic but anti-American as well)Amir Abdel Malik Ali, Alim Musa, Mohammed Al-Asi-Dr Levine can tell you who they are). These speakers also glorify suicide bombings in Israel. It is my position that this had led to an atmosphere of anti-Semitism on this campus whenever these people appear here. I have and will continue to speak out against this, as well as the unwillingness of the university administration to confront it.

I would be remiss if I didn't tell you that while our nation has a tradition of freedom of religion (which has included Islam), we would never submit to having a religion imposed on us. The Europeans might, but not Americans. We have fought too hard to win our freedoms to ever allow that to happen.

I have one last question and one last comment.

Question: Could you explain the connection between the Brotherhood and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who spent the years of the 2nd World War in Berlin as an ally of Adolf Hitler?

Comment: I have said this before and will say it again. I have no problem with Muslims defending their religion. Muslims should, indeed, defend Islam. However, they don't need to defend it from non-Muslims. In my view, they need to defend it from those other Muslims who engage in terror in the name of Islam and thus, bring discredit to the religion all over the world.

I thank you for your response."

October 9, 2008 9:31 AM

To date, there has been no further word from Mr El-Houdaibi. My last questions remain unanswered. I assume he is no longer in Irvine. Perhaps he is touring other American universities trying to convince listeners that the Brotherhood is a peaceful reform organization. Perhaps, he is back in Egypt. Since Ikhwan apparently reads this blog, perhaps they can get a message to Mr El-Houdaiby that I am still awaiting his response.

Let's Play "Name That Investor"


During the recent financial meltdown, which of the below persons showed the most acumen in protecting his assets?

a Alan Friedman
b Franklin Raines
c Bill Gates
d Donald Trump
e Congressman William "Cool Cash" Jefferson

I'll give you a hint (see above).

And the answer is......E-William "Cool Cash" Jefferson!

Why Jefferson, you ask?

Silly fools, he had the good sense to keep his money in the freezer.

John Lewis' Attack on McCain


Like many who oppose John Lewis politically, I hate to write something negative about the man because he is a legitimate hero of the Civil Rights Movement. During the 1960s, Lewis paid a physical price for marching for civil rights. In Selma,Alabama, he was nearly killed during the famous march at the Edmund Pettis Bridge. As a congressman, I have never heard a whiff of any scandal surrounding Mr Lewis. Like Thurgood Marshall, a Supreme Court justice that I often disagreed with, Lewis is an important and honorable icon of the Civil Rights Movement. For that, he deserves respect.

Having said this, I have to take issue with Lewis' comments this week about the McCain-Palin campaign-comparing it to George Wallace and the hate and fear the late segregationist Alabama Governor caused. (In his final years, Wallace repented his past and asked African-Americans for their forgiveness. Last night, Lewis said his remarks were "misinterpreted".)

Lewis' concern centers around recent McCain appearances, where some citizens voiced angry comments about Obama. Some were legitimate while others were out of line. ("Traitor", "off with his head", etc). McCain, to his credit, admonished those who crossed the line enduring boos from his own audience for doing so. One middle-aged woman called Obama, "an Arab", at which point, McCain took the mike from her and corrected her.

Aside from the clearly unacceptable comments I mentioned above, I am unaware of any of McCain's supporters using racial epithets against Obama. I still maintain that Republicans have not been guilty of race-baiting in this campaign. The only persons who have been guilty of that were the Clintons-and Wright, of course. Not surprisingly, we are hearing statements from the left claiming that an Obama defeat will mean that Americans are racists. I disagree. Criticizing Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright is legitimate. The only race-baiter in that controversy was Wright.

If McCain hopes to win this election, he needs to hammer home the things that have come out about Obama (with no help from the mainstream media). Wright we already know about. The public needs to hear more about William Ayres, Tony Rezko and ACORN. No doubt, any talk about ACORN will bring forth cries of "racism". Nonsense. As we speak, we have a large, nationwide organization that is trying to rig an election through fraudulent voter registrations in state after state after state. Not only has Obama workd with them extensively in his community organizing days, but now we learn that the Obama campaign sent $800,000 to ACORN.

I thought presidential campaigns were trying to receive money-not give it out. What were they buying?

But I digress. Congressman Lewis was wrong to compare the McCain-Palin campaign to George Wallace in any manner. He should apologize to both of them.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Sarah Palin and "Troopergate"

The announcement this week about Sarah Palin abusing her power as Governor when she fired Public Safety Director, Walter Monegan, has the Democrats and their surrogates in the mainstream news media chirping. Their party line is that Trooper Mike Wooten was involved in a nasty divorce from Palin's sister, so the Governor and her husband, Todd, for personal reasons, put pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten. When he didn't, Palin fired the director.

On its surface, that sounds like an abuse of power-even though Palin, as Governor, had the legal right to fire Monegan, which was upheld by the investigating panel. Palin has cited other reasons for the firing including insubordination involving Monegan's going around her back to get funding she had disapproved. That would be a legitimate reason for the firing alone. Yet, the invesigative panel chose to focus on Palin's personal issue with Wooten. (Actually, the commission singled out Todd Palin as the main force in putting pressure on Monegan more than the Governor.)

What the media is downplaying is the fact (which Wooten has admitted) that he had tasered his 10-year-old stepson. The Palin family also claimed that Wooten had made threats against them. Thus, the Director of Public Services was repeatedly queried by Palin and others as to why Wooten was still a state trooper.

Perhaps, in a sense, Palin did overstep her bounds as Governor. Yet, I think I would have done the same thing in that situation. Wooten should have been fired for tasering a ten-year-old kid. As for shooting a moose from his patrol car, I could care less, but it sure sounds to me like this guy had no business being in law enforcement. I think it was entirely proper for the Governor to bring the incident to the attention of the Director and ask why Wooten was still in uniform. Certainly, she should have reined Todd in and kept him out of it. Unfortunately, first spouses do have power they should not have-like when Hillary Clinton orchestrated the firing of the White House Travel Office personnel so she could get her own people in.

In the end, I don't think this will be an important campaign issue, but it should serve as a lesson to public officials to tread lightly when personal issues and official business come together.

KinderUSA vs Yale University Press

In my recent post (Guess who's running for City Council in Irvine), I described how CAIR attorney, Todd Gallinger, has tried to sue Yale University Press over a book about Hamas which had mentioned Gallinger's client, Kinderusa as being connected to terror groups.

The suit was eventually dropped when Yale came back with a SLAPP suit against KinderUSA.

A SLAPP suit is a legal provision in certain states. It stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation. In short, it is an attempt to file a suit designed to harass persons or entities who are attempting to express their view on certain issues. It is also designed to discourage those with lesser resources from expressing certain viewpoints.

Here is the website for article from Inside Higher Ed.com:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/16/yaleup

I have posted all of this information on Red County.com (in Orange County). Mr Gallinger reads that blog and occasionally chimes in with his views, so we are anxiously awaiting his response. So far, all we have gotten to this point is a nasty-gram from an anonymous attorney calling me an idiot.

Let's Play, "Name that Speaker"



What famous Illinois figure made these comments in a speech?


"I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."

a Abraham Lincoln
b Mike Ditka
c Ozzie Guillen
d Harry Carey
e Barack Obama


If you guessed "a", you're crazy.
If you guessed "b", you're a Bears fan-and crazy.
If you guessed "c", you're a jerk (like Guillen)-and crazy.
If you guessed "d", you're a Cubs fan-but Harry would never have associated with ACORN, so you're also crazy (and crazy for being a Cubs fan-like me).

If you guessed "e", you are a winner!

Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007. [Project Vote is a subsidiary of ACORN.] At http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_voter_fraud/2008/09/22/133091.html )

Remember the Name Giannoulias

It is being widely reported that Tony Rezko is cooperating with federal authorities in hopes of receiving a lesser sentence (which has been postponed). The person who must be sweating the most is Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich, who was up to his neck with Rezko.

The next person who is sweating is none other than Barack Obama, who we already know was up to his neck with Rezko. Of course the wheels of justice will probably not turn fast enough to destroy Obama's campaign before the election.

So, with a big tip of the hat to my friends and colleagues Norm Hooben (Stormin' Norm'n), Roger Gardner (Radarsite), and Liberty Republican, remember this name-Giannoulias. It was the Giannoulias-owned Broadway Bank in Chicago that financed the questionable Obama purchase of his Chicago home that involved Rezko's purchase of the next door house and sale of a part of that property to Obama. It has been reported that Rezko is talking to the feds about the Giannoulias family.

Check out the story on Radarsite:

http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/10/breaking-story-prosecutor-patrick.html

In 2006, Alexi Giannoulias, the 29-year-old son of the banker Alexis Giannoulias, with no political experience, ran for Illinois State Treasurer-and won-with Obama's endorsement. Guess who was present on December 4, 2005 when young Alexi announced his candidacy. Barack Obama.

It seems that the elder Giannoulias also has connections with other top dogs in Illinois; he is linked to the Friends of Blagojevich organization and Citizens for George Ryan (former Governor George Ryan-convicted of corruption).

Coincidences? I don't think so.

You may not hear the name Giannoulias again before the election (at least not from the mainstream media), but you will hear it again.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Guess Who's Running for City Council in Irvine

For the past couple of years, I have been writing about the outrageous events and speakers being brought to UC-Irvine by the campus Muslim Student Union. I have posted many of my comments on the Red County blog of Orange County, a center-right blog. This has led many back and forth exchanges with other Red County readers, most agreeing with my posts, some disagreeing.

