Friday, April 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Immigration and the Arizona Crisis
“When the Federal Government fails to provide for the security of its citizens, it shall be the responsibility of the states to ensure its own security.”
By: David A.W. Hittle
April 28, 2010
I don’t know who stated the above but whoever said it the first time, had it spot on.
President Barrack Obama announced even before the Governor of Arizona passed its law his direct opposition to it. President Obama stated that this law would violate the civil rights or illegal immigrants.
I never knew that a citizen from a foreign country, who had invaded the soil of the United States had Civil Rights?
Arizona has done the right thing, according to the above quote from an unknown person. The Federal Government has refused for over 20 years to do anything productive about immigration reform…
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan passed what was called the: “Immigration Reform and Control Act.” This bill provided amnesty to about 4 million illegal immigrants who had entered the country before 1982. However it also did a lot of other things as well… According to Wikipedia “The act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants; it required employers to attest to their immigration status…”
Since 1986 we have not had any productivity about immigration reform; that was until 2006; when President Bush signed the 700-mile border fence bill which passed Congress.
In 2010 President Barrack Obama halted all funding for the building of the border fence…
President Barrack Obama has refused to do anything about Illegal Immigration, until very recently… However his recent comments have been negative toward laws that have been passed; such as the bill just passed by Arizona.
People who oppose the Arizona bill are stating it is unconstitutional, because only the Federal Government can affect immigration issues. I disagree with these people due to the fact that Arizona has passed no law that conflict with Federal Law… Federal Law currently makes it illegal, for an illegal immigrant to be in America, Arizona is just enforcing that Federal Law. This may be the part that is unconstitutional, however I doubt it. (*mind you I’m not an attorney but I plan to be one*)
When the Federal Government refuses to enforce its own laws, is it not the responsibility of the states to enforce such laws as may affect them directly i.e. Illegal Immigration.
According to “Protect our City” as many as I could count over 8 people have been killed recently in Arizona by Illegal Immigrants… 8 People is too many for something that is 100% preventable and I find it reprehensible, that these people had to die before something was done about this illegal immigrant situation.
To do nothing about illegal immigrants and god knows who else entering our country is not responsible and it isn’t safe. The only job of the federal government is to protect the American people, they have failed!!
By: David A.W. Hittle
April 28, 2010
I don’t know who stated the above but whoever said it the first time, had it spot on.
President Barrack Obama announced even before the Governor of Arizona passed its law his direct opposition to it. President Obama stated that this law would violate the civil rights or illegal immigrants.
I never knew that a citizen from a foreign country, who had invaded the soil of the United States had Civil Rights?
Arizona has done the right thing, according to the above quote from an unknown person. The Federal Government has refused for over 20 years to do anything productive about immigration reform…
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan passed what was called the: “Immigration Reform and Control Act.” This bill provided amnesty to about 4 million illegal immigrants who had entered the country before 1982. However it also did a lot of other things as well… According to Wikipedia “The act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants; it required employers to attest to their immigration status…”
Since 1986 we have not had any productivity about immigration reform; that was until 2006; when President Bush signed the 700-mile border fence bill which passed Congress.
In 2010 President Barrack Obama halted all funding for the building of the border fence…
President Barrack Obama has refused to do anything about Illegal Immigration, until very recently… However his recent comments have been negative toward laws that have been passed; such as the bill just passed by Arizona.
People who oppose the Arizona bill are stating it is unconstitutional, because only the Federal Government can affect immigration issues. I disagree with these people due to the fact that Arizona has passed no law that conflict with Federal Law… Federal Law currently makes it illegal, for an illegal immigrant to be in America, Arizona is just enforcing that Federal Law. This may be the part that is unconstitutional, however I doubt it. (*mind you I’m not an attorney but I plan to be one*)
When the Federal Government refuses to enforce its own laws, is it not the responsibility of the states to enforce such laws as may affect them directly i.e. Illegal Immigration.
According to “Protect our City” as many as I could count over 8 people have been killed recently in Arizona by Illegal Immigrants… 8 People is too many for something that is 100% preventable and I find it reprehensible, that these people had to die before something was done about this illegal immigrant situation.
To do nothing about illegal immigrants and god knows who else entering our country is not responsible and it isn’t safe. The only job of the federal government is to protect the American people, they have failed!!
Crony Capitalism : 'Green' Laws and Obama Energy Official Catherine Zoi
MND | Christopher Horner
Surprising documents made available to this author reveal that Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi has a huge financial stake in companies likely to profit from the Obama administration’s “green” policies.
Zoi, who left her position as CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection — founded by Al Gore — to serve as assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, now manages billions in “green jobs” funding. But the disclosure documents show that Zoi not only is in a position to affect the fortunes of her previous employer, ex-Vice President Al Gore, but that she herself has large holdings in two firms that could directly profit from policies proposed by the Department of Energy.
Cathy Zoi
Al Gore sidekick Cathy Zoi is now Obama's Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Among Zoi’s holdings are shares in Serious Materials, Inc., the previously sleepy, now bustling, friend of the Obama White House whose public policy operation is headed by her husband. Between them, Zoi and her husband hold 120,000 shares in Serious Materials, as well as stock options. Reporter John Stossel has already explored what he sees as the “crony capitalism” implied by Zoi being so able to influence the fortunes of a company to which she is so closely associated.
Read the entire MensNewsDaily article : Obama Energy Official Catherine Zoi: Green Profiteer?
Surprising documents made available to this author reveal that Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi has a huge financial stake in companies likely to profit from the Obama administration’s “green” policies.
Zoi, who left her position as CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection — founded by Al Gore — to serve as assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, now manages billions in “green jobs” funding. But the disclosure documents show that Zoi not only is in a position to affect the fortunes of her previous employer, ex-Vice President Al Gore, but that she herself has large holdings in two firms that could directly profit from policies proposed by the Department of Energy.
Cathy Zoi
Al Gore sidekick Cathy Zoi is now Obama's Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Among Zoi’s holdings are shares in Serious Materials, Inc., the previously sleepy, now bustling, friend of the Obama White House whose public policy operation is headed by her husband. Between them, Zoi and her husband hold 120,000 shares in Serious Materials, as well as stock options. Reporter John Stossel has already explored what he sees as the “crony capitalism” implied by Zoi being so able to influence the fortunes of a company to which she is so closely associated.
Read the entire MensNewsDaily article : Obama Energy Official Catherine Zoi: Green Profiteer?
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona
The chattering class is aghast at Arizona's new immigration law. "Harkens back to apartheid," says the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker. "Shameful," says the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne. "Terrible…an invitation to abuse," says the New York Times' David Brooks.
For his part, President Obama calls the law "misguided" and says it "threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Obama has ordered the Justice Department to "closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation."
Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.
Read the rest in the Washington Examiner : A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona
For his part, President Obama calls the law "misguided" and says it "threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Obama has ordered the Justice Department to "closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation."
Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.
Read the rest in the Washington Examiner : A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona
Monday, April 26, 2010
A Path to Environmental Progress
By Sen. Jim Inhofe, Committee on Environment and Public Works
With all the frenzied speculation on the now-postponed climate change bill from Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), many in Congress have been overlooking the chance to pass landmark legislation that could reduce pollution and provide meaningful health and environmental benefits.
That's right. We can pass bipartisan multipollutant legislation to guarantee significant reductions in mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from power plants - while providing the regulatory certainty needed to advance cleaner, more efficient technologies.
I have worked with Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) on multipollutant legislation for years. In fact, we worked on a bill introduced by former Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) when he chaired the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in 2002.
In 2005, when I served as the committee chairman and Voinovich served as chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, we tried to pass bipartisan legislation. But it died in committee.
Recognizing the need to reduce power plant emissions, the Bush administration had pressed ahead without Congress and issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Clean Air Mercury Rule.
Voinovich and I supported those. But we also warned that they would face legal challenge and an uncertain regulatory future. Sadly, we were proven right, when the D.C. court vacated both rules.
One effect of these decisions has been a severely depressed emissions trading market. Some companies postponed plant upgrades. Progress has stalled.
The Environmental Protection Agency is now busy crafting replacement rules. But just how it will address key questions - for example, how to integrate allowances from the Acid Rain Trading Program into a new trading regime and whether this includes interstate emissions trading - remains unclear.
Only Congress can provide the needed clarity and certainty.
But the global warming debate has been a distraction. The Senate is wasting time on legislation that, even if passed, would fail to achieve its stated goal of reducing global temperatures. There's an opportunity right now to make significant environmental progress - while ensuring cleaner, more affordable and more reliable electricity for consumers.
Fortunately, a group of influential senators is trying to seize that opportunity. That group includes two senior members from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who, along with several Democratic and Republican senators, recently introduced Clean Air Act amendments to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury from power plants.
While the bill can be improved in several important respects, it is a good start. The compromise that eluded us in 2005 is possible in 2010.
One critical point of the multipollutant debate is addressing the long list of overlapping and conflicting air-pollution mandates set to unfold under the Clean Air Act in the next decade.
Some environmental activists may view this as a sure-fire means of reducing pollution. But, in reality, this regulatory morass could lead to a wave of litigation that won't be resolved for years. Some of those very activists may file lawsuits.
This is not meant to cast aspersions - only to make clear that without a multipollutant framework passed by Congress, the timing and extent of emissions reductions could be mired in legal uncertainty.
Yet this future is not carved in stone.
If Congress tackles these issues now, we can lock in emissions reductions for decades. We can also draw a clear legal road map to ease the transition to cleaner technologies and provide consumers with affordable, reliable power to meet their daily demands.
Discussions on multipollutant legislation have already begun. My hope is that they will continue even amid the debate on climate change.
Instead of imposing massive taxes on consumers with no discernible climate benefits - as was talked about in the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman proposal - we can provide real health and environmental benefits and encourage installation of new technologies, while keeping utility costs affordable.
This is the pathway to real environmental progress - one Congress should follow.
With all the frenzied speculation on the now-postponed climate change bill from Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), many in Congress have been overlooking the chance to pass landmark legislation that could reduce pollution and provide meaningful health and environmental benefits.
That's right. We can pass bipartisan multipollutant legislation to guarantee significant reductions in mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from power plants - while providing the regulatory certainty needed to advance cleaner, more efficient technologies.
I have worked with Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) on multipollutant legislation for years. In fact, we worked on a bill introduced by former Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) when he chaired the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in 2002.
In 2005, when I served as the committee chairman and Voinovich served as chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, we tried to pass bipartisan legislation. But it died in committee.
Recognizing the need to reduce power plant emissions, the Bush administration had pressed ahead without Congress and issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Clean Air Mercury Rule.
Voinovich and I supported those. But we also warned that they would face legal challenge and an uncertain regulatory future. Sadly, we were proven right, when the D.C. court vacated both rules.
One effect of these decisions has been a severely depressed emissions trading market. Some companies postponed plant upgrades. Progress has stalled.
The Environmental Protection Agency is now busy crafting replacement rules. But just how it will address key questions - for example, how to integrate allowances from the Acid Rain Trading Program into a new trading regime and whether this includes interstate emissions trading - remains unclear.
Only Congress can provide the needed clarity and certainty.
But the global warming debate has been a distraction. The Senate is wasting time on legislation that, even if passed, would fail to achieve its stated goal of reducing global temperatures. There's an opportunity right now to make significant environmental progress - while ensuring cleaner, more affordable and more reliable electricity for consumers.
Fortunately, a group of influential senators is trying to seize that opportunity. That group includes two senior members from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who, along with several Democratic and Republican senators, recently introduced Clean Air Act amendments to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury from power plants.
While the bill can be improved in several important respects, it is a good start. The compromise that eluded us in 2005 is possible in 2010.
One critical point of the multipollutant debate is addressing the long list of overlapping and conflicting air-pollution mandates set to unfold under the Clean Air Act in the next decade.
Some environmental activists may view this as a sure-fire means of reducing pollution. But, in reality, this regulatory morass could lead to a wave of litigation that won't be resolved for years. Some of those very activists may file lawsuits.
This is not meant to cast aspersions - only to make clear that without a multipollutant framework passed by Congress, the timing and extent of emissions reductions could be mired in legal uncertainty.
Yet this future is not carved in stone.
If Congress tackles these issues now, we can lock in emissions reductions for decades. We can also draw a clear legal road map to ease the transition to cleaner technologies and provide consumers with affordable, reliable power to meet their daily demands.
Discussions on multipollutant legislation have already begun. My hope is that they will continue even amid the debate on climate change.
Instead of imposing massive taxes on consumers with no discernible climate benefits - as was talked about in the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman proposal - we can provide real health and environmental benefits and encourage installation of new technologies, while keeping utility costs affordable.
This is the pathway to real environmental progress - one Congress should follow.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
The Arizona Illegal Alien Law
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
(Fox News photo)
One of this week's biggest news items on the national front was the signing of a bill in Arizona to make it a state offense to be in the US (Arizona) illegally. Governor Jan Brewer has now signed the bill into law with some revisions to eliminate racial profiling. The outrage from the other side was immediate.
While I agree with the law, I share the concern of many that Americans of Hispanic descent and legal immigrants could be randomly stopped and asked for identification. The southwest United States is populated by millions of Mexican-Americans, US citizens who were born in this country, many of whom don't even speak Spanish. (As I have stated before, my wife is a naturalized citizen, born in Mexico.) I think it would be an outrage if these people are subjected to ID checks.
I don't think that will be the case, however. First of all, I think it is safe to state that police can very quickly differentiate between a Mexican-American and illegal alien. There are many factors that go into that aside from simply the color of one's skin. If, in the course of a cop's work, he or she comes into contact with a Latino, I'm sure they can very quickly decide whether there is sufficient cause to ask about the person's status in the country. I also think, given the furor, that officials in Arizona will work extra hard to avoid any suspicion of random profiling. Will there be such accusations? Of course, and once in a while, the accusation may be justified. Arizona is on notice, however, not to abuse the new law.
It has to be pointed out, however, that federal authorities have given no relief to Arizona, which is the biggest point of crossing for illegal aliens from Mexico. The spill-over of border violence has impacted the state greatly. Phoenix is now the kidnapping capital of the country. More recently, a rancher who lived just north of the border was found murdered. The situation has become intolerable, and Arizona, now freed from former governor Janet Napolitano, has decided to act in the absence of appropriate action from Washington (and DHS chief Napolitano).
This is not racist, nor is it "anti-immigration" as the media likes to phrase it (i.e. "immigration supporters"). Most Americans (like me) have no beef with immigration, nor do they have a beef with Latino people. It is illegal immigration that is the problem. And make no mistake, it is costing the country greatly in terms of its impact on education, health care, law enforcement and prison costs. While most illegal aliens are otherwise decent people looking for honest work to support their families, which they can't do in Mexico, there is a sizable inmate population among them as well the presence of violent gangs. In that regard, the on-going violence-war would be a better description-along the US-Mexican border is just another urgent reason why our borders must be secured. The federal government has not done that.
Ciudad Juarez
(Fox News photo)
I also think that the President's immediate condemnation is indicative of where he stands on this issue, especially if he directs his Justice Department to try and override this new state law. I especially take note of his comment that the absence of "effective immigration reform" has led to "irresponsibilty by others" (He singled out Arizona). What Obama is saying is that we must act to legitimize those already here illegally, not that the federal government should secure the borders.
Is it not time for the federal government to come to the aid of the border states instead of castigating Arizona for doing what they (the Feds) should have been doing all along?
fousesquawk
(Fox News photo)
One of this week's biggest news items on the national front was the signing of a bill in Arizona to make it a state offense to be in the US (Arizona) illegally. Governor Jan Brewer has now signed the bill into law with some revisions to eliminate racial profiling. The outrage from the other side was immediate.
While I agree with the law, I share the concern of many that Americans of Hispanic descent and legal immigrants could be randomly stopped and asked for identification. The southwest United States is populated by millions of Mexican-Americans, US citizens who were born in this country, many of whom don't even speak Spanish. (As I have stated before, my wife is a naturalized citizen, born in Mexico.) I think it would be an outrage if these people are subjected to ID checks.
I don't think that will be the case, however. First of all, I think it is safe to state that police can very quickly differentiate between a Mexican-American and illegal alien. There are many factors that go into that aside from simply the color of one's skin. If, in the course of a cop's work, he or she comes into contact with a Latino, I'm sure they can very quickly decide whether there is sufficient cause to ask about the person's status in the country. I also think, given the furor, that officials in Arizona will work extra hard to avoid any suspicion of random profiling. Will there be such accusations? Of course, and once in a while, the accusation may be justified. Arizona is on notice, however, not to abuse the new law.
It has to be pointed out, however, that federal authorities have given no relief to Arizona, which is the biggest point of crossing for illegal aliens from Mexico. The spill-over of border violence has impacted the state greatly. Phoenix is now the kidnapping capital of the country. More recently, a rancher who lived just north of the border was found murdered. The situation has become intolerable, and Arizona, now freed from former governor Janet Napolitano, has decided to act in the absence of appropriate action from Washington (and DHS chief Napolitano).
This is not racist, nor is it "anti-immigration" as the media likes to phrase it (i.e. "immigration supporters"). Most Americans (like me) have no beef with immigration, nor do they have a beef with Latino people. It is illegal immigration that is the problem. And make no mistake, it is costing the country greatly in terms of its impact on education, health care, law enforcement and prison costs. While most illegal aliens are otherwise decent people looking for honest work to support their families, which they can't do in Mexico, there is a sizable inmate population among them as well the presence of violent gangs. In that regard, the on-going violence-war would be a better description-along the US-Mexican border is just another urgent reason why our borders must be secured. The federal government has not done that.
Ciudad Juarez
(Fox News photo)
I also think that the President's immediate condemnation is indicative of where he stands on this issue, especially if he directs his Justice Department to try and override this new state law. I especially take note of his comment that the absence of "effective immigration reform" has led to "irresponsibilty by others" (He singled out Arizona). What Obama is saying is that we must act to legitimize those already here illegally, not that the federal government should secure the borders.
Is it not time for the federal government to come to the aid of the border states instead of castigating Arizona for doing what they (the Feds) should have been doing all along?
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Brandeis University Linking Neo-Nazis in Europe to Tea Parties in US?
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
Thanks chiefly to Fox News (see below link), the news is breaking that Brandeis University is hosting a seminar regarding right-wing radicalism in Europe on April
28th. The seminar is specifically being hosted by the German and European Studies Department. While the focus appears to be on Neo-Nazis and skin heads in Europe, it appears that there will be some discussion about the Tea Party activities in America.
Does Brandeis think there is a connection? Check out the links below. The first is from The Fox Nation, and the second is from the university web site announcing the seminar.
-http://www.thefoxnation.com/brandeis-university/2010/04/21/university-lumps-tea-parties-nazis?page=2
http://www.brandeis.edu/cges/
I take particular notice of one of the panelists, a certain Professor Chip Berlet. This gentleman's chief scholarly pursuit seems to be on the right-wing in America. That is his right, but what I detect here is an attempt to link neo-Nazis and skin heads in Europe with tea partiers in America.
That would be an outright lie.
As one who has lived in Europe and follows events there, I share the panelists' concern about people like skin-heads and neo-Nazis. I condemn any attacks (which are referred to) on "brown-skinned" immigrants. They also mention attacks on Jews. I am deeply concerned about that as well. My sneaking suspicion is, however, that they will ignore the daily harassment and assaults (verbal and physical) on Jews by Muslim immigrants and concentrate solely on the native punks who engage in that activity.
That would not only be politically-correct, it would be a gross distortion of reality.
I sincerely hope that someone with our point of view who is in the area will attend that seminar and report on it. Tea partiers are not neo-nazis, nor are they skin-heads. It only takes a brief glance at all three to know the difference.
Below is my e-mail to the organizers of the conference at Brandeis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ms Von Meering and McAllister,
My name is Gary Fouse, and I am an adjunct teacher at the University of
California at Irvine. I should add that I am writing to you as a private citizen
and not as a representative of the university. I also write a (conservative)
blog at:
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com. (fousesquawk).
I write in connection with your up-coming conference on right-wing extremism in
Europe. As one who has spent three years in Germany and has extensively studied
German history and written a book on the history of Erlangen, Germany, I share
your concerns about neo-nazi and skin- head movements in Germany and
Europe-especially as they pertain to attacks on immigrants or Jews.
I have gotten the impression, perhaps erroneously, that your conference will:
1- concentrate on attacks upon Jews in Europe by neo-Nazis and skin heads
without addressing similar attacks upon Jews by Muslim immigrants-which is, in
my view, a more serious problem that can be easily documented in places like
London, Paris, Malmo, Sweden, Berlin and several other places..
2-Will draw links between Neo-Nazis and skin heads in Europe with tea-party
activists and demonstrators in the US.
I note in your web site announcement that the tea party is mentioned, as well as
the listing of one panelist (Chip Berlot), whose works apparently center around
right -wing extremists in the US.
First of all, I think that to connect tea-party activists with skin heads and
neo-Nazis in Europe is grossly inaccurate and unfair as any photographs of the
three groups will illustrate. To my knowledge, there has not yet been one
incident of violence in the US instigated by tea-party demonstrators or town
hall protestors. The handful of incidents where violence has occurred, such as
in St Louis, Tampa or Thousand Oaks, California, were instigated by counter
tea-party protestors, for example SEIU counter-demonstrators.
I would hope that your seminar will be fair-minded and balanced-not dictated by
political correctness. Though I am not Jewish, I am gravely concerned about the
resurgence in anti-Semitism in the West as a result of the Israel-Palestinian
conflict. If you are going to talk about racism in Europe without mentioning the
hatred being perpetrated by Muslim militants and try to connect it to tea-party
activists in the US, your seminar would be guilty of a gross distortion of fact.
I also believe that you would ignore the connection between the far-left in
Europe and North America with the pro-Palestinian side that has led directly, in
my view, to a resurgence in anti-Semitism both in Europe and North America.
Sincerely,
Gary Fouse
Adjunct teacher
University of California at Irvine
fousesquawk
Thanks chiefly to Fox News (see below link), the news is breaking that Brandeis University is hosting a seminar regarding right-wing radicalism in Europe on April
28th. The seminar is specifically being hosted by the German and European Studies Department. While the focus appears to be on Neo-Nazis and skin heads in Europe, it appears that there will be some discussion about the Tea Party activities in America.
Does Brandeis think there is a connection? Check out the links below. The first is from The Fox Nation, and the second is from the university web site announcing the seminar.
-http://www.thefoxnation.com/brandeis-university/2010/04/21/university-lumps-tea-parties-nazis?page=2
http://www.brandeis.edu/cges/
I take particular notice of one of the panelists, a certain Professor Chip Berlet. This gentleman's chief scholarly pursuit seems to be on the right-wing in America. That is his right, but what I detect here is an attempt to link neo-Nazis and skin heads in Europe with tea partiers in America.
That would be an outright lie.
As one who has lived in Europe and follows events there, I share the panelists' concern about people like skin-heads and neo-Nazis. I condemn any attacks (which are referred to) on "brown-skinned" immigrants. They also mention attacks on Jews. I am deeply concerned about that as well. My sneaking suspicion is, however, that they will ignore the daily harassment and assaults (verbal and physical) on Jews by Muslim immigrants and concentrate solely on the native punks who engage in that activity.
That would not only be politically-correct, it would be a gross distortion of reality.
I sincerely hope that someone with our point of view who is in the area will attend that seminar and report on it. Tea partiers are not neo-nazis, nor are they skin-heads. It only takes a brief glance at all three to know the difference.
Below is my e-mail to the organizers of the conference at Brandeis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ms Von Meering and McAllister,
My name is Gary Fouse, and I am an adjunct teacher at the University of
California at Irvine. I should add that I am writing to you as a private citizen
and not as a representative of the university. I also write a (conservative)
blog at:
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com. (fousesquawk).
I write in connection with your up-coming conference on right-wing extremism in
Europe. As one who has spent three years in Germany and has extensively studied
German history and written a book on the history of Erlangen, Germany, I share
your concerns about neo-nazi and skin- head movements in Germany and
Europe-especially as they pertain to attacks on immigrants or Jews.
I have gotten the impression, perhaps erroneously, that your conference will:
1- concentrate on attacks upon Jews in Europe by neo-Nazis and skin heads
without addressing similar attacks upon Jews by Muslim immigrants-which is, in
my view, a more serious problem that can be easily documented in places like
London, Paris, Malmo, Sweden, Berlin and several other places..
2-Will draw links between Neo-Nazis and skin heads in Europe with tea-party
activists and demonstrators in the US.
I note in your web site announcement that the tea party is mentioned, as well as
the listing of one panelist (Chip Berlot), whose works apparently center around
right -wing extremists in the US.
First of all, I think that to connect tea-party activists with skin heads and
neo-Nazis in Europe is grossly inaccurate and unfair as any photographs of the
three groups will illustrate. To my knowledge, there has not yet been one
incident of violence in the US instigated by tea-party demonstrators or town
hall protestors. The handful of incidents where violence has occurred, such as
in St Louis, Tampa or Thousand Oaks, California, were instigated by counter
tea-party protestors, for example SEIU counter-demonstrators.
I would hope that your seminar will be fair-minded and balanced-not dictated by
political correctness. Though I am not Jewish, I am gravely concerned about the
resurgence in anti-Semitism in the West as a result of the Israel-Palestinian
conflict. If you are going to talk about racism in Europe without mentioning the
hatred being perpetrated by Muslim militants and try to connect it to tea-party
activists in the US, your seminar would be guilty of a gross distortion of fact.
I also believe that you would ignore the connection between the far-left in
Europe and North America with the pro-Palestinian side that has led directly, in
my view, to a resurgence in anti-Semitism both in Europe and North America.
Sincerely,
Gary Fouse
Adjunct teacher
University of California at Irvine
Chris Matthews, Joe Klein and John Heilemann are Immoral UnAmerican Idiots!
Over the weekend, collective members of the goof-ball left met once again on Chris Matthews' show to plot the next ratchet yank in national tension; what immoral people do when facts and logic are not on their side. Yes, they made the racism charge again, making it painfully obvious that they intend to support the Democratic Party's racial divide strategy to the maximum. It would likely take at least a one hour daily program to comment on all the stupidity pouring out of TV screens from MSNBC, but I'll just do my part by commenting on the bit of idiocy that's been raising eyebrows this week.
Chris Matthews opened with a comment on Sarah Palin's characterization of Obama policies as “unamerican.” He said, “those words are license words. They're permission words.” Permission for what, you might ask? By coincidence (LOL!), Joe Klein had done some research before the show that fit right in. He had looked up the word “sedition.” “A lot of these statements,” Klein said, “especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin rub right up close to being seditious.” Heilemann added Rush Limbaugh to the list.
Sedition is the federal crime of advocacy of insurrection against the government or support for an enemy of the nation during time of war, by speeches, publications and organization. During U.S. participation in World War II (1941-1945) several leaders of the German-American Bund, a pro-Nazi organization, were tried and convicted of sedition for actively interfering with the war effort. Since freedom of speech, press and assembly are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and because treason and espionage charges can be made for overt acts against the nation's security, sedition charges are rare. (law.com)
It appears that Klein used one of the definitions from dictionary.com. “1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.” He did not repeat definition 2 from the same source. “2. Insurrection; rebellion.” He did not say that sedition is a crime, but the naughty kids were off and running in that direction. Klein brought it home, speculating with the others that there's probably been an increase in militia activity in the country (as per Obama administration's fake FBI assessment last year), “not just because he is African-American but because his name is Barack Hussein Obama.”