One of the figures who has occasionally commented in defense of the MSU and accused its critics of being anti-Muslim is none other than the local attorney for CAIR (Council of Islamic American Relations), Todd Gallinger.

Guess who is running for the Irvine City Council.

Not only is Mr Gallinger running for the City Council, he is upset that one of the incumbents running for re-election, Dr Steven Choi, recently spoke to a group of people and warned them about voting for someone who is associated with a "dangerous" organization (Gallinger-CAIR). Gallinger and CAIR are demanding an apology from Choi, which Choi refuses to give.

(CAIR's website today is reporting that Gallinger has just received a telephone death threat from an unidentified person. If that is the case, I certainly condemn it.)

Here's my 2 cents worth. CAIR insists that it is a moderate group which represents mainstream Muslims. It says it condemns terrorism (in all its forms), which, in my view, is a convenient add-on that opens the door to equate Israel with Islamic terrorism. Its Communications Director, Ibrahim Hooper, has refused to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. In addition, CAIR has engaged in lawsuits on behalf of US Muslims alleging discrimination and racial profiling. One example is the case of the "Flying Imams".

Finally, CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Homeland Foundation charities case.

Gallinger himself has participated in some of CAIR's lawsuits including suits against the Dept of Homeland Security and the FBI over those agency's roles in alleged delays in processing citizenship applications of Muslims due to background checks.

He also was involved in a lawsuit against Yale University Press representing a group called KinderUSA and trying to stop publication of a book entitled; "Hamas:Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad", by Matthew Levitt, who is director of the Stein Program on Terrorism, Intelligence and Policy at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. This book linked KinderUSA to groups raising money for terrorism under the guise of charity. The case was settled in August 2007. An article from the New Haven Independent dated 5-9-07 by Paul Bass entitled; "Alleged terror front group sues Yale Press" may be found at the below website:

http://newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/05/hamas_terrorism.php

As for CAIR, it is fair and accurate to say that it is under a great deal of suspicion. Many of its critics charge that CAIR is connected to terrorist organizations overseas, which CAIR denies.

So, is CAIR a "dangerous" organization? I don't know, but I would be very comfortable in saying that CAIR is a suspicious organization.

Which means that I would not be voting for Mr Gallinger. But, of course, I don't live in Irvine anyway.

Who Are the "Friends of Angelo"?


L-R, Chris Dodd, Angelo Mozilo, Kent Conrad


Remember when I posted the information from the Center for Responsive Politics showing who the largest Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac money contribution recipients in Congress were? (Chris Dodd, John Kerry and Barack Obama). Well, now we know that Chris Dodd got a sweetheart deal from Countrywide to refinance his mortgage. The full story can be found at:

http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/06/12/Countrywide-Loan-Scandal

Dodd, and others got discounts that folks like you and I would never get. Guess what this discount is called?

The V.I.P. "Friends of Angelo" rate. This was a special deal for prominent people that waived points, lender fees and other borrowing rules.

Angelo Mozilo is the CEO of Countrywide, another company implicated in the financial mess. It was his loan to Jim Johnson that caused Johnson to resign from Barack Obama's VP search committee.

Others who got special V.I.P. treatment are; Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, who is chairman of the Budget Committee and member of the Finance Committee, Alphonso Jackson, former head of Health and Human Services under President George W Bush, Donna Shalala (after leaving the Clinton cabinet) and former State Department offical Richard Holbrooke.

The discounts amounted to a few hundred dollars to a couple of thousand dollars.

Dodd has claimed that he didn't know he was getting a discount. Countrywide didn't tell him, according to the Senator, who is chairman of the Banking Committee.

Oh, C'mon! Let's use our common sense here. When a company gives you a discount-they want you to know it. It's good business. If I get a discount from my local tire company, I am likely to go back next time I need tires.

In this instance, if Countrywide gives a special deal to a US Senator who can influence the success of their company, do you really think old Angelo isn't going to let the senator know he's getting a special deal? Dodd has stated he never met Mozilo. May be, but don't tell me that the person(s) who dealt with Dodd didn't let him know he was getting a special deal-a deal that even had a name (Friends of Angelo).

So should Dodd and Conrad be investigated by the Ethics Committee in Congress (whoever the hell they are)? This is not a campaign contribution we are talking about here. This is a home mortgage loan. This is personal and may well be in violation of Senate ethics rules.

But don't hold your breath.

October Newsletter- National Black Republican Association

Once again, it is my pleasure to post the October Newsletter of the National Black Republican Association. The topics described below are topics that I have been writing about for months.


Obama Hides Ties To Radicals

Who is Barack Obama? GET INVOLVED! Be a part of our grassroots network and help expose Obama as a far left-wing radical socialist who is hiding his radical relationships. Print and distribute our Candidate Comparison Newsletter to family, friends and associates, so they can learn the truth about Obama who does not have the character or judgment to be our president.

Disturbing video - Louis Farakhan calls Obama "The Messiah."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OowxMcVTjTE

Obama Once Confessed That He Is A Radical - In his book "Dreams from my Father", Obama confesses that he harbors the same negative racial stereotypes as Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his mentor for 20 years. On pages 198 to 204, Obama says that black nationalism, a steady attack on the white race would be justified if it could deliver. On page 100, Obama says he went out of his way to choose Marxist professors as his friends. Obama wrote: "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully, the more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist professors and punk rock performance poets."

The Bomber as School Reformer By Sol Stern shows how Obama is covering up his relationship with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant domestic terrorist. Obama was not a child, but a grown man when he decided his personal path to power and influence lay through Bill Ayers' connections. Obama should not be let off the hook and should be held accountable for his relationships with Ayers who bombed the Pentagon and other buildings. A hidden thread in the Obama-Ayers relationship is the socialist revolutionary agenda that they want to impose on our country's public schools.

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon1006ss.html

Obama's Corrupt ACORN Roots

Obama was the attorney for ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), a radical, left-wing group that is under investigation for voter registration fraud in several states and is at the center of our nation's financial crisis because ACRON, using the Community Reinvestment Act passed by Democrats in Congress, forced banks and mortgage companies to make risky loans to people who could not pay the money back.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/07/acorn-vegas-office-raided-voter-fraud-investigation/

Inside Obama's Acorn By Stanley Kurtz shows that Obama's most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=&w=Mg==

More ACORN Vote Fraud Attempts - Article By Warner Todd Huston explores the investigations of ACORN for voter fraud that have been conducted in Ohio, Colorado, Missouri, Michigan, Texas, Connecticut and Washington. According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Obama's campaign has been forced to report over $800,000 in donations from ACORN that was not previously reported. ACORN is tied to labor unions and is pulling out all of the stops to get Obama elected.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5030


An investigator enters the ACORN office in Las Vegas as part of a voter fraud raid. (AP Photo)

The Obama's Youth

Chilling video about the indoctrination of public school children in Kansas City, showing them marching in camouflage uniforms and chanting mindlessly about Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy09UpI60F8

Shocking video of young children trained by adults to sing Obama's praise, as if America were a totalitarian dictatorship. Imagine the media uproar if this had been done by someone on the right. Hidden from the conscience of the public is the fact that the Nazis were left-wing socialists, and "Nazi" is a German acronym for "National Socialist German Workers Party."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPSqL9_mfM
Obama Brings Chicago-style Voter Intimidation Tactics to Missouri - Gov. Matt Blunt issued a scathing statement about how Sen. Barack Obama has attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign by attempting to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics in violation of civil rights.

http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj

Digital Press examines the many tentacles of Obama entwined with far left-wing radicals and the corrupt people responsible for our economic meltdown, such as Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines who is a financial advisor for the Obama campaign and who walked off from Fannie Mae with a $22 million dollar severance package.

http://digitalartpress.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/the-obama-youth-brigade/

Barney Frank's Bankrupt Ideas By Investor's Business Daily shows that Democrats created the mortgage crisis by forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them. This article demonstrates how Obama and Biden now want bankruptcy judges to bail out the deadbeats, with Barney Frank helping create this economic train wreck.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308185654524278

In Their Own Words - Shocking video showing the Democrats covering up the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac scam that caused our economic crisis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Debate Fact Check By New Hampshire Union Leader: John McCain has reform record on Fannie and Freddie.

John McCain has a record of reform on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; Barack Obama does not. Obama has accepted $105,849 in campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie, its PAC and employees, compared with just $21,500 for Sen. McCain. Obama appointed former Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO Jim Johnson to head his vice presidential selection committee. Former Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO Franklin Raines told The Washington Post that he had advised the Obama campaign on housing and mortgage policy, and McCain has pushed for reform of Fannie and Freddie for years, even co-sponsoring a bill two years ago to more heavily regulate them. Obama? Nothing.



http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Fannie+Mud:+Dirtying+a+clean+candidate&articleId=1b1fae72-8854-4eb6-923d-e0540227582a

BTW I'm Voting for McCain/Palin – A black American's powerful video testimonial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxhYampIl7A

For more information about the National Black Republican Association please visit our Internet site at: www.NBRA.Info




© National Black Republican Association, 2008. All Rights Reserved.

Thank You, Minister Farrakhan!


"You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking."

Statement by Louis Farrakhan in a speech this past February and just up on YouTube yesterday.

All I can say is, "Thank you, Minister Farrakhan!