Just once I'd like to get a look at that top secret machine of theirs that reaches into the hearts and minds of their political opposition to pull out information and make connections that are not supported by objective evidence that mere humans are able to perceive. Have they called in a technician to look at it lately, I wonder? It so often seems to get stuck in a loop, repeating the same message like a broken record. Maybe the connections they infer come from randomly skipping through random thoughts and emotions?
A more general and complete understanding of sedition links it directly with the established political order. Their view on what that means – standing as a thick metal wall protecting Barack Obama and the Democrats against political opposition – is typically twisted. The direct and established meaning is that sedition is an act against the United States and Constitutional order. Political opposition and use of direct language in expressing opposition to a particular set of politicians, policies, and acts is not sedition. It's politics.
But isn't this just a little too defensive? If I stopped here in the analysis, I might just as well have left the goof-ball comments of the three stooges alone. What we need to notice is the tendency of the collective left to project its own characteristics and intentions onto others. Matthews, Klein, and Heilemann are promoting racial tension; tension that has led to extreme emotionally driven behavior. Are they attempting to push racial tensions to violence, and for what purpose?
The left has a general tendency to create its own backwards imaginary world and live in it. Part of that world is the entirely unamerican view that people – the politicians in office (their guys and gals) – rather than the Constitutional system define our political order. Their “progressive” view is that we should return to a system pre-dating modern civil rights that were created as a consequence of limiting government power (whenever their people are in office). They even strongly favor “global governance,” which would invite foreign entities to take control of US resources (the equivalent of a successful military invasion). Because they incite extreme behavior in opposition to Constitutional rule and support insurrection against the United States, I'd have to say that their behavior comes much closer to sedition.
Chris Matthews opened with a comment on Sarah Palin's characterization of Obama policies as “unamerican.” He said, “those words are license words. They're permission words.” Permission for what, you might ask? By coincidence (LOL!), Joe Klein had done some research before the show that fit right in. He had looked up the word “sedition.” “A lot of these statements,” Klein said, “especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin rub right up close to being seditious.” Heilemann added Rush Limbaugh to the list.
Sedition is the federal crime of advocacy of insurrection against the government or support for an enemy of the nation during time of war, by speeches, publications and organization. During U.S. participation in World War II (1941-1945) several leaders of the German-American Bund, a pro-Nazi organization, were tried and convicted of sedition for actively interfering with the war effort. Since freedom of speech, press and assembly are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and because treason and espionage charges can be made for overt acts against the nation's security, sedition charges are rare. (law.com)
It appears that Klein used one of the definitions from dictionary.com. “1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.” He did not repeat definition 2 from the same source. “2. Insurrection; rebellion.” He did not say that sedition is a crime, but the naughty kids were off and running in that direction. Klein brought it home, speculating with the others that there's probably been an increase in militia activity in the country (as per Obama administration's fake FBI assessment last year), “not just because he is African-American but because his name is Barack Hussein Obama.”
Just once I'd like to get a look at that top secret machine of theirs that reaches into the hearts and minds of their political opposition to pull out information and make connections that are not supported by objective evidence that mere humans are able to perceive. Have they called in a technician to look at it lately, I wonder? It so often seems to get stuck in a loop, repeating the same message like a broken record. Maybe the connections they infer come from randomly skipping through random thoughts and emotions?
A more general and complete understanding of sedition links it directly with the established political order. Their view on what that means – standing as a thick metal wall protecting Barack Obama and the Democrats against political opposition – is typically twisted. The direct and established meaning is that sedition is an act against the United States and Constitutional order. Political opposition and use of direct language in expressing opposition to a particular set of politicians, policies, and acts is not sedition. It's politics.
But isn't this just a little too defensive? If I stopped here in the analysis, I might just as well have left the goof-ball comments of the three stooges alone. What we need to notice is the tendency of the collective left to project its own characteristics and intentions onto others. Matthews, Klein, and Heilemann are promoting racial tension; tension that has led to extreme emotionally driven behavior. Are they attempting to push racial tensions to violence, and for what purpose?
The left has a general tendency to create its own backwards imaginary world and live in it. Part of that world is the entirely unamerican view that people – the politicians in office (their guys and gals) – rather than the Constitutional system define our political order. Their “progressive” view is that we should return to a system pre-dating modern civil rights that were created as a consequence of limiting government power (whenever their people are in office). They even strongly favor “global governance,” which would invite foreign entities to take control of US resources (the equivalent of a successful military invasion). Because they incite extreme behavior in opposition to Constitutional rule and support insurrection against the United States, I'd have to say that their behavior comes much closer to sedition.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Department of State Released Bogus Climate Report
An environmental coalition publicized a US Department of State draft report on climate change Monday, one week before the expected unveiling of a compromise U.S. Senate bill that aims to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The report, a draft of the Fifth U.S. Climate Action Report that will be sent to the United Nations, says bluntly: "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced ... Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."
Without action to stop them, climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions will rise over 8,000 megatonnes by mid-century, the draft said. By adopting measures detailed in a bill passed last year by the U.S. House of Representatives, these emissions will drop beneath 2,000 megatonnes. They're now about 6,500 megatonnes. The United Nations measures greenhouse gas emissions in megatonnes, or million metric tons.
The effects of climate change are already evident, the draft said: warming air and oceans, vanishing mountain glaciers, thawing permafrost, signs of instability in the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica and rising sea levels.
The State Department draft, now open for public comment, precedes the expected April 26 unveiling of Senate legislation by Democrat John Kerry, Republican Lindsey Graham and Independent Joe Lieberman.
Supporters of the bill hope this will pave the way for the full Senate to debate and pass a measure in June or July.
The State Department report will ultimately go to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; previous U.S. reports to this body were in 1994, 1997, 2002 and 2007.
The draft report is available online at http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rpts/car5/index.htm.
Source: Climate report publicized in runup to Senate bill
The report, a draft of the Fifth U.S. Climate Action Report that will be sent to the United Nations, says bluntly: "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced ... Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."
Without action to stop them, climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions will rise over 8,000 megatonnes by mid-century, the draft said. By adopting measures detailed in a bill passed last year by the U.S. House of Representatives, these emissions will drop beneath 2,000 megatonnes. They're now about 6,500 megatonnes. The United Nations measures greenhouse gas emissions in megatonnes, or million metric tons.
The effects of climate change are already evident, the draft said: warming air and oceans, vanishing mountain glaciers, thawing permafrost, signs of instability in the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica and rising sea levels.
The State Department draft, now open for public comment, precedes the expected April 26 unveiling of Senate legislation by Democrat John Kerry, Republican Lindsey Graham and Independent Joe Lieberman.
Supporters of the bill hope this will pave the way for the full Senate to debate and pass a measure in June or July.
The State Department report will ultimately go to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; previous U.S. reports to this body were in 1994, 1997, 2002 and 2007.
The draft report is available online at http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rpts/car5/index.htm.
Source: Climate report publicized in runup to Senate bill
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Obama Administration Violates Minimum Wage Laws for Propaganda Films
Only a matter of time, you must think, before you can call a toll-free number at the White House to place a bet on your favorite football team. Let the games begin. The Obama administration is playing politics by offering some lucky contest winner $2500 of your American dollars for best pro-Obama Big Government propaganda film of 2010.
The Environmental Protection Agency is running the contest – yes, that now extremely controversial agency with an extremely controversial mission – to explain to the American people why Barack Obama should be able to order the EPA to implement his own fraudulent “global warming” law without a law actually being passed by Congress.
The “Rulemaking Matters” video contest will reward “the best” 60-90 second video that “highlights the importance of federal regulation and motivates others to participate in the rule-making process.” Learn a little first. According to the instructional video, the role of Congress is to outline law and provide funding. The real meat of law is normally created by federal agencies. Thus, one might think it only natural that if Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency, they must be authorized to “protect the environment” in whatever way they see fit.
The really-pretty-obvious political issue the contest addresses is divided along party lines. So, once again, we see the Obama administration illegally using public funds for partisan political purposes. But what say you about minimum wage laws? How many people will respond by producing a propaganda film for the Obama administration and post it to YouTube without being paid a dime? (You know they will! So does Obama and the EPA.)
Quite frankly, when one considers the going rate for a 15-60 second campaign ad, even the winner is being ripped off. 2500 bucks? Come on! In the world of Big Politics, that's lunch money.
The Environmental Protection Agency is running the contest – yes, that now extremely controversial agency with an extremely controversial mission – to explain to the American people why Barack Obama should be able to order the EPA to implement his own fraudulent “global warming” law without a law actually being passed by Congress.
The “Rulemaking Matters” video contest will reward “the best” 60-90 second video that “highlights the importance of federal regulation and motivates others to participate in the rule-making process.” Learn a little first. According to the instructional video, the role of Congress is to outline law and provide funding. The real meat of law is normally created by federal agencies. Thus, one might think it only natural that if Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency, they must be authorized to “protect the environment” in whatever way they see fit.
The really-pretty-obvious political issue the contest addresses is divided along party lines. So, once again, we see the Obama administration illegally using public funds for partisan political purposes. But what say you about minimum wage laws? How many people will respond by producing a propaganda film for the Obama administration and post it to YouTube without being paid a dime? (You know they will! So does Obama and the EPA.)
Quite frankly, when one considers the going rate for a 15-60 second campaign ad, even the winner is being ripped off. 2500 bucks? Come on! In the world of Big Politics, that's lunch money.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
France Bans Egyptian TV Channel Al Rahma Over Anti-Semitic Broadcasts
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
Imam Hazem Shuman of Egypt
Kudos to the French government for shutting down satellite broadcasts of the Egyptian TV channel Al Rahma after repeated anti-Semitic broadcasts transmitted to France.
http://www.ejpress.org/article/43438
The breaking point was a broadcast by a lunatic imam named Hazem Shuman, who in a "sermon", referred to Jews as apes and pigs and warned them "their time was coming".
Egyptian Cleric Hazem Shuman's Message "for Every Jew on the Face of the Earth": The Day of Vengeance Is Nearing
Following are excerpts from an address by Egyptian cleric Hazem Shuman, which aired on Al-Rahma TV on October 31, 2009. (Transcript by Memri TV-video also available from Memri)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazem Shuman:
"Tonight’s lecture is one of the most important lectures of this series. Tonight, we will talk about the Battle of Khaybar, about the Prophet Muhammad’s greatest battle [with the Jews], in which the Prophet eradicated the Jewish presence in Al-Madina.
On June 5, 1967, when the Jews occupied Palestine and Jerusalem and were celebrating their victory, Moshe Dayan cried: “This is our revenge for Khaybar.” How come Khaybar remained seared in their hearts for 1,400 years? After 1,400 years, their hearts are still burning because of Khaybar. The first thing that the Prophet Muhammad did after his victory in the Hudaybiyya Treaty, after he stabilized the Muslim state, and neutralized the Quraysh front, the first mission of the Prophet Muhammad, his first campaign, was against the Jews of Khaybar.
Your turn has come at last, you offspring of apes and pigs, you most accursed creatures created by Allah, you people who have harmed the Prophet again and again.
Only 20 days after the Hudaybiyya Treaty, the Prophet Muhammad decided to take the army of Islam to Khaybar. Why the Jews of all people? It has been proven that the Jews are like a cancer – if they are not removed from the body of the nation, they will kill the entire nation. Unless the Jews were dealt with, they would have brought the Persians and the Byzantines to the Arabian Peninsula. the Jews are dangerous to the whole world. They threatened the stability of the Arabian Peninsula.
[...]
Jews are always the same. We are still tormented by the sights of their massacres of the Muslims, when they went into Sabra and Shatila. Sharon chopped off the limbs of children, and used them to make a necklace, so that he could boast that he dismembered the bodies of Muslim children. When the Jews entered Sabra and Shatila, a Jewish soldier took a pregnant woman and emptied a submachine gun into her neck. When she was dead, he cut open her belly, took out her nine-month-old fetus, and slaughtered it in front of the Muslims.
They took 30 Muslim men and women, including a newly-wed couple, and shot them all in Sabra and Shatila. They chased a six-year-old boy, whose mother was hugging him and calling for help. They stabbed him with knives and killed him in his mother’s lap. In the end, she went mad, because of what had happened. They shot dead an entire family, except for a baby, who screamed at the sight of the bloodbath. The moment they saw he was crying, they shot him with a machine-gun as well. At Sabra and Shatila, they raped a Muslim woman, and then killed her children in front of her. They tore off women’s ears, by pulling their earrings.
[...]
The Jews of Khaybar in the 7th year of the hijra are a replica of the state of Israel in 2009, in terms of the terrifying economy that sucked the blood of the Arabs, the military armaments and superiority over the entire region, the settlements that form the state, the fortifications, like the separation fence that they are building today.
When the army of the Muslims arrived, the Jews removed their women and children from the fortifications at the front, and left only their fighters at the front... The army of the Prophet Muhammad was very poor. The Muslims had nothing to eat. The first time they ate was after the conquest of Khaybar.
One of the Prophet Muhammad’s companions had a debt to a Jew. The Jew told him he had to pay his debt before he left, but the Muslim did not have even 5 dirham, so he sold his clothes so he could pay his debt and leave. The Prophet’s companions sold their clothes in order to fight the Jews, and take revenge upon them.
[...]
Finally, [in the battle of Khaybar], Allah gave the Muslims strength, and they launched a martyrdom-seeking attack on the fortifications. All their lives long, they were martyrdom-seekers and heroes, who sacrificed their blood for Islam. They stormed the fortress and took the Jews captive, for the first time. All the other Jews fled.
When the Muslims entered the fortress, they were astounded. What is this? Never in their lives had they seen so much food – enough to last years. They were astounded by the weapons too. There was a weapon called a tank. It was a house made of tin, like today’s tanks. Soldiers sat in it and drove it towards the fortifications. When they were pelted with arrows, it did not have any effect on them. There were catapults, which fired bombs of fire, which penetrated the walls and smashed the fortifications. Why did the Jews amass all these weapons? They were planning to use them against the Muslims. They were preparing for the day when they would fight the Muslims – otherwise, why would they have amassed all those weapons? The [Muslims] also found large quantities of wine, which they poured out on the floor.