Thursday, October 9, 2008

P. Diddy Says,


Hey fans! P. Diddy says,

“John you are bugging the f— you. I don’t even understand what planet you’re on now. This is the job to be the leader of the free world. No disrespect, I love ya, I want you to live to 110, but what if, God forbid, you got a running mate, you become President. Alaska? ALASKA? ALASKA? ALASKA? Come on, man. I don’t even know if there are any black people in Alaska. John, come on. Sarah [Palin]? What in the hell? ALASKA? You’re bugging the f— out. Sarah Palin, you ain’t ready to be vice president. ALASKA MOTHERF—-ER? What is the reality in Alaska? There aren’t even any crackheads in Alaska. There aren’t no black people in Alaska.”

So take it from P. Diddy and vote for Barack Obama!

PS: Puff Daddy and Sean Combs are also voting for Obama. (That makes three votes.)

"I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message."

Let's Play, "Name That Voter"















Clockwise:

"We're registered-thanks to ACORN!"
"We're registered-thanks to ACORN!"
"We're registered-thanks to ACORN!"
"We're registered-thanks to ACORN!"

or

You can do it counter-clockwise, if you prefer.

Same result, however.

ACORN and Obama

A tip of the hat to my colleague, Chad Everson, Grizzly Groundswell and Get Clued (blog)for posting an official court document that shows Barack Obama as one of the attorneys representing ACORN in the 1990s in a decision involving "Motor-Voter registration in Illinois.

In recent days, there has been a lot of publicity (at least by Fox News and talk radio-the mainstream media is trying to downplay it) about the activities of ACORN and their association with Barack Obama in his days as a "community organizer".

Read this official court document from the US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit from 1996:


"75 F.3d 304

ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM NOW
(ACORN), et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 95-3456.

United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 1995.
Decided Jan. 26, 1996.

Judson H. Miner, Jeffrey I. Cummings, Barack H. Obama, Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, Chicago, IL, for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Equip for Equality, Incorporated, Jacqueline Andrade, Gwendolyn Coleman, Chinetha Dixon, and Joey L. Wooden.

Thomas R. Meites, Joan H. Burger, Lynn S. Frackman, Paul W. Mollica, Meites, Frackman, Mulder & Burger, Chicago, IL, for League of Women Voters of Illinois, Catherine A. Calder, and Rene D. Luna.

Maria G. Valdez, Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund, Chicago, IL, Arthur Aram Baer, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., New York City, for League of United Latin American Citizens.

Michele M. Fox, Office of the United States Attorney, Civil Division, Appellate Section, Chicago, IL, Steven H. Rosenbaum, Samuel R. Bagenstos, Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Tricia A. Tingle, Barry H. Weinberg, Elizabeth Johnson, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for U.S.

James R. Carroll, Roger Flahaven, Office of the Attorney General, Chicago, IL, Daniel N. Malato, Cara L. Smith, Office of the Attorney General, Civil Appeals Division, Chicago, IL, for defendants-appellants.

Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

POSNER, Chief Judge.

1
The plaintiffs have moved to dismiss the defendants' appeal from an order of the district court on the ground that it is not an appealable order. The motion raises questions concerning federal appellate jurisdiction in the context of a major constitutional litigation. The plaintiffs had brought suit to enforce the federal "motor voter" law (National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg et seq.) against the governor and other officials of the State of Illinois, which had refused to comply with the law on the ground that it was unconstitutional. We upheld the constitutionality of the law and affirmed so much of the district court's injunction as commanded the defendants to obey it. Association of Community Organizations for Reform v. Edgar, 56 F.3d 791 (7th Cir.1995). That was last June. The district judge then scheduled monthly status hearings to monitor the defendants' compliance with the injunction. The state board of elections submitted a plan of compliance to which the plaintiffs raised three objections at the August status hearing. The judge directed the parties to brief these objections and after they did so he issued a "memorandum opinion and order" on September 6 addressing the issues. The first two objections were to regulations that the board of elections had promulgated concerning verification of the addresses of new registrants and challenged-voter forms; the third was to the plans' failure to provide for oral assistance in Spanish to prospective registrants. The judge held the regulations "invalid" as inconsistent with the motor-voter law, and with regard to the issue of oral assistance he directed the defendants "to come prepared to [address the issue] at the next status hearing." He did not, however, issue any order that purported to enjoin the regulations.

2
The defendants argue that the order is a final decision and therefore appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. One of the plaintiffs, the United States, agrees that the order is appealable but believes that it is appealable not as a final decision but as an order modifying an injunction. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The order in fact seems to fall between two stools. It is not final in any ordinary sense of the word, since compliance proceedings continue before the district court with regard to Spanish-language assistance and no doubt other issues as well. And it does not purport to modify the injunction. It interprets the injunction, but interpretations of injunctions as distinct from modifications of them are not appealable, provided they really are interpretive, and do not change the meaning of--that is, modify--the original injunction. Motorola, Inc. v. Computer Displays Int'l, Inc., 739 F.2d 1149, 1155 (7th Cir.1984); In re Ingram Towing Co., 59 F.3d 513, 516 (5th Cir.1995); Mikel v. Gourley, 951 F.2d 166, 168-69 (8th Cir.1991). Yet there is a felt need, reflected in the submission by the United States, for prompt definitive resolution of legal disputes arising in what may be a protracted postjudgment proceeding to bring Illinois into compliance with the motor-voter law.

3
The position of the United States is untenable. To modify an injunction is to change it. The injunction has not been changed. It commanded Illinois to comply with the motor-voter law; it still commands that. An injunction that merely commands compliance with a statute (in order to attach the sanction of contempt to continued noncompliance) is as vague as the statute, and invites interpretation. Whether a requirement of verifying a new voter's address violates the statute and consequently the injunction as well is an archetypal issue of interpretation and the resolution of it clarifies, it does not modify, the injunction. Cf. Major v. Orthopedic Equipment Co., 561 F.2d 1112 (4th Cir.1977). A misinterpretation would be a modification, because it would change the meaning of the original injunction. Wilder v. Bernstein, 49 F.3d 69, 72 (2d Cir.1995). But in a case such as this, where the injunction is vague (though not so vague as to be unenforceable by contempt proceedings and thus a nullity), supplementary rulings particularizing its requirements are unlikely to be challengeable as misinterpretations.

4
Had the judge couched his rulings as supplementary injunctions, they would be appealable even if they did no more than make explicit what had been implicit in the original, vague injunction. Injunctions are appealable under section 1292(a)(1) whether they are primary or supplementary. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc., 915 F.2d 670, 673 (Fed.Cir.1990). The statute makes no distinction.

5
The defendants' position on appealability, as opposed to that of the United States, depends on the uncertain meaning of "final decision" in postjudgment proceedings. The injunction that we modified and affirmed in our previous decision was a final judgment--so when are subsequent orders "final"? The simplest and most sensible approach, one that we have expressly endorsed, most recently in Resolution Trust Corp. v. Ruggiero, 994 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (7th Cir.1993), is to treat the postjudgment proceeding as a free-standing litigation, in effect treating the final judgment as the first rather than the last order in the case. Our decision last June kicked off a postjudgment proceeding that will end, unless the parties reach an agreement, with a judicial order setting forth the steps that Illinois must take to comply with the injunction that it obey the motor-voter law. That order will be appealable as a final decision under section 1291; interim orders will be appealable only if they meet the criteria for the appealability of interlocutory orders. The order issued by the district judge in September is clearly one of the interlocutory orders. It is not appealable, because it does not fit into the pigeonhole for orders modifying injunctions or into any of the other pigeonholes for interlocutory appeals. See Major v. Orthopedic Equipment Co., supra, 561 F.2d at 1115.

6
We do not want to be besieged by successive appeals in injunctive proceedings. The position of the defendants, if accepted, would make virtually all postjudgment orders immediately appealable. If the board of elections wants to stick to its guns, it can refuse to submit a compliance plan that omits the regulations that the district judge believes invalid. Although an order to submit a plan of compliance, like a discovery order, is not an injunction, Mercer v. Magnant, 40 F.3d 893, 896 (7th Cir.1994), the refusal to obey such an order might be punishable as a contempt, and if so the refuser could then obtain appellate review of the order by appealing from the judge's imposition of a sanction for contempt. Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 328, 60 S.Ct. 540, 542-43, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940); In re Establishment Inspection of Skil Corp., 846 F.2d 1127, 1129 (7th Cir.1988). Were there any doubt about the mandatory character of the judge's order, he could embody it in a mandatory injunction, which would be appealable without the interim steps of defiance and sanction. Such severe measures are unlikely here despite the judge's evident exasperation with what he regards as the state's foot-dragging. Comity has its claims. Far more likely would it be for the judge to devise his own plan of compliance and order the state to put it into effect. At that point there would be a final decision from which the state would be entitled to appeal.

7
The United States points out, sensibly as it seems to us, that the dispute over appealability would have been avoided had the district judge, instead of issuing "orders" invalidating state regulations, simply directed the state to submit a compliance plan and then rejected it as noncomplying in various particulars. There would be no basis for arguing that the rejection was an appealable order. But this is, from a practical standpoint, what the judge did; and the fact that he used inapt words ought not convert an unappealable ruling into an appealable order.

The appeal is therefore

8
DISMISSED."


You will note near the top that Barack Obama is listed as one of the attorneys representing ACORN.