[...]
The [Muslim fighters] reached the final fortification, the final battle. All the Jews, including women and children, were here. The walls were enormous. The number of arrows fired from its towers was indescribable. Its gates were well fortified, and no one could escape from there. This was the first time that the Prophet Muhammad used catapults. The [Muslims] shot catapults at the walls until there were gaping holes in them. All the Muslim army charged into the final fortress, with hatred burning in their hearts for the Jews, with a strong desire to take revenge upon the offspring of apes and pigs.
All the Muslims – men and women – charged with a strong desire to annihilate the Jews. They entered the fortress, and a terrible battle took place, a violent battle in the last fortress, until all the Jewish soldiers were arrested and all the Jewish women captured. Khaybar trembled with the sound of the cries of “Allah Akbar,” and the entire Arabian Peninsula shook with the victorious cries of “Allah Akbar.”
1,400 soldiers defeated 10,000 Jews. The Jews were defeated, and the reputation of the invincible army was shattered. After a month-long siege and terrible fighting, the Jews were defeated. The Arabian Peninsula shook with the cries of “Allah Akbar,” and the Jews collapsed.
Soon the cries of “Allah Akbar” will be sounded at the gates of Jerusalem, and at the gates of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Soon, cries of “Allah Akbar” will be heard on the day of vengeance against the Jews.
The Jews were defeated. The Prophet Muhammad and everybody was very surprised that only 96 Jews were killed, along with 16 Muslims. 96 people? The Prophet could have massacred the Jews, down to the last one. Why did the Prophet Muhammad let them be? Because the Prophet Muhammad does not fight for the sake of war or bloodshed. He fights for the sake of peace. this proves to what extent he is the prophet of peace.
[...]
I have a message for every Jew on the face of the earth. The army of Muhammad will return. Oh offspring of apes and pigs, the day of vengeance is nearing. Oh most accursed creatures created by Allah, those who swore before the Prophet Muhammad to die are returning. Wait for us and you will see, you most accursed creatures.
[...]
Oh nation of Muhammad, do not be afraid to wage war against the Jews. If you do not fight for the sake of Palestine, Allah will fight you. Decide what you are more afraid of – a war with the Jews, or a war with Allah. Can you fight God? If you abandon Palestine, you will be fighting God."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier, in February 2009, Shuman is shown here warning his followers about the dangers of.......
Valentine's Day!!
Originally, as I was drafting this, I was going to put up my usual laughing faces and Alfred E. Newman caricature alongside this Valentine's Day speech. I thought better of it after reading the words in the other video. There is nothing funny about this. This crazed fanatic is deadly serious.
Shuman is not an isolated case in the Middle Eastern media-especially in Egypt. Several so-called mainstream media organs regularly publish anti-Jewish cartoons reminiscent of the old Nazi publication, Der Stuermer. Here are a few examples.
There are countless more, but you get the point. So tell me all you folks here in the West who are comparing Israel to Nazis....
who are the real Nazis?
fousesquawk
Imam Hazem Shuman of Egypt
Kudos to the French government for shutting down satellite broadcasts of the Egyptian TV channel Al Rahma after repeated anti-Semitic broadcasts transmitted to France.
http://www.ejpress.org/article/43438
The breaking point was a broadcast by a lunatic imam named Hazem Shuman, who in a "sermon", referred to Jews as apes and pigs and warned them "their time was coming".
Egyptian Cleric Hazem Shuman's Message "for Every Jew on the Face of the Earth": The Day of Vengeance Is Nearing
Following are excerpts from an address by Egyptian cleric Hazem Shuman, which aired on Al-Rahma TV on October 31, 2009. (Transcript by Memri TV-video also available from Memri)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazem Shuman:
"Tonight’s lecture is one of the most important lectures of this series. Tonight, we will talk about the Battle of Khaybar, about the Prophet Muhammad’s greatest battle [with the Jews], in which the Prophet eradicated the Jewish presence in Al-Madina.
On June 5, 1967, when the Jews occupied Palestine and Jerusalem and were celebrating their victory, Moshe Dayan cried: “This is our revenge for Khaybar.” How come Khaybar remained seared in their hearts for 1,400 years? After 1,400 years, their hearts are still burning because of Khaybar. The first thing that the Prophet Muhammad did after his victory in the Hudaybiyya Treaty, after he stabilized the Muslim state, and neutralized the Quraysh front, the first mission of the Prophet Muhammad, his first campaign, was against the Jews of Khaybar.
Your turn has come at last, you offspring of apes and pigs, you most accursed creatures created by Allah, you people who have harmed the Prophet again and again.
Only 20 days after the Hudaybiyya Treaty, the Prophet Muhammad decided to take the army of Islam to Khaybar. Why the Jews of all people? It has been proven that the Jews are like a cancer – if they are not removed from the body of the nation, they will kill the entire nation. Unless the Jews were dealt with, they would have brought the Persians and the Byzantines to the Arabian Peninsula. the Jews are dangerous to the whole world. They threatened the stability of the Arabian Peninsula.
[...]
Jews are always the same. We are still tormented by the sights of their massacres of the Muslims, when they went into Sabra and Shatila. Sharon chopped off the limbs of children, and used them to make a necklace, so that he could boast that he dismembered the bodies of Muslim children. When the Jews entered Sabra and Shatila, a Jewish soldier took a pregnant woman and emptied a submachine gun into her neck. When she was dead, he cut open her belly, took out her nine-month-old fetus, and slaughtered it in front of the Muslims.
They took 30 Muslim men and women, including a newly-wed couple, and shot them all in Sabra and Shatila. They chased a six-year-old boy, whose mother was hugging him and calling for help. They stabbed him with knives and killed him in his mother’s lap. In the end, she went mad, because of what had happened. They shot dead an entire family, except for a baby, who screamed at the sight of the bloodbath. The moment they saw he was crying, they shot him with a machine-gun as well. At Sabra and Shatila, they raped a Muslim woman, and then killed her children in front of her. They tore off women’s ears, by pulling their earrings.
[...]
The Jews of Khaybar in the 7th year of the hijra are a replica of the state of Israel in 2009, in terms of the terrifying economy that sucked the blood of the Arabs, the military armaments and superiority over the entire region, the settlements that form the state, the fortifications, like the separation fence that they are building today.
When the army of the Muslims arrived, the Jews removed their women and children from the fortifications at the front, and left only their fighters at the front... The army of the Prophet Muhammad was very poor. The Muslims had nothing to eat. The first time they ate was after the conquest of Khaybar.
One of the Prophet Muhammad’s companions had a debt to a Jew. The Jew told him he had to pay his debt before he left, but the Muslim did not have even 5 dirham, so he sold his clothes so he could pay his debt and leave. The Prophet’s companions sold their clothes in order to fight the Jews, and take revenge upon them.
[...]
Finally, [in the battle of Khaybar], Allah gave the Muslims strength, and they launched a martyrdom-seeking attack on the fortifications. All their lives long, they were martyrdom-seekers and heroes, who sacrificed their blood for Islam. They stormed the fortress and took the Jews captive, for the first time. All the other Jews fled.
When the Muslims entered the fortress, they were astounded. What is this? Never in their lives had they seen so much food – enough to last years. They were astounded by the weapons too. There was a weapon called a tank. It was a house made of tin, like today’s tanks. Soldiers sat in it and drove it towards the fortifications. When they were pelted with arrows, it did not have any effect on them. There were catapults, which fired bombs of fire, which penetrated the walls and smashed the fortifications. Why did the Jews amass all these weapons? They were planning to use them against the Muslims. They were preparing for the day when they would fight the Muslims – otherwise, why would they have amassed all those weapons? The [Muslims] also found large quantities of wine, which they poured out on the floor.
[...]
The [Muslim fighters] reached the final fortification, the final battle. All the Jews, including women and children, were here. The walls were enormous. The number of arrows fired from its towers was indescribable. Its gates were well fortified, and no one could escape from there. This was the first time that the Prophet Muhammad used catapults. The [Muslims] shot catapults at the walls until there were gaping holes in them. All the Muslim army charged into the final fortress, with hatred burning in their hearts for the Jews, with a strong desire to take revenge upon the offspring of apes and pigs.
All the Muslims – men and women – charged with a strong desire to annihilate the Jews. They entered the fortress, and a terrible battle took place, a violent battle in the last fortress, until all the Jewish soldiers were arrested and all the Jewish women captured. Khaybar trembled with the sound of the cries of “Allah Akbar,” and the entire Arabian Peninsula shook with the victorious cries of “Allah Akbar.”
1,400 soldiers defeated 10,000 Jews. The Jews were defeated, and the reputation of the invincible army was shattered. After a month-long siege and terrible fighting, the Jews were defeated. The Arabian Peninsula shook with the cries of “Allah Akbar,” and the Jews collapsed.
Soon the cries of “Allah Akbar” will be sounded at the gates of Jerusalem, and at the gates of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Soon, cries of “Allah Akbar” will be heard on the day of vengeance against the Jews.
The Jews were defeated. The Prophet Muhammad and everybody was very surprised that only 96 Jews were killed, along with 16 Muslims. 96 people? The Prophet could have massacred the Jews, down to the last one. Why did the Prophet Muhammad let them be? Because the Prophet Muhammad does not fight for the sake of war or bloodshed. He fights for the sake of peace. this proves to what extent he is the prophet of peace.
[...]
I have a message for every Jew on the face of the earth. The army of Muhammad will return. Oh offspring of apes and pigs, the day of vengeance is nearing. Oh most accursed creatures created by Allah, those who swore before the Prophet Muhammad to die are returning. Wait for us and you will see, you most accursed creatures.
[...]
Oh nation of Muhammad, do not be afraid to wage war against the Jews. If you do not fight for the sake of Palestine, Allah will fight you. Decide what you are more afraid of – a war with the Jews, or a war with Allah. Can you fight God? If you abandon Palestine, you will be fighting God."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier, in February 2009, Shuman is shown here warning his followers about the dangers of.......
Valentine's Day!!
Originally, as I was drafting this, I was going to put up my usual laughing faces and Alfred E. Newman caricature alongside this Valentine's Day speech. I thought better of it after reading the words in the other video. There is nothing funny about this. This crazed fanatic is deadly serious.
Shuman is not an isolated case in the Middle Eastern media-especially in Egypt. Several so-called mainstream media organs regularly publish anti-Jewish cartoons reminiscent of the old Nazi publication, Der Stuermer. Here are a few examples.
There are countless more, but you get the point. So tell me all you folks here in the West who are comparing Israel to Nazis....
who are the real Nazis?
Stealing from NASA
By Roger F. Gay
NASA is a public activity, paid for by Americans. Stealing from NASA is stealing from The People. It's not a policy choice, it's a crime.
Barack Obama spent Tax Day “reassuring” Florida voters that money will keep flowing to NASA. (article) But instead of pursuing cutting-edge space technology and exploration, there will be a focus on things such as monitoring the Earth's climate.
“In space, no one can hear you scheme.” But the public has reached the point that they could recognize the Al Gore “Earth has a fever” con-game from there. In this age of sophisticated technology, images from space are clearly showing train loads of cash being hauled away by sneering little mobsters. We have the ability to target them, but it takes authorization from the mobsters themselves.
Power and financial control will shift to another far-left radical in the Obama line-up, the “godfather” of the global warming scam and advisor to Al Gore, James Hansen. (NASA Climate Data Verses the Conspiracy to Commit Good Science, Hansen Nailed for US Climate Data Manipulation, Global Warming: Survival of a Junk Scientist (James Hansen)) Hansen has been director of the NASA funded “Goddard Institute for Space Studies” at Columbia University since 1981, but also accepts large payments for political lobbying related to the global warming scam (Follow the Money : James Hansen Gets Another Pay-Off), and has for many years profited from sales of his own global warming scare-mongering books.
Since Climategate, the public has grown more aware of what many scientists already knew. There is no real evidence of catastrophic man-made global warming. Climategate emails and data served as confirmation of a multi-billion dollar con-game facilitated by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and driven by far-left “environmental” activists and scientists who were profiteering. The IPCC is a political mechanism for bypassing and stifling scientific scrutiny and maintaining the scam. It tied in with billions of dollars in funding under political control. Real scientific inquiry was ridiculed and the scientists ostracized for questioning artificially composed and fraudulently supported “scientific” dogma. There never was a “scientific consensus” behind Al Gore's claims. A small number of people who controlled IPCC report writing, manipulated results in contradiction to even the minority scientific peer-review that did take place. Much of the “science” in the reports is not science at all, but hyped up unsupported advocacy and newspaper reports that simply repeat propaganda myths.
There is no great question to be settled. There is no evidence of catastrophic man-made global warming. That is the answer. There is nothing that “climate science” can potentially offer in support of Cap-n-Trade or other “do something about climate change” politics. There is nothing for government to do about climate. There is no unusual reason to worry about the weather.
But let's say we just think weather is fascinating and recognize that there is some economic advantage to better understanding it; such as by accurately predicting world-wide crop yields so that you can make a killing on the futures market. Why not make understanding the weather a new scientific frontier much like the space-race used to be? Why not set a national goal like reliable prediction of global weather patterns for the next six months along with extremely accurate prediction of energy consumption and agricultural output?
Because they couldn't achieve the goal. No great scientific advancements can reasonably be expected by shifting NASA's focus to monitoring the Earth's climate. For the most part (most, not all), “climate science” is an illusion and will remain so far into the future. One day, scientists will know much more about the weather, when technology is sufficiently advanced to provide and process huge amounts of data and that process has taken place over many, many years – at least. Or, simpler and more direct methods (such as watching sun-spots and improving crop-yield models) that rely on existing technology will rapidly out-pace Especially Big Science (fiction) projects in advancements – without multi-billion dollar annual budgets and without multi-trillion dollar hits to the world economy.
The solution to the current “climate science” problem is nowhere to be found in refocusing NASA's budget. The solution is in refocusing the budget for weather research. Fire, rather than promote, the con-men, eliminate the fake and get back to real science on a credible budget. But that of course, may require that we first remove the mobsters from higher political offices.
Related: Obama and Goldman Sachs
NASA is a public activity, paid for by Americans. Stealing from NASA is stealing from The People. It's not a policy choice, it's a crime.
Barack Obama spent Tax Day “reassuring” Florida voters that money will keep flowing to NASA. (article) But instead of pursuing cutting-edge space technology and exploration, there will be a focus on things such as monitoring the Earth's climate.
“In space, no one can hear you scheme.” But the public has reached the point that they could recognize the Al Gore “Earth has a fever” con-game from there. In this age of sophisticated technology, images from space are clearly showing train loads of cash being hauled away by sneering little mobsters. We have the ability to target them, but it takes authorization from the mobsters themselves.
Power and financial control will shift to another far-left radical in the Obama line-up, the “godfather” of the global warming scam and advisor to Al Gore, James Hansen. (NASA Climate Data Verses the Conspiracy to Commit Good Science, Hansen Nailed for US Climate Data Manipulation, Global Warming: Survival of a Junk Scientist (James Hansen)) Hansen has been director of the NASA funded “Goddard Institute for Space Studies” at Columbia University since 1981, but also accepts large payments for political lobbying related to the global warming scam (Follow the Money : James Hansen Gets Another Pay-Off), and has for many years profited from sales of his own global warming scare-mongering books.
Since Climategate, the public has grown more aware of what many scientists already knew. There is no real evidence of catastrophic man-made global warming. Climategate emails and data served as confirmation of a multi-billion dollar con-game facilitated by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and driven by far-left “environmental” activists and scientists who were profiteering. The IPCC is a political mechanism for bypassing and stifling scientific scrutiny and maintaining the scam. It tied in with billions of dollars in funding under political control. Real scientific inquiry was ridiculed and the scientists ostracized for questioning artificially composed and fraudulently supported “scientific” dogma. There never was a “scientific consensus” behind Al Gore's claims. A small number of people who controlled IPCC report writing, manipulated results in contradiction to even the minority scientific peer-review that did take place. Much of the “science” in the reports is not science at all, but hyped up unsupported advocacy and newspaper reports that simply repeat propaganda myths.
There is no great question to be settled. There is no evidence of catastrophic man-made global warming. That is the answer. There is nothing that “climate science” can potentially offer in support of Cap-n-Trade or other “do something about climate change” politics. There is nothing for government to do about climate. There is no unusual reason to worry about the weather.
But let's say we just think weather is fascinating and recognize that there is some economic advantage to better understanding it; such as by accurately predicting world-wide crop yields so that you can make a killing on the futures market. Why not make understanding the weather a new scientific frontier much like the space-race used to be? Why not set a national goal like reliable prediction of global weather patterns for the next six months along with extremely accurate prediction of energy consumption and agricultural output?
Because they couldn't achieve the goal. No great scientific advancements can reasonably be expected by shifting NASA's focus to monitoring the Earth's climate. For the most part (most, not all), “climate science” is an illusion and will remain so far into the future. One day, scientists will know much more about the weather, when technology is sufficiently advanced to provide and process huge amounts of data and that process has taken place over many, many years – at least. Or, simpler and more direct methods (such as watching sun-spots and improving crop-yield models) that rely on existing technology will rapidly out-pace Especially Big Science (fiction) projects in advancements – without multi-billion dollar annual budgets and without multi-trillion dollar hits to the world economy.
The solution to the current “climate science” problem is nowhere to be found in refocusing NASA's budget. The solution is in refocusing the budget for weather research. Fire, rather than promote, the con-men, eliminate the fake and get back to real science on a credible budget. But that of course, may require that we first remove the mobsters from higher political offices.
Related: Obama and Goldman Sachs
Friday, April 16, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Arizona Passes Illegal Alien Law
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
Presently, the state of Arizona is the hotbed of illegal alien border crossings from Mexico into the US. The focus shifted east when fences were constructed by the Federal government in California along much of its border with Mexico. In addition, Arizona has been hit with a recent murder of a ranch owner whose property was near the border by an illegal alien. Now the Arizona House-free from the governorship of Janet Napolitano, now head of Homeland Security, which is a joke-has just passed a law that makes it a state violation to be an illegal alien. It still needs to be signed by the governor.
State Senator Russell Pearce (R-Mesa) was interviewed today on KFI's John and Ken Show (Los Angeles). He explained how the law works. This law now obligates law enforcement to take action when they determine that someone they have stopped or arrested is in the country illegally. They are now required to detain the individual and must notify ICE. They will now be allowed to develop probable cause that the person may be in the country illegally when engaged with a suspect.
Of course, Arizona has several Democrat-controlled cities that are so-called "sanctuary cities". They are cities like Phoenix, Flagstaff, Tucson, and Chandler. Here is the interesting part; Should local authorities fail to follow the law, they are now subject to lawsuits by private citizens, which is written into the law. The supporters of this law have brought together attorneys who are prepared to file lawsuits for non-compliance. Public support is overwhelming including 60% of the state's Hispanic population.
Most of law enforcement has enthusiastically endorsed the law including 9 of the 15county sheriffs. Certain city police chiefs, who are beholden to Democrat-controlled city leadership have not signed on-as might be respected.
What a novel idea! Do you think all four southern border states will adopt similar measures? Well, that all depends which party is in control.
fousesquawk
Presently, the state of Arizona is the hotbed of illegal alien border crossings from Mexico into the US. The focus shifted east when fences were constructed by the Federal government in California along much of its border with Mexico. In addition, Arizona has been hit with a recent murder of a ranch owner whose property was near the border by an illegal alien. Now the Arizona House-free from the governorship of Janet Napolitano, now head of Homeland Security, which is a joke-has just passed a law that makes it a state violation to be an illegal alien. It still needs to be signed by the governor.
State Senator Russell Pearce (R-Mesa) was interviewed today on KFI's John and Ken Show (Los Angeles). He explained how the law works. This law now obligates law enforcement to take action when they determine that someone they have stopped or arrested is in the country illegally. They are now required to detain the individual and must notify ICE. They will now be allowed to develop probable cause that the person may be in the country illegally when engaged with a suspect.
Of course, Arizona has several Democrat-controlled cities that are so-called "sanctuary cities". They are cities like Phoenix, Flagstaff, Tucson, and Chandler. Here is the interesting part; Should local authorities fail to follow the law, they are now subject to lawsuits by private citizens, which is written into the law. The supporters of this law have brought together attorneys who are prepared to file lawsuits for non-compliance. Public support is overwhelming including 60% of the state's Hispanic population.
Most of law enforcement has enthusiastically endorsed the law including 9 of the 15county sheriffs. Certain city police chiefs, who are beholden to Democrat-controlled city leadership have not signed on-as might be respected.
What a novel idea! Do you think all four southern border states will adopt similar measures? Well, that all depends which party is in control.
Election 2012: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%
Rasmussen Reports:
Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.
Now, lets see this matchup take place and get Ron Paul into the White House!
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Democrat Thugs Brutally Beat Couple Wearing Palin Pins
Human Events (developing story) : Friday evening outside of a $10,000-per-plate Republican fundraiser at Brennan’s Restaurant in New Orleans, a top fundraiser for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal -- along with her boyfriend -- were assaulted as they walked to their vehicle parked two blocks away.
The Hayride reports that Allee Bautsch and her boyfriend Joe Brown were followed and attacked expressly because they had Palin pins on. The New Orleans Times-Picayune is reporting Bautsch suffered a broken leg and Brown suffered a concussion, a broken jaw and a broken nose in the attack. Bautch required surgery over the weekend with an estimated 2-3 month recovery time.
“NOPD is investigating the incident and we are refraining from further comment to allow them to fully investigate and ensure justice is done,” Kyle Plotkin, Jindal spokesman, said. “Our prayers are with Allee. She is a strong person and we are sure she will make a speedy recovery.”
Developing story in New Allegations of Political Motivation in Brutal Beating of Jindal Fundraiser
The Hayride reports that Allee Bautsch and her boyfriend Joe Brown were followed and attacked expressly because they had Palin pins on. The New Orleans Times-Picayune is reporting Bautsch suffered a broken leg and Brown suffered a concussion, a broken jaw and a broken nose in the attack. Bautch required surgery over the weekend with an estimated 2-3 month recovery time.
“NOPD is investigating the incident and we are refraining from further comment to allow them to fully investigate and ensure justice is done,” Kyle Plotkin, Jindal spokesman, said. “Our prayers are with Allee. She is a strong person and we are sure she will make a speedy recovery.”
Developing story in New Allegations of Political Motivation in Brutal Beating of Jindal Fundraiser
Liberty Day - A Republic, if you can keep it
Andy McKean, President & Founder of Liberty Day:
Mr. King was an extraordinary man with an extraordinary pride in his country. Overcome with love and appreciation for his country, tears would swell up in Mr. King’s eyes each time the American flag would pass by at a parade.
In memory of this uncommon patriot, the King Foundation, its President, Robert Sweeney, and the Foundation’s Board of Directors have been loyal supporters of the cause of freedom and liberty, dedicated to doing their part to keep the republic. In keeping with Mr. King’s motto to “do the common thing in an uncommon way,” the foundation continues to provide a generous contribution to Liberty Day each year.
When I founded Liberty Day with my wife Kathy in 1996, we never anticipated the things we would accomplish.When Liberty Day began as a grassroots effort in partnership with the Denver Lions Club in 1996, it was the Denver-based Kenneth King Foundation that provided Liberty Day President Andy McKean with the seed money to launch the effort.
Ben Franklin challenged us that we will have a republic only if we can keep it. But this great nation will be unable to heed his words if our citizens are not proactive in educating others—especially fifth graders learning about government for the first time.
I hope you will take a look at what our new website has to offer.
Mr. King was an extraordinary man with an extraordinary pride in his country. Overcome with love and appreciation for his country, tears would swell up in Mr. King’s eyes each time the American flag would pass by at a parade.
In memory of this uncommon patriot, the King Foundation, its President, Robert Sweeney, and the Foundation’s Board of Directors have been loyal supporters of the cause of freedom and liberty, dedicated to doing their part to keep the republic. In keeping with Mr. King’s motto to “do the common thing in an uncommon way,” the foundation continues to provide a generous contribution to Liberty Day each year.
Climategate: Faster and Faster, the Dominos Fall
With the revelation about the cherrypicked Russian stations (plus six other freshly, independently discovered problems), the real story of how we got here just took a shape.
The Climategate files were made public just a month ago, and the email messages that were revealed have already had real impact. The emails show us scientists being petty and political, even corrupt. Suppressing dissenting science and perhaps even violating the law to prevent data from being shared with the rest of the world. They show us people with failings, egos against egos. But the emails themselves aren’t enough to call the overall science of CO2-driven, human-caused climate change into question.
The Climategate emails, however, make up only five percent of the Climategate files. The other 95 percent, the programs and data and documents, are where the real story is hiding. That story has begun to come out, in several independent analyses of the data we have, using hints from the emails and from other files and raw data that is available from other sources.
A story is beginning to take shape. This story broke into the world media Wednesday. An article in RIA Novosti, the Russian state-owned news service, states:
The Climategate files were made public just a month ago, and the email messages that were revealed have already had real impact. The emails show us scientists being petty and political, even corrupt. Suppressing dissenting science and perhaps even violating the law to prevent data from being shared with the rest of the world. They show us people with failings, egos against egos. But the emails themselves aren’t enough to call the overall science of CO2-driven, human-caused climate change into question.
The Climategate emails, however, make up only five percent of the Climategate files. The other 95 percent, the programs and data and documents, are where the real story is hiding. That story has begun to come out, in several independent analyses of the data we have, using hints from the emails and from other files and raw data that is available from other sources.
A story is beginning to take shape. This story broke into the world media Wednesday. An article in RIA Novosti, the Russian state-owned news service, states:
On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office inExeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.While the Novosti report has gotten the most attention, it’s not the only such report. The Climategate files forced the UK Meteorological Office to make at least part of their raw data available. One of the first was Willis Eschenbach, at Watts Up With That. Read the whole discussion and also Eschenbach’s answer to a critique published in the Economist for the details, but here is the “money shot”: Pajamas Media : Climategate: Faster and Faster, the Dominos Fall
Monday, April 12, 2010
Ron Paul on the State of the GOP
Here is a great video of Ron Paul explaining the current state of the GOP:
Climategate Investigation
When a Penn State board of inquiry unilaterally decided that Michael Mann had broken no rules in the climate-data scandal, global-warming alarmists breathed a sigh of relief, thinking the most damaging episode in their effort to save the planet was behind them. They were wrong.
The geology professor's 1998 climate study, which showed a sharp increase in the world's temperatures in the past century, was seen by many as proof that climate change was rapidly occurring and that humans played a significant role in the change. Despite ongoing criticism, the study formed the backbone of global warming theories -- until leaked e-mails cast fresh doubt on Mann's methodology and integrity, notably "the trick" he used to make his data so compelling.
It was those e-mails, stolen from British university East Anglia's climate study group, that sparked Penn State's probe into Mann's work. On Feb. 3, he was exonerated on three of four charges, and the investigation of the fourth charge will be concluded by June 3.
But the final say will be in the hands of a skeptical inspector general at the National Science Foundation, the primary funder of the research into global warming. According to published documents obtained by FoxNews.com, the IG must determine whether Penn State's investigation was adequate.
Read more from Foxnews in Exclusive: Top Climate Scientist's Exoneration Won't Be the Last Word
The geology professor's 1998 climate study, which showed a sharp increase in the world's temperatures in the past century, was seen by many as proof that climate change was rapidly occurring and that humans played a significant role in the change. Despite ongoing criticism, the study formed the backbone of global warming theories -- until leaked e-mails cast fresh doubt on Mann's methodology and integrity, notably "the trick" he used to make his data so compelling.