What might you ask is "motor-voter"? This is a provision (which has been attempted in several states) to enable those who register at their local DMVs to be registered as voters simultaneously. We have been fighting this battle in California for several years. What it amounts to is an easy way for illegal aliens to become registered to vote-simply by having a drivers license. And make no mistake, illegal aliens in California do vote.

Let me tell you how it has been working in California, where immigration activists and Democrats in Sacramento have been pushing for legislation that would allow illegal aliens to get drivers licenses. The argument they use is that this will make the roads safer since they must pass the required tests.

You don't have to be a trigonometry major to make the connections. First, make it easier for illegal aliens to get drivers licenses. Then link licenses to voter registrations. I think you can finish the paragraph for me.

So, is this the sceme Obama was involved in in Illinois in conjunction with ACORN in the 1990s?

Today, a top Obama spokesman admitted his (Obama) legal connection in this case, but denied that Obama ever trained ACORN and downplayed his overall connections to the group. Really?

It is interesting that Obama would want to conceal his work as an ACORN trainer. There are a myriad of reports that Obama was, indeed, a trainer for ACORN offials. What exactly, Mr Obama, did you train them to do? Reports are that you trained them in protest methods. ACORN's protest methods consisted of storming into banks and the offices of bank managers demanding that they increase their loans to lower-income folks. Other protests consisted of storming into city council meetings in Chicago to press their demands.

Did you train them to do that, Mr Obama?

Did you teach them how to register phony voters?

As I write, ACORN's office in Las Vegas has just been raided by Nevada state authorities for voter registration fraud. Numerous other states are investigating or have already prosecuted ACORN for this same offense. It has now been reported that ACORN has registered the entire Dallas Cowboys starting line-up. (Is Pac-Man Jones even eligible to vote based on all his arrests? I am sure that my Pittsburgh Steelers have not been registered by ACORN. (Certainly, none of them would ever vote for Obama.)

Seriously though, it is believed that ACORN has registered some 1.7 million "voters". How many of these are fraudulent? God only knows.

What is Obama's role in all this?

We also know that while sitting on the Woods Foundation with his pal Bill Ayres, Obama steered a lot of money to ACORN.

It is time that the mainstream media picked up on this-for no other reason that this election could possibly be decided by massive voter fraud in many states. To date, they are downplaying it, ignoring it, or refuting it. Why?

Do you need to ask? It is because they want Obama elected.

So, it is up to John McCain and Sarah Palin to say it loud and clear and demand answers. It is easy for the msm to ignore my words or Sean Hannity's words, but when McCain makes the charge, they have to pay attention.

This should also be a legitimate issue in the final debate, and if the moderator won't bring it up, the candidate must-not for his own political fortunes-but for the good of the country.

I greatly fear we are heading into a fraudulent election. Our country can survive four or eight years of Obama. We cannot survive the destruction of our democratic electoral process.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Add Madonna to the "Honor Roll" of Palin Haters

Last night in New Jersey, pop-tart Madonna kicked off her "Sweet and Sticky" tour by trashing Sarah Palin on stage.

"She can't come to my party-she can't come to my show." There is more, but I'll leave it at that.

I'm not going to waste too many lines on this piece of garbage who, since she now chooses to live in England, is now their problem. As the father of a young woman, I have felt for the past 20 years that this turkey was a poor role model for young girls.

But there is good news (which is why I choose to post this). For every show business jerk like Madonna who goes off on Palin, I am convinced that it just adds more votes to the McCain column.

So keep popping off, Madonna and all the rest of you "entertainers". I will be happy to give you a few lines to show the public (which in my case, consists of Lance, Bryan and a couple of other guys with time on their hands) the class of folks we are up against.

Madonna. You know back in the good old days, when we had real music, this "lady" would be singing in a Holiday Inn lounge in Bullsnuts, North Dakota. Hopefully, her "tour" will take her back out the US real soon.

Muslim Brotherhood Speaker Appears at UC-Irvine

Today, Ibrahim Al-Houdaiby, a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, appeared at UCI. He was invited to UCI by the Center for Research on International and Global Studies and the History Department. His topic was Religion and Democracy in the Middle East. Al Houdaiby portrays himself-and the Muslim Brotherhood as moderate and seeking to establish understanding between Islam and the West. They are opponents of the current Egyptian Government. The event took place as part of a class by Professor Mark LeVIne, a Middle East expert who is considered sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. (His critics consider him anti-Israel.) Members of the public were invited to attend the talk and the question and answer session. Aside from the students in the class, most of the attendees were Muslim students with a handful of Jewish members from the community. There were no incidents or heated exchanges.

Prior to the event, the Brotherhood's website, Ikhwan Web.com, posted an article describing opposition to the appearance. The article linked to a Frontpage.com article. (Al-Houdaiby is a member of the Ikhwan Board.)

Due to my class commitments, I arrived about 30 minutes late, and shortly before the conclusion of Al-Houdaiby's remarks. I was able to attend the Q&A, however. My question was one of the last because Dr LeVine wanted to give his students the chance to ask questions first in the limited time.

I would have liked to claim that I was the only skunk at the garden party, but a few students voiced skepticism about the Brotherhood in their questions about women's rights, the alleged role of the Brotherhood in the assassination of Anwar Sadat and other issues. One young lady described herself as a Coptic Christian and voiced concern about their rights in a Muslim society. (Coptic Christians are a religious minority in Egypt.)Al-Houdaiby denied any Brotherhood involvement in the Sadat assassination and tried to reassure the Coptic lady about the situation in Egypt as it pertains to Coptics. He insisted throughout that the Brotherhood seeks democracy in Egypt.

While Al-Houdaiby speaks fluent English, he tends to speak quite fast and gives lengthy answers that tend to ramble, so (at least for me), it is difficult to follow his monologue. In his statements, Al-Houdaibi insisted that the Brotherhood renounces violence, condemned 9-11 and only seeks understanding with the West.

When I was called upon, I explained that I had arrived late and may have missed remarks that would pertain to my question, which was related to a Muslim Brotherhood memo dated May 22, 1991. I was holding a copy of the memo and passed English and Arabic copies up front for Mr Al-Houdaiby and Dr LeVine.

I digress at this point to explain this memo to the reader. The memo in question is entitled: An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America-5/22/1991. It was written by Mohamed Akram and consists of 18 pages in English. It is addressed to several Muslim groups in North America. This document is stamped, "US v HLF (Holy Land Foundation) and bears prosecution exhibit number 003-0085, which identifies it as a government exhibit in the the Holy Land Foundation prosecution. It is now in the public venue.

I directed Mr Al-Houdaiby's attention to page 7 of the document, section 4, which is entitled: "Understanding the Role of the Muslim Brother in North America". I then read aloud the passage, which follows below:

"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work 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 the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal".

I then asked Al-Houdaibi to comment and asked if this is the position of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Al-Houdaiby expressed wonderment at where I had obtained the document, declared it false and stated that it had already been revealed to be false adding that there is no Muslim Brotherhood in the US. He went on to state that it did not reflect the position of the Brotherhood and was against the words of the Brotherhood founder, Hasan Al-Banna. I then followed up by asking if one of the founding principles of the Brotherhood was the imposition of Islam worldwide under Shariah law. This he denied. I then pinned him down by asking if it was his answer to me that the document was a forgery, reminding him that it was a prosecution exhibit used in the above-mentioned trial. He insisted the document was false.

(I should add that I am paraphrasing his answers as I did not record them and I am writing from memory.)

At this point, LeVine suggested that since time was short, perhaps I could chat with Al-Houdaiby later, and he could point out in the Ikhwan website the document was refuted. I mentioned that I needed to rush off (since I had to take my mother to the doctor.) I then left at the conclusion of the talk while LeVine's class resumed. Al-Houdaibi was scheduled to meet informally with students later in the afternoon. I had no further exchange with him.

Was I satisfied with Al-Houdaibi's answer? No. I don't see how he could look briefly at the document as I read one paragraph and conclude that the document was fake. Of course, I would have liked to delve further, but in these forums, you can't hog the floor. I will check out Ikhwan in the coming days to see if this document is addressed.

If anyone is interested in reading the entire document (in Arabic or English), it can be found at:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6386

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

When Will Barney Frank be Held Accountable?

Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), who is the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Monday in Boston that Republican criticism over the Community Reinvestment Act, as a major factor in the financial crisis was racist and directed toward minority home borrowers.

Racist, says Barney Frank.

Well, lets look at Barney's role in all this.

Frank, in his position on the Finacial Services Committee, has exerted pressure on banks and lending institutions to increase lending to minority borrowers in lower-income neighborhoods. He has used the threat of investigating them for discrimination if they failed to comply. Thus, in the wake of this financial mess-largely caused by this practice of lending money to borrowers to buy homes they could not afford, pushed by Congress, Frank defends the practice by claiming racism to those Republicans who dare to criticize him and the practice.

How about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? We have already seen how Barack Obama has received money from those entities over the years. Let's look at Barney.

In 2003, Frank and other Democrats in Congress strongly defended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from attempts by the Bush Administration and Republicans to increase oversight over Fannie and Freddie due to concerns that they were engaged in reckless practices. As late as July 14, 2008, Frank was saying that Fannie and Freddie were fundamentally sound-a sound bite that Bill O'Reilly confronted him with on The O'Reilly Factor-leading to a shouting match.

The Center for Responsive Politics reports that in the past decade, Frank has received about $42,000 in contributions from Fannie and Freddie.