It was those e-mails, stolen from British university East Anglia's climate study group, that sparked Penn State's probe into Mann's work. On Feb. 3, he was exonerated on three of four charges, and the investigation of the fourth charge will be concluded by June 3.
But the final say will be in the hands of a skeptical inspector general at the National Science Foundation, the primary funder of the research into global warming. According to published documents obtained by FoxNews.com, the IG must determine whether Penn State's investigation was adequate.
Read more from Foxnews in Exclusive: Top Climate Scientist's Exoneration Won't Be the Last Word
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Ron Paul: Barack Obama is Not a Socialist
In this Wall Street Journal article, he claims that Obama is not a socialist, but rather he is a corporatist:
NEW ORLEANS–Republicans and tea party activists are fond of accusing President Barack Obama of being a socialist, but today party gadfly Ron Paul said they had it wrong.
“In the technical sense, in the economic definition, he is not a socialist,” the Texas Republican said to a smattering of applause at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.
“He’s a corporatist,” Paul quickly added, meaning the president takes “care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”
Supporters of the Texas lawmaker appear to represent a significant number of the 3,500 attendees here, fueling speculation that Paul is likely to win the straw poll later today. The Campaign for Liberty, Paul’s political outfit, declined to discuss how many of his supporters were at SRLC.
The Texan’s supporters often descend on political gatherings to vote for him in 2012 straw polls. In February, he won the Conservative Political Action Conference’s straw poll with a hefty 31% of the vote.
‘It’s the Constitution, Stupid’
Rick Moran reports on the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans. (Pajamas Media)
The Southern Republican Leadership Conference wrapped up on Saturday afternoon after three days of speeches dripping with red-meat criticisms of Democrats and President Obama. This is par for the course for any party gathering, especially one where the party holding the shindig is on the outs.
But there was also something most unusual about the conference: an uncommon amount of talk and discussion of the United States Constitution. Ordinary people from all walks of life, not a constitutional scholar or lawyer among them, are actually trying to come to grips with the fundamental meaning and purpose of our founding document.
Has such a thing happened since the debates over ratification? If the numbers of tea partiers can be believed — and they were omnipresent at this gathering — perhaps millions of citizens are reading the Constitution and trying to place the actions taken by our government within the confines of our founding document’s strictures. And judging by the numerous conversations I had with delegates, bloggers, and just ordinary folk, there is a profound feeling of unease about not just what Obama and the Democrats have done to expand the power of the federal government, but Republicans as well. Contrary to what the left would like to establish as conventional wisdom — that the tea party movement is a wholly partisan operation — the anger people are demonstrating about spending is directed at both parties, almost equally.
But becoming emotional about spending is only a symptom of what bothers most people. If you start to talk to them about spending, inevitably the conversation will turn to the Constitution and their understanding of how that document should be interpreted.
Read more in For Southern Republicans, ‘It’s the Constitution, Stupid’
The Southern Republican Leadership Conference wrapped up on Saturday afternoon after three days of speeches dripping with red-meat criticisms of Democrats and President Obama. This is par for the course for any party gathering, especially one where the party holding the shindig is on the outs.
But there was also something most unusual about the conference: an uncommon amount of talk and discussion of the United States Constitution. Ordinary people from all walks of life, not a constitutional scholar or lawyer among them, are actually trying to come to grips with the fundamental meaning and purpose of our founding document.
Has such a thing happened since the debates over ratification? If the numbers of tea partiers can be believed — and they were omnipresent at this gathering — perhaps millions of citizens are reading the Constitution and trying to place the actions taken by our government within the confines of our founding document’s strictures. And judging by the numerous conversations I had with delegates, bloggers, and just ordinary folk, there is a profound feeling of unease about not just what Obama and the Democrats have done to expand the power of the federal government, but Republicans as well. Contrary to what the left would like to establish as conventional wisdom — that the tea party movement is a wholly partisan operation — the anger people are demonstrating about spending is directed at both parties, almost equally.
But becoming emotional about spending is only a symptom of what bothers most people. If you start to talk to them about spending, inevitably the conversation will turn to the Constitution and their understanding of how that document should be interpreted.
Read more in For Southern Republicans, ‘It’s the Constitution, Stupid’
Big Government Conservatism
Tom Pauken of The Texas Tribune writes on "Big Government Conservatism". If the pen is mightier than the sword, then that phrase, apparently coined by Fred Barnes, provides a very sharp point!
Related MND article: The Tea Party and The Illusion of Fiscal Conservatism
Fred Barnes, the editor of the leading neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard, described the Bush philosophy of “big government conservatism” in a article in the Wall Street Journal in the summer of 2003. According to Barnes, the Bush administration believed “in using what would normally be seen as liberal means—activist government—for conservative ends. And they’re willing to spend more and increase the size of government in the process.” In the same article, Barnes noted that “big government conservatives are favorably disposed toward what neoconservative Irving Kristol has called a ‘conservative welfare state.’” Then, in an understatement, Barnes added: “Neocons tend to be big government conservatives.” Barnes has lauded Bush for embracing this new brand of “conservatism.”
A cynic might suggest that what Barnes was really saying was that there is nothing wrong with big government so long as “our guys” are in charge.
The Economist had a very different take on the President in a cover story around the same time: “Is George Bush a socialist?” The article compared Bush’s reckless spending policies to the “guns and butter” spending excesses of Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration.
Read more in The Texas Tribune : "Big Government Conservatism".
Related MND article: The Tea Party and The Illusion of Fiscal Conservatism
Fred Barnes, the editor of the leading neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard, described the Bush philosophy of “big government conservatism” in a article in the Wall Street Journal in the summer of 2003. According to Barnes, the Bush administration believed “in using what would normally be seen as liberal means—activist government—for conservative ends. And they’re willing to spend more and increase the size of government in the process.” In the same article, Barnes noted that “big government conservatives are favorably disposed toward what neoconservative Irving Kristol has called a ‘conservative welfare state.’” Then, in an understatement, Barnes added: “Neocons tend to be big government conservatives.” Barnes has lauded Bush for embracing this new brand of “conservatism.”
A cynic might suggest that what Barnes was really saying was that there is nothing wrong with big government so long as “our guys” are in charge.
The Economist had a very different take on the President in a cover story around the same time: “Is George Bush a socialist?” The article compared Bush’s reckless spending policies to the “guns and butter” spending excesses of Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration.
Read more in The Texas Tribune : "Big Government Conservatism".
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Things to Come (H.G. Wells)
1936 classic sci-fi film, with screenplay by H.G. Wells.
It's Christmas 1940 and the people of Everytown, unprepared and ill-equipped, find themselves at war against an enemy who has been planning such a conflict for years. The land is devastated by the horrors of aerial bombardment as the war drags on for thirty years, causing a period of despair, with feudal tyrants ruling a downtrodden populace suffering famine and pestilence. Can the human race rise above its desperate circumstances and build a scientific utopia!
A future history as scripted by the visionary writer H.G. Wells, Things to Come set a high benchmark for science fiction with its fantastic design, gigantic sets and spectacular special effects. Acknowledged as a landmark within the genre, Oscar-winning William Cameron Menzies (Invaders from Mars) creates an astounding vision of post-war desolation and Utopian futurism. Starring Oscar-nominated Raymond Massey (A Matter of Life and Death) as John Cabal and his descendants (yes, more than one part) and the award-winning Ralph Richardson (The Four Feathers) as The Boss, Things to Come showcases a gorgeous, and instantly recognizable score by Arthur Bliss.
A world-first, the two-disc special edition of Things to Come has been painstakingly restored in High Definition from the remaining film elements and represents the most complete version known to exist.
Special Features:
It's Christmas 1940 and the people of Everytown, unprepared and ill-equipped, find themselves at war against an enemy who has been planning such a conflict for years. The land is devastated by the horrors of aerial bombardment as the war drags on for thirty years, causing a period of despair, with feudal tyrants ruling a downtrodden populace suffering famine and pestilence. Can the human race rise above its desperate circumstances and build a scientific utopia!
A future history as scripted by the visionary writer H.G. Wells, Things to Come set a high benchmark for science fiction with its fantastic design, gigantic sets and spectacular special effects. Acknowledged as a landmark within the genre, Oscar-winning William Cameron Menzies (Invaders from Mars) creates an astounding vision of post-war desolation and Utopian futurism. Starring Oscar-nominated Raymond Massey (A Matter of Life and Death) as John Cabal and his descendants (yes, more than one part) and the award-winning Ralph Richardson (The Four Feathers) as The Boss, Things to Come showcases a gorgeous, and instantly recognizable score by Arthur Bliss.
A world-first, the two-disc special edition of Things to Come has been painstakingly restored in High Definition from the remaining film elements and represents the most complete version known to exist.
Special Features:
- Digital restoration of the longest existing version.
- Virtual Extended Edition – a viewing option allowing for the inclusion of text and images from long-missing and unfilmed scenes to present a tantalizing “what if?”
- Audio commentary with Things to Come expert Nick Cooper.
- On Reflection: Brian Aldiss on H.G. Wells - a 25 minute documentary from 1971.
- Ralph Richardson interview by Russell Harty in 1975.
- Extensive booklet written by Nick Cooper.
- The Wandering Sickness - an original 78 rpm recording.
- Comprehensive image gallery including many rare stills.
- Merchandise image gallery.
- US re-release trailer.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Fairness is a Disease
By Jordan Woodward
So, a school wants to create a Male Studies program to look into the welfare and psyche of the modern human male. Not a bad idea, eh? The lives of males have changed a lot in the past one hundred years. Suffrage, the women’s rights movement, contraception and consumer trends have all created a male completely alien to the Victorian male that brought in the 20th century. Today, there are concerns of the loss of masculinity to an ever increasing feminization of Western culture. Shows like Everybody Likes Raymond, where the husband is always wrong, bumbling and submissive, promote the idea that the Western male is not longer the head of the household, but the laughing stock of it. Of course, this is just one of many theories about the modern male and these theories should be researched and reviewed and published, as is the right of any researcher.
That’s if Male Studies get off the ground. When I passed this news along to political acquaintances on the left, the response was a resounding “why?”. Might as well have “white studies” too, one said, since men and whites have dominated the world since time immemorial. We can’t be studying the male since the male has had his place of privilege for so long! It’s the female’s turn! That’s the atmosphere I got from them.
When did education go from finding the truth to promoting fairness and alleviating the guilt of left-wing white males? When Plato thought and wrote, it wasn’t to make sure the trans-gendered anarchist had a voice. It was to find the truth about humanity and its soul. When Voltaire thought and wrote, it was to explain the world and the mind, not find a new niche market for a women’s studies book about anti-antidisestablishmentarianism in the male dominated Greek world.
The idea that we can’t study the male, especially the white male, out of some anti-intellectual ideal of fairness spits in the face of every honest educator in the world. Not only that, it spits in the face of real equality between the races and sexes. Babying a broad, monolithic class, in this case “women”, because another broad, monolithic class, “men”, has had their day in the sun is beyond idiotic. It’s an idea based on racism, sexism and class warfare. It’s an idea that goes against the root ideals of this country and of its history of higher education, going all the way back to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. It’s as if the creator of this anti-intellectual ideology couldn’t actually come up with an original idea and just flipped the worst views of the worst people of the Civil Rights Era and said, “Ta da! Open mindedness! And if you don’t like it, you’re a racist!”
SIRIUS/XM radio host Andrew Wilkow has a very apt analogy to explain this view. Imagine two people walking down a street. A white guy with a shirt that says, “White Power” and a black man that has shirt that says “Black Power”. For the last half century, we’ve been told (trained, in some cases) to look at the white man’s shirt and deride him for his ethnic hatred. Yet, when we turn to the black man, we are told (trained) to congratulate him on his progressive ethnic pride in his culture (“black culture”, another broad, monolithic idea). How is THAT not racism? Hate whites for being proud of their race while encouraging blacks to be proud of theirs? That isn’t equality, that’s overcompensation. That’s anti-intellectualism. That’s anti-American. Period.
This obsession with extra-legal fairness in all things, especially education, is a disease. You cannot change history by buying off your guilt. You cannot change minds by denying education sectors for the crime of going against politically correct dogma. It strikes at liberty, intellectual discourse and our nation’s self-esteem. A nation cannot remain free if its taking from one class and giving to another over events that happened pre-independence (or pre-history, for that matter). A nation cannot have honest intellectual debate if charges of racism, sexism and all other words of total insignificance now (thanks, Leftists) are used to put down legitimate criticisms of a anti-intellectual ideology. A nation especially cannot remain powerful and unified when its too busy making sure every nook and cranny of leftist created trans-class, cross-gendered, bottom-up race injustice is being sated by economy destroying programs promoted by people who aren’t touched by them, but who somehow feel the tinge of racism from a crowd not saying a word.
John Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
And the facts are, dear leftist friends and contacts, that your objections to Male Studies tells a lot about you and your inability to think critically, let alone dictate what others should think. You cannot stop racism with money, sexism with government or bigotry with indoctrination. The best we can do, the best any free nation can do, is make sure that under the law no one is discriminated against. After that, its up to the individual to find the truth themselves, not by government fiat or ivory tower poo-poohing. The past 60 years have shown your idea of fairness has created one of the most anti-intellectual and bigoted mainstream ideologies in America. And that has led to a world where leaders call citizens racists, “teabaggers” and fascists for simply opposing policy the leaders themselves have tainted with the stain of racism, sexism and anti-religious bigotry.
Give yourself a hand.
Oh, wait, you already do.
Jordan Woodward is a co-author of Generation Patriot and a contributor to Conservative Today.
So, a school wants to create a Male Studies program to look into the welfare and psyche of the modern human male. Not a bad idea, eh? The lives of males have changed a lot in the past one hundred years. Suffrage, the women’s rights movement, contraception and consumer trends have all created a male completely alien to the Victorian male that brought in the 20th century. Today, there are concerns of the loss of masculinity to an ever increasing feminization of Western culture. Shows like Everybody Likes Raymond, where the husband is always wrong, bumbling and submissive, promote the idea that the Western male is not longer the head of the household, but the laughing stock of it. Of course, this is just one of many theories about the modern male and these theories should be researched and reviewed and published, as is the right of any researcher.
That’s if Male Studies get off the ground. When I passed this news along to political acquaintances on the left, the response was a resounding “why?”. Might as well have “white studies” too, one said, since men and whites have dominated the world since time immemorial. We can’t be studying the male since the male has had his place of privilege for so long! It’s the female’s turn! That’s the atmosphere I got from them.
When did education go from finding the truth to promoting fairness and alleviating the guilt of left-wing white males? When Plato thought and wrote, it wasn’t to make sure the trans-gendered anarchist had a voice. It was to find the truth about humanity and its soul. When Voltaire thought and wrote, it was to explain the world and the mind, not find a new niche market for a women’s studies book about anti-antidisestablishmentarianism in the male dominated Greek world.
The idea that we can’t study the male, especially the white male, out of some anti-intellectual ideal of fairness spits in the face of every honest educator in the world. Not only that, it spits in the face of real equality between the races and sexes. Babying a broad, monolithic class, in this case “women”, because another broad, monolithic class, “men”, has had their day in the sun is beyond idiotic. It’s an idea based on racism, sexism and class warfare. It’s an idea that goes against the root ideals of this country and of its history of higher education, going all the way back to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. It’s as if the creator of this anti-intellectual ideology couldn’t actually come up with an original idea and just flipped the worst views of the worst people of the Civil Rights Era and said, “Ta da! Open mindedness! And if you don’t like it, you’re a racist!”
SIRIUS/XM radio host Andrew Wilkow has a very apt analogy to explain this view. Imagine two people walking down a street. A white guy with a shirt that says, “White Power” and a black man that has shirt that says “Black Power”. For the last half century, we’ve been told (trained, in some cases) to look at the white man’s shirt and deride him for his ethnic hatred. Yet, when we turn to the black man, we are told (trained) to congratulate him on his progressive ethnic pride in his culture (“black culture”, another broad, monolithic idea). How is THAT not racism? Hate whites for being proud of their race while encouraging blacks to be proud of theirs? That isn’t equality, that’s overcompensation. That’s anti-intellectualism. That’s anti-American. Period.
This obsession with extra-legal fairness in all things, especially education, is a disease. You cannot change history by buying off your guilt. You cannot change minds by denying education sectors for the crime of going against politically correct dogma. It strikes at liberty, intellectual discourse and our nation’s self-esteem. A nation cannot remain free if its taking from one class and giving to another over events that happened pre-independence (or pre-history, for that matter). A nation cannot have honest intellectual debate if charges of racism, sexism and all other words of total insignificance now (thanks, Leftists) are used to put down legitimate criticisms of a anti-intellectual ideology. A nation especially cannot remain powerful and unified when its too busy making sure every nook and cranny of leftist created trans-class, cross-gendered, bottom-up race injustice is being sated by economy destroying programs promoted by people who aren’t touched by them, but who somehow feel the tinge of racism from a crowd not saying a word.
John Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
And the facts are, dear leftist friends and contacts, that your objections to Male Studies tells a lot about you and your inability to think critically, let alone dictate what others should think. You cannot stop racism with money, sexism with government or bigotry with indoctrination. The best we can do, the best any free nation can do, is make sure that under the law no one is discriminated against. After that, its up to the individual to find the truth themselves, not by government fiat or ivory tower poo-poohing. The past 60 years have shown your idea of fairness has created one of the most anti-intellectual and bigoted mainstream ideologies in America. And that has led to a world where leaders call citizens racists, “teabaggers” and fascists for simply opposing policy the leaders themselves have tainted with the stain of racism, sexism and anti-religious bigotry.
Give yourself a hand.
Oh, wait, you already do.
Jordan Woodward is a co-author of Generation Patriot and a contributor to Conservative Today.
Follow the Money : James Hansen Gets Another Pay-Off
Godfather of the global warming hoax, James Hansen has received a $100,000 "environmental prize for decades of work trying to alert politicians to what he called an unsolved emergency of global warming."
Climate scientist James Hansen wins Sophie Prize : The "Sophie Prize" is awarded for disrupting free-market capitalism and pushing the world toward centralized control. In its mission statement, the organization behind the prize states:
Hansen never hides his overpowering leftist political views and agenda, having traveled the world to declare that successful capitalists should be jailed. His prattle seems never to be more sophisticated that the target audience demands, with unexamined low-left statements like:
Climate scientist James Hansen wins Sophie Prize : The "Sophie Prize" is awarded for disrupting free-market capitalism and pushing the world toward centralized control. In its mission statement, the organization behind the prize states:
Today’s economic system is at odds with the limits set by nature. Too many decisions are based on short-term profit for a few select groups rather than a moral and fair distribution of the world's resources.
...
For as long as the means allow, The Sophie Prize will be awarded to an individual or an organization that, in a pioneering or a particularly creative way, has pointed to alternatives to the present development and put such alternatives into practice.
Hansen never hides his overpowering leftist political views and agenda, having traveled the world to declare that successful capitalists should be jailed. His prattle seems never to be more sophisticated that the target audience demands, with unexamined low-left statements like:
It’s been of parallel interest watching testimony in Congressional hearings about the greedy bastards who caused this Great Recession we’re laboring to overcome. The most frequent criticism was of their short-sighted, short-term view of cause-and-effect relationships. The fossil fuel militia aren’t even that advanced.
Greenpeace Funded by the Political Class
By Roger F. Gay
Far-left advocacy group Greenpeace receives large donations from rich and powerful people, enough to drown the entire notion of political independence and non-partisanship. The mechanism of receiving funding – through foundations – is the same as the opposition “right wing” organizations that it criticizes for funding bias.
Greenpeace is an international conglomerate, composed of corporations in 40 countries across Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa and the Pacific. Included among Greenpeace's largest corporate donors are the Rockefeller brothers, Ted Turner and Jane Fonda, and the Macarthurs; as well as a long list of foundations with left-leaning gifting bias.
Since people on the left are generally unfamiliar with religious thought, my guess is that the Greenpeace propagandists are unfamiliar with the rules on casting the first stone. The group's recent libelous attack against the Koch brothers appears to have had a dual purpose; both obviously connected to the exposure of the global warming scam.
Democrats, including Barack Obama, and politicians world-wide have invested a great deal of political capital in the scheme; pushing hard to put “global governance” in gear. Public awareness that the vast political changes along with exponentially increasing taxes have been proposed on the basis of fraud is harming their political power base.
Greenpeace also profits from smaller donors and operates “efficiently” by not paying volunteer workers. Claims of “saving the Earth” from global warming has been one of their greatest marketing tools for both fund raising and recruiting.
Their website still proclaims as a purpose of their existence: “Catalysing an energy revolution to address the number one threat facing our planet: climate change,” and has a variety of pages dedicated to global warming propaganda; including “Stop climate change,” “Climate change video FAQs,” “Take Action: Write to the oil companies,” “Cool IT Challenge,” “Take Action: Call Koch,” and “Climate blog.”
There is of course, no list of useful Greenpeace inventions or products that would be effective in achieving their stated goals; just calls for action, donations, and volunteers. Being entirely non-productive is one of the key characteristics Greenpeace uses to "grow the brand."
Far-left advocacy group Greenpeace receives large donations from rich and powerful people, enough to drown the entire notion of political independence and non-partisanship. The mechanism of receiving funding – through foundations – is the same as the opposition “right wing” organizations that it criticizes for funding bias.
Greenpeace is an international conglomerate, composed of corporations in 40 countries across Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa and the Pacific. Included among Greenpeace's largest corporate donors are the Rockefeller brothers, Ted Turner and Jane Fonda, and the Macarthurs; as well as a long list of foundations with left-leaning gifting bias.
Since people on the left are generally unfamiliar with religious thought, my guess is that the Greenpeace propagandists are unfamiliar with the rules on casting the first stone. The group's recent libelous attack against the Koch brothers appears to have had a dual purpose; both obviously connected to the exposure of the global warming scam.
Democrats, including Barack Obama, and politicians world-wide have invested a great deal of political capital in the scheme; pushing hard to put “global governance” in gear. Public awareness that the vast political changes along with exponentially increasing taxes have been proposed on the basis of fraud is harming their political power base.
Greenpeace also profits from smaller donors and operates “efficiently” by not paying volunteer workers. Claims of “saving the Earth” from global warming has been one of their greatest marketing tools for both fund raising and recruiting.
Their website still proclaims as a purpose of their existence: “Catalysing an energy revolution to address the number one threat facing our planet: climate change,” and has a variety of pages dedicated to global warming propaganda; including “Stop climate change,” “Climate change video FAQs,” “Take Action: Write to the oil companies,” “Cool IT Challenge,” “Take Action: Call Koch,” and “Climate blog.”
There is of course, no list of useful Greenpeace inventions or products that would be effective in achieving their stated goals; just calls for action, donations, and volunteers. Being entirely non-productive is one of the key characteristics Greenpeace uses to "grow the brand."
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Defining Libertarianism
Here is a great video of John Stossel defining what Libertarianism actually means. Many people get lost in these ideas and there meanings, so it is nice to have a good explanation and definition:
"Rage on the Right"?
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a respected civil rights organization. While they are primarily known for their exposures of KKK-type hate groups, they have also published the names of hundreds of organizations they consider to be hate groups in the US. Their spring 2010 special issue is devoted to what they call right-wing hate groups. The issue is entitled, "Rage on the Right". Today, I had a chance to go over a copy. Along with their lead article, they include pages and pages of hate groups under categories such as militias, anti-immigration, KKK, Neo-Nazi, anti-Gay and others. Aside from the fact that the issue lists so many organizations I am unfamiliar with, I was able to determine that some of the groups mentioned are not what we would consider to be "on the right". Some of the information I consider to be downright misleading.
One article in the issue is entitled, "The Year in Nativism." This, of course, implies that some people and groups are "anti-immigration", a term the magazine uses repeatedly. Yet, what the article fails to do is distinguish between anti-immigration and anti-illegal immigration, which is misleading. There are millions of Americans (like myself) who favor legal immigration, but think that illegal immigration should be stopped. It appears that the SPLC considers the Minutemen to be an extremist organization.
Let me state my own position here fully aware that the Minutemen organization has split off into diverse groups. If we are talking about people who are acting as a "neighborhood watch" at the border, if you will, and alerting the Border Patrol to the crossings of illegal aliens, and not taking any action themselves, then I have no problem with that. Were their actions illegal, the Border Patrol would have stopped their activities years ago. If any groups are confronting the aliens themselves or committing crimes against these people, then that is a horse of a different color.
The article also singles out numerous state militias. It's not an issue I follow, and it seems to me that the motivation of forming a so-called militia is important. If their mission is to plot a violent revolution or assassinate officials, obviously they get no support from me.
Of course, the lead article is "Rage on the Right" by Mark Potok. This addresses a lot of people who, in Potok's words, see "an array of initiatives by the relatively liberal Obama administration as socialist or even fascist".
Relatively liberal.
There is a line which reads that "the number of hate groups in America has been going up for years, rising 54% between 2000 and 2008 and driven largely by an angry backlash against non-white immigration and, starting in the last year of that period, the economic meltdown and the climb to power of an African-American president."
First of all, you have to go back to the central question of who is a hate group. Then I would point out that "anti-non-white immigration" should be replaced by "anti-illegal immigration". I also continue to take exception to the claim that a large number of Americans object to President Obama's skin color-rather than his policies. We elected him did we not?
Here is what the article artfully said about the tea-parties: "The tea parties and similar groups that have sprung up in recent months cannot fairly be considered extremist groups (thank you), but they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism."
There you have it.
That chapter is followed immediately by several pages of identified hate groups by state and by issue. The problem is that not all of the groups are on the right. True, the magazine does not claim they are all on the right, but if you read carelessly, you could assume that the dozens or hundreds of these groups listed are all on the right. Not so, The New Black Panthers are certainly not on the right. La Voz de Aztlan, a website with whom I have crossed swords, is not on the right. They have two main issues, the SW US (Aztlan) should revert to Mexico and Jew-hatred. What about Neo-Nazi groups? Do conservatives or tea partiers really embrace them? Of course not. Skinheads? C'mon.
Potok also leads off the issue with an editorial entitled, "They say they want a revolution". This editorial leads off with Sarah Palin's speech to the National Tea Party convention. He also drags Michele Bachmann into the essay. Does he consider them to be "hateful extremists" too?
I have no doubt the SPLC does good work. I do question, however, whether liberal politics might be creeping into who they consider hate groups. In my view, while not defending the majority of the groups identified, most of whom I have no knowledge of, I think the issue makes a misleading impression of much legitimate conservative dissent.
fousesquawk
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a respected civil rights organization. While they are primarily known for their exposures of KKK-type hate groups, they have also published the names of hundreds of organizations they consider to be hate groups in the US. Their spring 2010 special issue is devoted to what they call right-wing hate groups. The issue is entitled, "Rage on the Right". Today, I had a chance to go over a copy. Along with their lead article, they include pages and pages of hate groups under categories such as militias, anti-immigration, KKK, Neo-Nazi, anti-Gay and others. Aside from the fact that the issue lists so many organizations I am unfamiliar with, I was able to determine that some of the groups mentioned are not what we would consider to be "on the right". Some of the information I consider to be downright misleading.
One article in the issue is entitled, "The Year in Nativism." This, of course, implies that some people and groups are "anti-immigration", a term the magazine uses repeatedly. Yet, what the article fails to do is distinguish between anti-immigration and anti-illegal immigration, which is misleading. There are millions of Americans (like myself) who favor legal immigration, but think that illegal immigration should be stopped. It appears that the SPLC considers the Minutemen to be an extremist organization.