Now it is revealed that Frank was involved in a 10-year-relationship with a top Fannie Mae executive named Herb Moses. (They were lovers.) The relationship lasted from the late 1980s into the late 1990s. At the time, Frank was sitting on the Banking Committee. Moses was heavily involved in the mortgage lending activity, while Frank was sitting on the committee that oversaw Fannie Mae. (Moses worked at Fannie Mae 1991-1998).

Conflict of interest? What do you think?

By the way, how much of this have you read in the mainstream media, you know, newspapers, major networks? You figure this would be all over the news, right?

This, by the way, is the same guy, who in 1990 had to be reprimanded by the House because his then-boyfriend was using their Washington apartment as a brothel while Barney was up on the hill making a mess of things (different boyfriend).

This, by the way, is the same jerk who recently said that the issue of Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy is a legitimate campaign issue.

When is Barney Frank going to held accountable for his part in this mess? If you said never, you are probably correct. It is outrageous, but unfortunately, the Barney Franks of the world always seem to get away with it.

Change?

"Barack Obama will bring change to Washington. Change we can believe in. It's all about change."

What change?

Barack Obama, since becoming a US Senator, has written no legislation, authored no bills and accomplished nothing in the Senate.

Change?

Name one time that Obama has voted against his party's position in the Senate.

Change?

When has Obama reached across the aisle and worked with his Republican counterparts? Answer: He hasn't.

Is that change?

The Center for Responsive Politics lists Obama as the third highest recipient of funds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-only behind Chris Dodd and John Kerry.

Change?

Former Fannie Mae chairman Jim Johnson was on Obama's VP search committee-until he had to step down when it was revealed that he had received a loan from the Countrywide CEO.

Is that Change "You Can Believe In"?

Obama has missed 45% of Senate votes (at least that's what the McCain ads tell me).

Change?

Can anyone tell me what actions Obama took in the past couple of weeks during the bailout bill fiasco? McCain at least interrupted his campaign and went back to Washington to try and participate in the effort-while Obama stayed out of Washington campaigning and saying nothing. (Oh, yeah, he called a bunch of people-according to him.)

Change?

How many out there think Obama has been forthcoming and honest about his connections to Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko and ACORN?

Change?

And as a state senator and US senator, Obama has directed earmarks to cronies like Father Michael Pfleger in Chicago.

But you want change, right?

In these hard times, do you really think that Obama is going to give 95% of us a tax cut and cut taxes for everyone making less than $200,000 a year (as he said in tonight's debate) while he criticizes McCain's proposal for 300 billion in tax cuts, and as he (Obama) proposes 860 billion in new spending? Do you really think those numbers add up?

Change?

Wake up, folks. The fact of the matter is that Washington doesn't change. It only keeps growing and screwing things up for the rest of us. The only change we are going to see is a bigger government and higher taxes to fund every liberal feel-good program that comes down the pike. The system, however, will not change. Barack Obama is a part of that system just like the rest of them.

My Take on the Debate

This won't be long because I don't think there is much to write about on tonight's debate. I don't think there was a clear winner, and that is not good news for McCain because he needed to turn things around tonight. I agree with most pundits that he didn't do it.

Actually, it was kind of a bore. There was very little of substance that could be called notable. There is no question that Barack Obama has a superior stage presence compared to McCain. If body language and presence is important to you, then Obama did better. He didn't say much beyond generalities and spelling out the problems-without really giving us his solutions. Of course, some of McCain's answers were also empty of specific solutions.

There was one question where I think McCain gave a better answer. That was when the candidates were asked if they would defend Israel were it attacked by Iran-without going to the UN for permission. McCain's answer was a round-a-bout, diplomatic way of answering yes. Obama gave a round-a-bout answer about preventative measures, diplomatic pressure, etc. He never said whether he would defend Israel if Iran attacked.

McCain was supposed to attack Obama tonight. Beyond linking him to Fannie Mae and the contributions he received, McCain didn't do much effective attacking. No mention of Bill Ayers-though the questions asked didn't open that door.

A comment about the debate itself: This was supposed to be a town hall meeting-McCain's strong suit. To me, Tom Brokaw pretty much controlled the debate-kind of like government getting into areas they should not be involved in and exercising control.

Finally, I shifted around the networks to see how the talking heads evaluated it. My impression is that most commentators said there was no clear winner, which represented a loss for McCain since he did not succeed in turning the race around.

Of course, MSNBC, as is their wont, called it a knockout for Obama. Keith Olbermann, banished from the debate coverage due to his bias came on and proceeded to lead his merry band of leftists in a group bashing of everything McCain said and did. Olbermann bashed the way McCain talked and they way he walked (around the stage).
He should call his show "The Spin Room". Only house conservative Pat Buchanan gave a balanced view of the debate. Chris Matthews pointed out the fact that McCain did not mention Bill Ayres-with his own spin. Matthews said that McCain was not willing to say to Obama what he had his VP running mate (Palkin) say at rallies, implying that McCain was a coward.

So there it is. McCain has one last debate to turn things around. Hopefully, the door will be opened for him to bring up Bill Ayres and ACORN (whose Las Vegas office was raided by the Nevada state authorities today.) If that's not a campaign issue, I don't know what is.

Speech in New York by Geert Wilders


Geert Wilders


This morning, I received the below speech by Geert Wilders from a friend via e-mail. I have decided to post it here since I have followed Mr Wilders for quite some time. For those who don't know him, Wilders is a Dutch politician who has been very outspoken regarding the spread of radical Islamic elements in the Netherlands and other European countries. Most recently, he produced a short film entitled "Fitna", which is quite critical of radical Islam and Shariah law. As a result, Wilders has stirred controversy in the Netherlands, and anger in the Muslim world. Some quarters in the Muslim world have attempted to force the Netherlands to censor the film and have called for Wilders' arrest and prosecution. It goes without saying that Wilders now has to live under heavy security for fear of assassination.

Being one who has lived in Europe for 8 years of my life and continues to go back often, my personal wish would be that the Muslim inhabitants of European countries could assimilate into the popluations of the host countries and live in harmony with the local population. I am particularly mindful of the large Turkish population in Germany, a people who have traditionally practiced a moderate form of Islam. I have been to Turkey twice, and I genuinely like the people. Having spent so much time in Germany, I am well aware of the history of the Turkish immigrants in that country. Their presence in Germany over tha past couple of generations has been rocky, and it is not all their fault. They have experienced real discrimination over the years.

Nevertheless, after considering these factors, I have decided to post Mr Wilders' speech because I believe that the problem in Europe is severe-much more so than here since, contrary to Europe, Muslim immigrants in the US have generally been more educated and thus better able to assimilate. (I still see a lot of growing radicalization on the part of younger US Muslims-especially in the universities.) With few exceptions, Europe's Muslims, mostly all working-class, have not assimilated into European societies.

As for Europe, Wilders words-though sometimes inflammatory- describe a serious problem facing most European countries. His words should be heard and considered. I also firmly believe that we should never buckle under to threats and intimidation when we question or criticize this movement, a large segment of which has declared war on the West and the non-Muslim world.

So here are the words of Geert Wilders. Judge for yourselves.

"In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe?"

Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, chairman Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem. The speech was sponsored by the Hudson Institute on September 25.

"Dear friends, Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only:20a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that’s new to me.

It’s great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: “The sky over New York and the will of man made visible.” Of course. Without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe . In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe ? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.

My short lecture consists of 4 parts.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe . Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem .

The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome ’s ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.

But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see – and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controll ed by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear “whore, whore”. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization. A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe . San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than the ir loyalty to France . One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide cal ip hate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they “understand” the 9/11 attacks.

Muslims demand what they call ‘respect’. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators “settlers”. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come t o integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.

Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.

Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah’s personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah’s word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.

The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world – by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.

Quran as Allah’s own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sur e, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means ‘submission’. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe . For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam “the most retrograde force in the world”, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.
Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.

I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.

Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.

A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.

Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capital. The best way for a politician in Europe to lose votes is to say something positive about Israel . The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: “Islam has bloody borders”. Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philip pines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.

It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.

This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe’s history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly partic ip ate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: “the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.”

If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.

Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don’t think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.

Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all smililary-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.

Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe’s last chance.

This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem . Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.

This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.

This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks to its location, it is safe from jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem .

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.

These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:

“Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy”.""

Update on Dayton Mosque Incident

I am posting an article from today's Dayton Daily News, which gives an update on the recent incident in Dayton, in which a 10-year-old girl was allegedly sprayed by some some chemical irritant inside a local mosque during evening prayers. (Hat tip to Denny in Dayton for alerting me to the latest news.)


Police: Can of pepper spray was found inside mosque
Police have interviewed a 10-year-old boy about the incident, in which a girl, 10, was sprayed in the face.
Poll: Is there anti-Islamic sentiment in America?
More on this story from our archives
By Lucas Sullivan

Staff Writer

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

"DAYTON — The can of pepper spray found four days after someone sprayed a 10-year-old girl in the face at a local mosque was discovered inside the mosque, a Dayton police lieutenant said.

The girl said she was sprayed about 9:40 p.m. Sept. 26 through an open basement window of the Islamic Society of Greater Dayton, Lt. John Huber said.

The girl told police one of two men outside the basement window sprayed her with something from a white can with a red top as she watched children whose parents and relatives had gathered at the mosque to celebrate Ramadan.

A can of pepper spray was found Sept. 30 in another room in the basement inside a red and white-striped bag, Huber said. He said it was initially reported to him that the can was found near the mosque, but he later learned it was inside the mosque.

Police have interviewed a 10-year-old boy about the incident. The boy and his family are members of the mosque. Police are not ruling out that someone inside the mosque sprayed the girl, Huber said.

Chief Richard Biehl has said there is no evidence the girl was the victim of a hate crime.

She and another woman were taken to local hospitals after feeling nauseous, according to police.

A few of the 300 people celebrating the last 10 days of Ramadan with dinner and a prayer session were treated for eye irritation at the scene.

The bag and can are being checked for fingerprints by the FBI, Huber said. The FBI has also taken the girl's clothes to determine if there are any chemicals that match what was in the can. HAZMAT crews found no traces of chemicals in the mosque or on the girl.

The incident happened days after the DVD "Obsession: Radical Islam's War With the West," was circulated in a paid advertisement in the Dayton Daily News and other newspapers across the country.

Islamic Society of Greater Dayton President Dr. Tarek Sabagh said the DVD created an atmosphere of "fear" among Muslims, but said he was not sure it was related to the incident at his mosque.

Sabagh said on Sept. 30 that he would not talk about the incident again until the police investigation is completed."

Fousesquawk comment: Pending a final report by Dayton police, we still don't know what happened. The fact that pepper spray was found in a bag inside the mosque would cast serious doubt on the idea that outside figures carried out an attack, but we'll let the facts play out.

Monday, October 6, 2008

The Case Against Barack Obama

With the latest polls, indications are that Barack Obama will likely be elected President of the United States. It is undeniable that the public is dissatisfied with President Bush, Iraq, and now the financial mess. All of this seems to be working against John McCain. Yet, I can only hope that voters will think long and hard before casting their votes for Obama. There are so many questions, so much doubt. I would like to outline why Obama should not be elected.

Experience

Barack Obama has served in the US Senate since 2004. His record in the Senate is negligible. He has no legislative accomplishments and has authored no legislation. Indeed, soon after arriving in the Senate, Obama launched his campaign for president, which has consumed his time ever since. Prior to that, he was a state senator from Illinois, being elected in the mid-90s. His record as a state senator in Illinois is also sparse.

Prior to being elected to the State Senate, Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago, work that his wife, Michelle, quoted as being something that no other candidate could boast. Yet, those years also have been filled with mystery and questions. What exactly did he do? What did he accomplish? Lately, some details have started to come out, which will be discussed later.

Aside from being a charismatic figure and a stirring speaker (when he has a teleprompter), there is little or nothing to suggest that Obama is prepared to be president.

Questionable Background

Obama’s early years are somewhat mysterious although he has authored two autobiographies by the age of 46. His father deserted the family when Barack was two. Rumors still abound that Obama might have been born in Kenya rather than Hawaii (which would make him ineligible to run for president). He has also been hounded by rumors that he was raised as a Muslim in his early years. Neither charge has been substantiated, and I do not give them credence.

After finishing university, Obama moved to Chicago, where he became involved in community organizing. It has now been revealed that part of his activities involved an association with ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). This partially involved giving training classes for ACORN leaders.

Questionable Associations

Along with his inexperience, the issue of Obama’s associations are a prime concern. The list is long.

Jeremiah Wright

Most of the publicity has gone to Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Wright’s incendiary sermons have been seen all over the nation on TV, so there is no need to recount them here. When they became common knowledge, Obama was forced to disown the comments and deny that he had ever been present and heard the more controversial words. His handling of the controversy was clumsy at best. Initially refusing to disown Wright and the church, Obama tried to walk a middle ground between his black supporters and the white supporters he needed to be elected. Yet, Wright would not go away. His further comments, added to a bizarre sermon by Catholic priest, Father Michael Pfleger in which he derided Hillary Clinton in racial terms, only added fuel to the fire. Pfleger is a controversial figure in his own right. A few years back, he spoke at a rally in Chicago protesting a gun store owner. Pfleger, in his comments, all but threatened the owner with physical violence.

It has also been revealed that Obama, while a state senator and US senator, directed funds to Pfleger’s church. (St Sabina in Chicago).

Obama has now left the Trinity United Church and denounced Wright.

Yet, questions still persist as to how he could remain in that church for 20 years and not know what was being said by the pastor who married him and Michelle, and baptized their children. On one occasion, Obama conceded he had heard some of Wright’s more incendiary comments-then retreated back to his denials. Wright’s comments about America, coupled with Michelle Obama’s controversial comments about “being proud of her country for the first time in her adult lifetime” raise concerns about Barack’s (and Michelle’s) inner attitudes.

In short, Obama did not handle the Wright affair effectively or credibly. The whole affair leaves a lot of questions that have not really been resolved.

Tony Rezko

Perhaps even more serious than Obama’s association with Wright is his friendship and financial association with now-jailed financier, Antoin (Tony) Rezko. This wheeler-dealer was ostensibly a housing developer , who was also deep into Illinois politics-reaching into the Governor’s mansion of Governor Rod Blagojevich. Rezko was convicted this year by a federal jury in Chicago on corruption charges. He is a long-time friend, confident and contributor to Barack Obama.

It was Rezko who helped Obama purchase a home in Chicago under suspicious circumstances. Under the arrangement, Obama purchased his home at a below-market price. Rezko and his wife purchased the adjacent property at an above-market price then sold part of the lot to Obama. Obama has himself admitted that the deal was a mistake on his part.

William Ayres

William Ayres, now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, was a fugitive member of the Weatherunderground, a terrorist organization during the turbulent 1960s and 70s. Ayres and his cohorts were involved in bombings of the US Capitol, the Pentagon and New York City Police Hqs. He and his now-wife, Bernadine Dohrn eventually surrendered. Ayres was never prosecuted due to prosecutorial and investigator misconduct. On the eve of 9-11, he told an interviewer that he had no regrets about his activities and wished he had done more. Just a few years ago, he was photographed for a magazine standing on an American flag.

What is Ayres’ connection with Obama? It goes back to Obama’s first run for the Illinois Senate in the 90s. Obama was escorted to the Chicago home of Ayres and Dohrn for a meeting, in which they pledged their support for his candidacy. In addition, Obama served on the board of the Woods Foundation with Ayres and participated in seminars with him. Obama has helped direct funds to Ayres’ school programs-which were designed to radicalize school kids. Ayres may no longer be a terrorist, but he is still a radical.

The mainstream media, typically, has been slow to dig into the Ayres connection. Yet, when Obama was asked about Ayres at a primary debate, he handled it awkwardly, describing Ayres as a professor who “lived in the neighborhood”. Obama condemned Ayres’ Weatherunderground activities, pointing out that they occurred when he (Obama) was eight years old.

ACORN

This shadowy, yet massive organization has offices in over 100 cities in the US in addition to Canada, the Dominican Republic and Peru. Headed by Maude Hurd, a long-time community activist, they are involved in a variety of activities on behalf of low-income families. Of most interest is their work in voter registration and lobbying Congress and banks to extend sub-prime home loans to lower-income borrowers. Their name has surfaced in the recent bailout crisis. According to their web site, the current financial mess is blamed on “predatory lenders’’-period.

In connection to voter registration, ACORN has been implicated in criminal investigations in numerous states. Several ACORN workers have been prosecuted for filing fraudulent voter registrations . They are reportedly under investigation by the Justice Department.

While ACORN professes to be non-partisan and to receive no federal funding, they have received millions from HUD, and they are little more than an arm of the Democratic Party. They are, in short, a left-wing organization. In the first draft of the bailout bill, Democrats attempted unsuccessfully to sneak funding for ACORN into the bill

During Obama’s community organizing days, Obama was involved with ACORN and provided their officers with training classes. He helped plan ACORN protests and also acted on occasion as their attorney in Chicago.

In addition, the New York Times reported on May 11, 2008 that while Obama served on the board of the Woods Foundation and the Joyce Foundation, he helped direct tens of millions of dollars to ACORN and other community organizations. (NYT article by Jo Becker and Christopher Drew dated May 11, 2008).

Liberal Philosophy

Finally, it is Obama’s liberal philosophy that argues against his election. Of course, if you favor a far-left president, then Obama is your man. Conservatives, of course, have no reason to consider voting for Obama. However, if there are people in the middle who are considering voting for Obama, they should seriously consider what kinds of “change” he will bring about. His inexperience suggests that his will be an administration marked by incompetence reminiscent of Jimmy Carter. In terms of foreign policy, his commitment to continue the War on Terror is suspect. He is against Guantanemo, so what will he do with captured terrorists-flood the federal courts with them? What about wiretapping those who are in contact with known terrorists abroad? And, of course, will he pull our military out of Iraq before we have achieved our mission there? Seemingly, he will. It is understandable that many are tired of what has transpired in Iraq. Yet, it must be realized that we are in a global war against radical Islam that has declared war on us. Whether Al-Qaida was in Iraq or not when we invaded, they are there now fighting against our military. The terrorists must be defeated in Iraq, and we are winning. I fear Obama would rob us of that victory.

In terms of taxes, it is obvious that they will rise under President Obama. That includes corporate taxes, capital gains taxes and death taxes. He promises that 95% of families will get a tax break. Not with the programs he wants to institute. Since when do liberal politicians lower taxes? He also promises universal health care. Aside from the folly of turning health care over to the incompetent government, does anyone really think we can afford this?