Let me state my own position here fully aware that the Minutemen organization has split off into diverse groups. If we are talking about people who are acting as a "neighborhood watch" at the border, if you will, and alerting the Border Patrol to the crossings of illegal aliens, and not taking any action themselves, then I have no problem with that. Were their actions illegal, the Border Patrol would have stopped their activities years ago. If any groups are confronting the aliens themselves or committing crimes against these people, then that is a horse of a different color.
The article also singles out numerous state militias. It's not an issue I follow, and it seems to me that the motivation of forming a so-called militia is important. If their mission is to plot a violent revolution or assassinate officials, obviously they get no support from me.
Of course, the lead article is "Rage on the Right" by Mark Potok. This addresses a lot of people who, in Potok's words, see "an array of initiatives by the relatively liberal Obama administration as socialist or even fascist".
Relatively liberal.
There is a line which reads that "the number of hate groups in America has been going up for years, rising 54% between 2000 and 2008 and driven largely by an angry backlash against non-white immigration and, starting in the last year of that period, the economic meltdown and the climb to power of an African-American president."
First of all, you have to go back to the central question of who is a hate group. Then I would point out that "anti-non-white immigration" should be replaced by "anti-illegal immigration". I also continue to take exception to the claim that a large number of Americans object to President Obama's skin color-rather than his policies. We elected him did we not?
Here is what the article artfully said about the tea-parties: "The tea parties and similar groups that have sprung up in recent months cannot fairly be considered extremist groups (thank you), but they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism."
There you have it.
That chapter is followed immediately by several pages of identified hate groups by state and by issue. The problem is that not all of the groups are on the right. True, the magazine does not claim they are all on the right, but if you read carelessly, you could assume that the dozens or hundreds of these groups listed are all on the right. Not so, The New Black Panthers are certainly not on the right. La Voz de Aztlan, a website with whom I have crossed swords, is not on the right. They have two main issues, the SW US (Aztlan) should revert to Mexico and Jew-hatred. What about Neo-Nazi groups? Do conservatives or tea partiers really embrace them? Of course not. Skinheads? C'mon.
Potok also leads off the issue with an editorial entitled, "They say they want a revolution". This editorial leads off with Sarah Palin's speech to the National Tea Party convention. He also drags Michele Bachmann into the essay. Does he consider them to be "hateful extremists" too?
I have no doubt the SPLC does good work. I do question, however, whether liberal politics might be creeping into who they consider hate groups. In my view, while not defending the majority of the groups identified, most of whom I have no knowledge of, I think the issue makes a misleading impression of much legitimate conservative dissent.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Koch Industries Responds to Greenpeace
On Saturday, I reported that Greenpeace was distributing a "report" accusing Koch Industries and Exxon Mobil Company of funding work that counters global warming propaganda (as if it would be a bad thing). On Tuesday, I posted additional information on Koch Industries with a link to a 2006 WSJ interview with CEO Charles Koch. Below is a response to Greenpeace directly from Koch Industries.
******************************
In a consistent, principled effort for more than 50 years – long before climate change was a key policy issue – Koch companies and Koch foundations have worked to advance economic freedom and market-based policy solutions to challenges faced by society. These efforts are about creating more opportunity and prosperity for all, as it's a historical fact that economic freedom best fosters innovation, environmental protection and improved quality of life in a society.
The Greenpeace report mischaracterizes these efforts and distorts the environmental record of our companies. Koch companies have long supported science-based inquiry and dialogue about climate change and proposed responses to it. Koch companies have put tremendous effort into discovering and adopting innovative practices that reduce energy use and emissions in the manufacture and distribution of our products.
We believe the political response to climate issues should be based on sound science. Both a free society and the scientific method require an open and honest airing of all sides, not demonizing and silencing those with whom you disagree. We've strived to encourage an intellectually honest debate on the scientific basis for claims of harm from greenhouse gases. We have tried to help bring out the facts of the potential effectiveness and costs of policies proposed to deal with climate, as it's crucial to understand whether proposed initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases will achieve desired environmental goals and what effects they would likely have on the global economy.
Abandoning Reality
Examiner.com, April 4
Global Warming: Who's funding the fight?
Examiner.com, April 3
Attack on Koch Industries exaggerates, misleads
WichitaLiberty.org, April 1
Donations Follow Opinions - Who Knew?
Reason.com, March 31
Report aims to stifle debate on climate science
WichitaLiberty.org, March 31
Koch Industries Newsroom
******************************
Statement regarding Greenpeace Report, March 2010
In a consistent, principled effort for more than 50 years – long before climate change was a key policy issue – Koch companies and Koch foundations have worked to advance economic freedom and market-based policy solutions to challenges faced by society. These efforts are about creating more opportunity and prosperity for all, as it's a historical fact that economic freedom best fosters innovation, environmental protection and improved quality of life in a society.
The Greenpeace report mischaracterizes these efforts and distorts the environmental record of our companies. Koch companies have long supported science-based inquiry and dialogue about climate change and proposed responses to it. Koch companies have put tremendous effort into discovering and adopting innovative practices that reduce energy use and emissions in the manufacture and distribution of our products.
We believe the political response to climate issues should be based on sound science. Both a free society and the scientific method require an open and honest airing of all sides, not demonizing and silencing those with whom you disagree. We've strived to encourage an intellectually honest debate on the scientific basis for claims of harm from greenhouse gases. We have tried to help bring out the facts of the potential effectiveness and costs of policies proposed to deal with climate, as it's crucial to understand whether proposed initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases will achieve desired environmental goals and what effects they would likely have on the global economy.
Other Voices
Abandoning Reality
Examiner.com, April 4
Global Warming: Who's funding the fight?
Examiner.com, April 3
Attack on Koch Industries exaggerates, misleads
WichitaLiberty.org, April 1
Donations Follow Opinions - Who Knew?
Reason.com, March 31
Report aims to stifle debate on climate science
WichitaLiberty.org, March 31
Koch Industries Newsroom
Monday, April 5, 2010
Obama Booed and Jeered Throwing First Pitch at Nationals Opener...And Throws it Way High and Wide
President Barack Obama threw out the ceremonial first pitch at the Washington Nationals Home Opener today, and was greeted by a lot of boos and jeers from the crowd.
And then the President proceeded to throw the first pitch high and wide:
That was a sad pitch to watch, and it reminds me of another President and the pitch he made from the mound...George W. Bush....throwing it right down the middle:
Big difference I would say...
And then the President proceeded to throw the first pitch high and wide:
That was a sad pitch to watch, and it reminds me of another President and the pitch he made from the mound...George W. Bush....throwing it right down the middle:
Big difference I would say...
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Greenpeace Report : Koch brothers and Exxon deserve medals
By Roger F. Gay
We have been awestruck by the audacity of the global warming scam. If taken to fruition, it will destroy freedom and democracy, devastate the economies of the modern world, and concentrate unimaginable power and wealth in the hands of a small international group of politically connected criminals.
Organized through the United Nations, scientific research and education related to weather came nearly to an end. A handful of people controlled reports from a UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These reports were used to plant extraordinary and scientifically unfounded predictions about catastrophic global warming caused by human existence. Left leaning journalists, including a new core of “environmental journalists” jumped at the chance to declare that humans are bad and more government power is an urgent necessity.
Financing of science and education through governments aimed directly at pushing the political agenda, with IPCC reports as the excuse. Skeptics were ostracized while thousands of scientists were paid to include global warming fears in published works. Suddenly, there were claims that every scary thing imaginable was being caused by or would be caused by man-made global warming.
Former Vice President Al Gore, claiming “scientific consensus,” exaggerated the IPCC claims in a powerfully promoted propaganda film An Inconvenient Truth, which made its way into many class rooms to frighten young children. By the mid-2000s, many people believed that global warming might be something to fear and that government action might be prudent.
It was time for “business as usual.” Threats from politicians to industry became credible. Barack Obama for example, directly threatened to put the coal industry out of business. Threats of sky-rocketing taxes and operating costs put business globally on the defensive. Woe unto those who didn't get into the game. Lobbying activity sky-rocketed.
The movement made it a long way past the starting gate and seemed unstoppable. Thanks to 10s of thousands of honest scientists and other analysts, the tide began to turn. Information spread across the Internet that the majority of scientists do not believe the IPCC claims. If you were interested enough to look, clear explanations were available on the lack of actual scientific support behind the claims along with scientific evidence of falsehood. Books and articles were published on both the scientific hoax and the political and economic damage that would be caused if the political agenda succeeded. (my first)
Late last year, the public was suddenly jerked into reality by publication of emails and other information hacked from computers at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit in England. The emails included exchanges between some of the most influential scientists involved in the global scam. They discussed manipulating data to give fraudulent support to catastrophic global warming claims, hiding data to keep from having their work checked, and controlling the peer-review process to maintain an aire of scientific credibility, among other things. It was the first in a series of smoking guns.
According to a report by Greenpeace, public awareness that the man-made global warming scare is a hoax has been driven primarily by a “conspiracy” involving Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries and ExxonMobil. I know. I know. Greenpeace. Why bother. Hardly a credible source. Greenpeace renews the Bush-Big Oil conspiracy theory to destroy the planet to counter evidence that they and other conspirators have been lying about climate to promote their agenda. Their shocking evidence is that industrialists give money to organizations that openly state that they operate on private donations and are pro-industry and that they also donate to political campaigns. I guess the extremely far left now has their political agenda so well supported by public money that they have no need for private donations to such organizations as Greenpeace and Democrats apparently no longer accept campaign contributions. (sarcasm)
But let's just assume for the sake of argument that there is something to the Greenpeace theory. Koch Industries and ExxonMobil have provided large amounts of money to fund the battle against “climate change” propaganda. Good for them. Good for industry. Good for business. Good for the people.
We're not out of the woods yet. Barack Obama illegally ordered the EPA to implement CO2 regulation after the Senate refused to pass his “climate” bill. So deep are his back-room financial deals, that not even public awareness that it is a scam is stopping him.
The battle must be fought and we must never surrender. If Charles and David Koch and ExxonMobil are playing even a fraction of the part in public education as Greenpeace claims, then we owe them our thanks. I urge you to write your congressperson today and recommend Congressional Gold Medals for the brothers and for ExxonMobil executives. Tell them it's based on a Greenpeace report.
We have been awestruck by the audacity of the global warming scam. If taken to fruition, it will destroy freedom and democracy, devastate the economies of the modern world, and concentrate unimaginable power and wealth in the hands of a small international group of politically connected criminals.
Organized through the United Nations, scientific research and education related to weather came nearly to an end. A handful of people controlled reports from a UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These reports were used to plant extraordinary and scientifically unfounded predictions about catastrophic global warming caused by human existence. Left leaning journalists, including a new core of “environmental journalists” jumped at the chance to declare that humans are bad and more government power is an urgent necessity.
Financing of science and education through governments aimed directly at pushing the political agenda, with IPCC reports as the excuse. Skeptics were ostracized while thousands of scientists were paid to include global warming fears in published works. Suddenly, there were claims that every scary thing imaginable was being caused by or would be caused by man-made global warming.
Former Vice President Al Gore, claiming “scientific consensus,” exaggerated the IPCC claims in a powerfully promoted propaganda film An Inconvenient Truth, which made its way into many class rooms to frighten young children. By the mid-2000s, many people believed that global warming might be something to fear and that government action might be prudent.
It was time for “business as usual.” Threats from politicians to industry became credible. Barack Obama for example, directly threatened to put the coal industry out of business. Threats of sky-rocketing taxes and operating costs put business globally on the defensive. Woe unto those who didn't get into the game. Lobbying activity sky-rocketed.
The movement made it a long way past the starting gate and seemed unstoppable. Thanks to 10s of thousands of honest scientists and other analysts, the tide began to turn. Information spread across the Internet that the majority of scientists do not believe the IPCC claims. If you were interested enough to look, clear explanations were available on the lack of actual scientific support behind the claims along with scientific evidence of falsehood. Books and articles were published on both the scientific hoax and the political and economic damage that would be caused if the political agenda succeeded. (my first)
Late last year, the public was suddenly jerked into reality by publication of emails and other information hacked from computers at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit in England. The emails included exchanges between some of the most influential scientists involved in the global scam. They discussed manipulating data to give fraudulent support to catastrophic global warming claims, hiding data to keep from having their work checked, and controlling the peer-review process to maintain an aire of scientific credibility, among other things. It was the first in a series of smoking guns.
According to a report by Greenpeace, public awareness that the man-made global warming scare is a hoax has been driven primarily by a “conspiracy” involving Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries and ExxonMobil. I know. I know. Greenpeace. Why bother. Hardly a credible source. Greenpeace renews the Bush-Big Oil conspiracy theory to destroy the planet to counter evidence that they and other conspirators have been lying about climate to promote their agenda. Their shocking evidence is that industrialists give money to organizations that openly state that they operate on private donations and are pro-industry and that they also donate to political campaigns. I guess the extremely far left now has their political agenda so well supported by public money that they have no need for private donations to such organizations as Greenpeace and Democrats apparently no longer accept campaign contributions. (sarcasm)
But let's just assume for the sake of argument that there is something to the Greenpeace theory. Koch Industries and ExxonMobil have provided large amounts of money to fund the battle against “climate change” propaganda. Good for them. Good for industry. Good for business. Good for the people.
We're not out of the woods yet. Barack Obama illegally ordered the EPA to implement CO2 regulation after the Senate refused to pass his “climate” bill. So deep are his back-room financial deals, that not even public awareness that it is a scam is stopping him.
The battle must be fought and we must never surrender. If Charles and David Koch and ExxonMobil are playing even a fraction of the part in public education as Greenpeace claims, then we owe them our thanks. I urge you to write your congressperson today and recommend Congressional Gold Medals for the brothers and for ExxonMobil executives. Tell them it's based on a Greenpeace report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)