Obama, of course, tries to appeal to a wide range of voters by downplaying his liberal leanings. Yet, the associations I have outlined above put the lie to that. No, Obama will bring in an army of appointees that will do the dirty work while he continues to position himself as a middle of the roader-much like Clinton did.

In addition, as President, Obama will have the opportunity to appoint numerous federal judges as well as probably 2 or 3 Supreme Court judges. This is an area where Obama really scares me. There is no doubt that Obama would appoint far-leftists to the federal bench. Carter did and so did Clinton. As a DEA agent, I saw first-hand how liberal Carter-appointed federal judges took the side of defendants as opposed to the prosecution. The judges who are appointed by presidents are lifetime positions. They continue to wield their influence long after a president has left office. One of the things that President Bush has done well is appoint quality judges (Harriet Miers notwithstanding). Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress have held up numerous appointments. Thus, there are still plenty of vacancies to be filled.

In summary, Obama would take this country in a dangerous leftist direction toward bigger government and socialism that would not help our economy. The list of questionable associates and friends is too long to ignore. His inexperience and negligible record as a state and US senator raises the question of what qualifies him to be President in the first place. Great speeches shouldn’t alleviate those concerns.

I think one reason for Obama’s wide support is the idea that his election would help America get beyond race, which all of us want to do. With all due respect, I think that is an illusion. As I have said before, America is ready for a black president, female, president, Hispanic, Asian-American or whatever. I just don’t feel Obama is the right one.

Poll after poll in recent years indicate that most Americans consider themselves to be either conservative or in the middle with only a fraction calling themselves “liberal” (around 20+%). Therefore, I argue that Obama’s true beliefs and vision for America don’t fit those of the overwhelming majority of the American people. Yet, he has convinced many in the center that he represents their ideals. If only these people could see through the rhetoric and consider what this obviously talented man, Barack Obama, is really all about.

As regards John McCain, he also has his weaknesses. On occasion, he has let conservatives down. His running mate also has legitimate question regarding her own experience. Nevertheless, in these dangerous times, turning the nation over to Obama seems to me as nothing short of reckless.

NBC Report on McCain's POW Years


The Hanoi Hilton
"Gee, that don't look like a bad place."


Last Tuesday, Brian Williams, NBC Anchor, had a piece on John McCain's years spent as a POW in Hanoi. As a follow-up to a previous puff piece on Barack Obama's years in Indonesia, NBC reporter, Ian Williams traveled to Hanoi to interview people who dealt with McCain as a prisoner. The viewer might come away with the impression that McCain was living in a palace while a POW.

One person interviewed was an 81-year-old nurse named Nguyen Tietan, who told the interviewer that she rescued McCain from an angry mob as he was being pulled out of a lake when he was shot down. She told of treating his broken bones.

“I told them I was a nurse. I had to save lives,”

Then there was this interview with the warden of the "Hanoi Hilton", Tran Trong Doyet. Ian Williams introduces it like this:

“McCain has given graphic accounts of beatings and torture,” But “Tran Trong Doyet, the former prison director, remembers it differently.”


Tran Trong Doyet:

During “office hours,” he and McCain would have “fierce debates” about the war.

“But after hours, we would talk as friends.”

(In McCain's book, “Faith of My Fathers” he describes these conversations as torture sessions.)

What is Brian Williams and NBC trying to do here? Are they trying to portray the presidential candidate as some war criminal who was saved from the righteous anger of a mob after dropping bombs on them-and who was treated like an honored guest for 5 years in Hanoi? Are they taking the word of the warden of the "Hanoi Hilton" over that of Senator McCain as to his treatment? Are they implying that McCain's accounts of torture are false?

Anybody with half a brain knows that NBC and its cable affiliate MSNBC are in the tank for Obama. This latest piece is just additional proof. It is beyond disgust.

What's next?

South Viet Nam invaded North Viet Nam?
Charles Manson acted in self-defense?

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Recipients in Congress


Follow the money


Below is a list of the top Congressional recipients of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between the years 1989-2008. This information was compiled by Open Secrets.com- Center for Responsive Politics. This appears on their website at:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html


Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008



Name
Office
Party/State
Total

1. Dodd, Christopher J
S
D-CT
$133,900

2. Kerry, John
S
D-MA
$111,000

3. Obama, Barack
S
D-IL
$105,849

4. Clinton, Hillary
S
D-NY
$75,550

5. Kanjorski, Paul E
H
D-PA
$65,500

6. Bennett, Robert F
S
R-UT
$61,499

7. Johnson, Tim
S
D-SD
$61,000

8. Conrad, Kent
S
D-ND
$58,991

9. Davis, Tom
H
R-VA
$55,499

10. Bond, Christopher S 'Kit'
S
R-MO
$55,400

11. Bachus, Spencer
H
R-AL
$55,300

12. Shelby, Richard C
S
R-AL
$55,000

13. Emanuel, Rahm
H
D-IL
$51,750

14. Reed, Jack
S
D-RI
$50,750

15. Carper, Tom
S
D-DE
$44,389

16. Frank, Barney
H
D-MA
$40,100

17. Maloney, Carolyn B
H
D-NY
$38,750

18. Bean, Melissa
H
D-IL
$37,249

19. Blunt, Roy
H
R-MO
$36,500

20. Pryce, Deborah
H
R-OH
$34,750

21. Miller, Gary
H
R-CA
$33,000

22. Pelosi, Nancy
H
D-CA
$32,750

23. Reynolds, Tom
H
R-NY
$32,700

24. Hoyer, Steny H
H
D-MD
$30,500

25. Hooley, Darlene
H
D-OR
$28,750



Includes contributions from PACs and individuals.
2008 cycle totals based on data downloaded from the
Federal Election Commission on June 30, 2008.

* Note that Barack Obama ranks number 3 on the list even though he has only been in Congress since 2004.

The OJ Simpson Trial


"Heigh ho, heigh ho. It's off to jail I go."


With OJ Simpson now sitting in the Clark County Jail awaiting sentencing, I thought I would comment on some of the aspects of the trial, particularly the post-trial comments of defense attorney Yale Galanter and his co-counsel.

It seems that the appeal strategy will be centered on a couple of main points. First is that Simpson, due to his notoriety in the murder case 13 years ago, could not get a fair trial. That argument should not go very far. Any appellate judge who would reverse a conviction on those grounds would be saying that certain notorious defendants like Simpson could never be prosecuted fairly, therefore making them immune from any prosecution for any crime. That is just plain insane.

In the jury selection (which took days instead of the normal one hour due to the celebrity of the defendant) potential jurors were asked several questions on this point. They assured the court that they could put the murder case aside and render a fair verdict on the charges at hand. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, their word must be accepted.

The defense will apparently base their appeal also on the fact that there were no black jurors. Sorry. The State of Nevada has a sparse black population, and a rather small black population resides in Las Vegas. You get the jury where you commit the crime.

Today, I heard on the radio that one of Simpson's lawyers was speculating on the fact that the jurors worked late on Friday night and returned their verdict after 13 days of trial, 13 hours of deliberation, and on the 13th anniversary of Simpson's acquittal in Los Angeles. That, to the attorney, seemed highly suspicious. And your legal point, Counsel, is? To try and use that as a basis for appeal would be laughable.

In fact, several of the jurors including the foreman, have stated publicly that this coincidence had nothing to do with their decision to work late Friday evening. There were other reasons why they chose to stick it out. Again, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the jurors word must be accepted-as if it makes any difference.

Finally, there is the age-old issue of the character of the witnesses against Simpson-the victims and his co-defendants who testified. Questionable characters every one, according to the defense. Their testimony should not be believed. This is true, however, the words should read, "Their testimony alone should not be believed." The jurors have also spoken publicly that they did not accept the word of the witnesses.

Here is the key: As a DEA agent, I had countless cases where we used the testimony of informants, co-conspirators, unindicted or otherwise, and cooperating defendants to cooperate with the government and testify against their (former) associates in drug cases. This is an old and yes, distasteful practice that is unfortunately necessary in many cases. You can't get local pastors to testify as to the inner workings of a criminal conspiracy. Do these people get consideration in their own sentencing? Yes. Should their testimony be believed? It depends.

In any such trial (and this includes the Simpson trial), the presiding judge will invariably instruct the jury that the uncorroborated testimony of such persons is not to be accepted. It should only be accepted if the prosecution provides independent evidence that corroborates the testimony of the unsavory witness.
For this reason, no sane prosecutor will even consider using informants or cooperating defendant/co-conspirators as witnesses unless their testimony can be fully corroborated.

How is such corroboration done? It can be accomplished by a variety of normal investigative techniques; tape recordings, documents, eyewitness testimony by other, more credible persons, photographs, fingerprints, DNA, police testimony, undercover police testimony, surveillance. The list goes on and on.

In this case, apparently the crucial pieces of evidence were Simpson's own words on tape. That sealed the deal. Simpson's own words corroborated the testimony of the witnesses against him. Again, the jurors have publicly stated that it was evidence other than witness testimony of the victims and co-defendants that convinced them that Simpson was guilty.

Ironically, it appears that the main motivation for Simpson to organize this insane incident was to protect his memorabilia from Fred Goldman to partially satisfy the civil judgement against him for causing the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman (Fred's son). That should give the Goldman family a degree of satisfaction.

As for an appeal, as I have laid out, I don't think he has much chance. (I am not a lawyer, but I speak from my own court experience as a DEA agent.) I think (and hope) that we have seen the last of OJ Simpson. On the other hand, never underestimate the idiocy of some of our judges.

National Black Republican Ad

I occasionally post press releases from the National Black Republican Association as I am a strong supporter of black conservatives. After reading the below ad from NBRA, which was sent to me by them via e-mail, I have decided to post it as it is in the realm of public information. I do wish to add, however, that some of the details regarding "slum lords" is not known to me personally. I would also add that regarding the reference to Pastor Jeremiah Wright saying that innocent Americans who died on 9-11 deserved to die, I would have used the word "implied" instead of "said".

At any rate, here is the ad.

SLUM LORD OBAMA RADIO AD RELEASED
For Immediate Release
Contact: Frances Rice
1-866-905-6701 (toll free)
www.NBRA.info

Slum Lord Obama Radio Ad Released by Black Republican Group

Radio ads exposing the real Sen. Barack Obama as a Slum Lord and a far left-wing radical have been released by the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) and are being aired in battleground states. One ad is about the shocking Boston Globe investigation that includes a video of poor blacks living in the Obama-funded slum lord projects who condemn Obama for not caring about them. That investigation can be found on the Internet at: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/?page=1

The NBRA radio ads clearly demonstrate that, when the American people look behind Obama's slick, public façade, they see an inexperienced liberal who does not have the character and judgment to be our next president. To understand what Obama has in mind for the rest of America, visit any black urban community in this nation. Liberal Democrats have been running black communities for the past 40 years, and their socialist policies have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands. If Obama's messianic message of "hope and change" was so powerful, why are the poor people in Chicago still poor?

The audio of the radio ads can be found on the Internet at: www.NBRA.info, and the text are shown below.

_____________

Script of theNBRA radio ads – Paid for by the National Black Republican Association (NBRA). Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

1. Obama The Slum Lord

Narrator:

Obama claims he cares about poor blacks, but a Boston Globe report exposed how for eight years Obama supported slum projects in Chicago.

Poor blacks living in rat and roach infested apartments condemned Obama for not caring about them.

Cynthia Ashley, a fourteen-year resident said: "No one should have to live like this, and no one did anything about it."

Anthony Frizzell a twenty-year resident said: "In the winter I can feel the cold air coming through the walls and the sockets."

Sharee Jones who has lived for years with the rats said: "You could hear them under the floor and in the walls, and they didn't do nothing about it."

Paul Johnson who helped organize a protest against Obama said: "Of course he knew. He just didn't care."

Showing he just didn't care, Obama wrote letters on Illinois Senate letterhead supporting government loans for slum projects.

Obama coauthored the Illinois law that gave tax breaks to his slum lord friends, including now convicted felon Tony Rezko who helped Obama buy a million-dollar house.

As a US Senator, Obama worked to increase federal subsidies for his slum lord pals who donated more than $175,000 to Obama's campaigns with Rezko raising another $200,000.

While running for president, Obama is promising to create a fund that gives his slum lord buddies $500 million a year. This is outrageous.

Learn the truth.

Visit our website at: www.NBRA.info

2. Obama The Radical

Narrator:

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated racial tolerance.

In his "I Have a Dream" speech, he said: "The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people."

People today wonder does Barack Obama share Dr. King's positive view of racial tolerance or Rev. Jeremiah Wright's negativity and racial intolerance?

In his book "Dreams from my Father", Obama confesses that he harbors the same negative racial stereotypes as Rev. Wright, his mentor for 20 years.

On page 198 to 204, Obama says that black nationalism, a steady attack on the white race would be justified if it could deliver.

On page 100, Obama says he went out of his way to choose Marxist professors as his friends.

Obama wrote and I quote: "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully, the more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist professors and punk rock performance poets."

On page 154, Obama confesses that he studied the Koran at a Muslim school.

Obama wrote and I quote: "In Indonesia, I spent two years at a Muslim school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies. My mother wasn't overly concerned. Be respectful she'd say."

On page 93, Obama confesses that he drank heavily, tried drugs enthusiastically and was helped by pot, booze and cocaine.

Obama does not share our values. Obama is no MLK.

Learn the truth.

Visit our website at: www.NBRA.info

3. Obama is No MLK

Narrator:

In his "I Have a Dream" speech, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said:

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Dr. King's words are important for this 2008 election.

Look beyond Barack Obama's skin color and soaring rhetoric, and you will see an arrogant, elitist millionaire whose voting record is the most liberal in Congress.

Look at the people around Obama, and you will understand that Obama lacks the judgment to be our next president.

Obama's mentor for 20-years was Rev. Jeremiah Wright who said innocent Americans deserved to die on September 11th.

Obama's 20-year friend and bagman was Tony Rezko who was recently convicted of fraud.

Another Obama close friend is Weather Underground Bill Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist who bombed the Pentagon and other public buildings.

Character matters. Obama does not have the character or judgment to be our next president.

Learn the truth.

Visit our website at www.NBRA.info

4. Arrogant Obama

Narrator:

Dr. King said judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

Barack Obama sounds good, but character is judged by action when no one is looking.

Obama voted no on the minimum wage bill.

Obama said no to school choice scholarships for poor black children trapped in failing schools.

Obama voted yes for a bill to kill babies born alive in a botched abortion.

Bitter is what Obama called blacks and whites who love God.

Racist is what Obama called his white grandmother who raised him and made sacrifices so Obama could get a good education and become a millionaire.

Obama's friends are terrorist Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright who said innocent Americans deserved to die on September 11th.

Obama is an arrogant elitist who turned his back on poor blacks and his own country.

Learn the truth.

Visit our website at www.NBRA.info

That's www.NBRA.info

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Muslim Brotherhood Speaker to Appear at UC-Irvine


This coming week, the university where I teach will once again be host to a radical Muslim speaker. Here are the details:

Title: Religion and Democracy in the Middle East
Office: International Studies
Event Date: 10/8/2008 - 10/8/2008
Details: The Department of History, Middle East Studies Student Initiative (MESSI), Center for Research on International and Global Studies (RIGS), and Center for Global Peace and Conflict Studies (CGPACS) present:

"Religion and Democracy in the Middle East: A New Generation of the Muslim Brotherhood Takes the Stage"

with Ibrahim El Houdaiby, leading young member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Cairo

Wednesday, October 8, 2008,
1:00-2:30 p.m.
Humanities Instructional Building, Room 135

Interestingly, the event and speaker is not sponsored by the Muslim Student Union, rather by the university's International Studies Department.

I am not surprised that the usual collection of naive academic types who have invited a representative of this radical organization-the one that is the seed of Jihadist Islam that seeks to impose Shariah law all over the globe, rather I am even more shocked that the State Department has issued this character a visa to come to our shores.

If you do a quick Internet check on El Houdaiby, you might conclude from his writings that he is a moderate, who seeks to build bridges between Islam and the West and establish a free society in Egypt. The title of the event seems benign enough. However, if you know anything about the history of the Muslim Brotherhood, it is all a facade. The mission of the Muslim Brotherhood is to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate where Shariah law rules.

The below website has an extensive article by Discover the Networks on the Muslim Brotherhood:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Muslim%20Brotherhood.pdf

I plan to attend this event. Due to Yom Kippur, many of my Jewish friends and colleagues will apparently be precluded from attending. (I wonder if that was a factor in selecting the event date-just wondering.)

I know-it's all about free speech. Yet, once again, UCI has let itself be a stage for radical, anti-Semitic, anti-American voices. It's entirely possible that Mr El Hudaibi will give a vanilla-type talk about religion and democracy, offending no one, and the naive audience will conclude that the Muslim Brotherhood is just another group of reformers with whom we can link arms and sing "Kumbaya".

Here we go again.

More Weathermen for Obama

I am posting this article by Aaron Klein, Jerusalem Bureau Chief for WorldNet Daily dated 10-2-08. It illustrates support for Obama on the part of four ex-associates of William Ayres and the Weatherunderground.


Four Weathermen Terrorists Declare Support for Obama
by Aaron Klein, WorldNet Daily (Oct 2, 2008),


The names of four former top leaders of the Weathermen terrorist organization are listed as signatories on an online petition calling for an "independent grassroots effort" to help strengthen Sen. Barack Obama's campaign.

The petition was initiated by Progressives for Obama, an independent organization acting to ensure the Illinois senator's election.

Progressives includes among its ranks many former members of the 1960s radical organization Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, from which the Weathermen splintered, as well as current and former members of other radical organizations, such as the Communist Party USA and the Black Radical Congress.

"We agree that Barack Obama is our best option for president in 2008, and that an independent grassroots effort can help strengthen his campaign," states the online petition. "It can also strengthen the mandate for his programs for stopping war, promoting global justice and securing our rights, liberties, and economic well-being."

Among the names signed onto the petition are former Weathermen leaders Howard Machtinger, Jeff Jones, Steve Tappis and Mark Rudd.

Machtinger was a Weathermen founder and was co-author of the terror group's original mission statement, which called for "revolutionaries within the United States to wage a 'people's war' and attack from within. The government would fall and 'world communism' eventually would be instituted."

Jones, according to his own website, was "elected, along with (Weathermen terrorist) Bill Ayers and Mark Rudd, to the SDS national office. Then, in the spring of 1970, he disappeared. As a leader of the Weather Underground, Jeff evaded an intense FBI manhunt for