|« Jun||Aug »|
The Justice Department has denied that political motivations went into the dismissal of the New Black Panthers case following President Barack Obama elections and the appointment of Attorney General Eric Holder.
A Federal court in Washington, D.C. on Monday dismissed the DOJ’s claims that its political appointees did not interfere with the New Black Panthers case.
In a case that decided whether the watchdog group, Judicial Watch, could receive fees and costs associated with the New Black Panthers litigation, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton held that:
“documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision.”
“Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision making,” Walton wrote in his opinion. “And the DOJ has not shown that these particular materials were released prior to this litigation, or that the information contained therein was already in the public domain.”
The New Black Panthers case revolves around members of the racist group who were caught on tape intimidating voters at a polling station during the 2008 elections in Philadelphia. The Justice Department initially charged the four New Black Panthers in the case. But after Obama shaped the Justice Department with his appointees, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissing the charges against three of the New Black Panthers while a fourth received a restraining order.
Judge Walton’s decision again shows that politics have often trumped the law in the Obama administration.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Hillary’s Right Hand Woman – Huma Abedin – More Proof of Her Long History With the mooslim brotherhood.
by 1389 on July 29, 2012
Senator John McCain’s claim that concerns about Huma Abedin are a smear based on “a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations” proves more embarrassing by the day. In fact, to the extent it addressed Ms. Abedin, the letter sent to the State Department’s inspector general by five House conservatives actually understated the case.
The letter averred that Abedin “has three family members — her late father, her mother and her brother — connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.” It turns out, however, that Abedin herself is directly connected to Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure involved in the financing of al-Qaeda. Abedin worked for a number of years at the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs as assistant editor of its journal. The IMMA was founded by Naseef, who remained active in it for decades, overlapping for several years with Abedin. Naseef was also secretary general of the Muslim World League in Saudi Arabia, perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world. In that connection, he founded the Rabita Trust, which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al-Qaeda.
You ought to be able to stop right there.
A person is not required to have done anything wrong to be denied a high-ranking government position, or more immediately, the security clearance allowing access to classified information that is necessary to function in such a job. There simply need be associations, allegiances, or interests that establish a potential conflict of interest.
Government jobs and access to the nation’s secrets are privileges, not rights. That is why the potential conflict needn’t stem from one’s own associations with hostile foreign countries, organizations, or persons. Vicarious associations, such as one’s parents’ connections to troublesome persons and organizations, are sufficient to create a potential conflict.
In this instance, however, before you even start probing the extensive, disturbing Brotherhood ties of her family members, Huma Abedin should have been ineligible for any significant government position based on her own personal and longstanding connection to Naseef’s organization.
Specifically, Ms. Abedeen was affiliated with the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, where she was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. The journal was the IMMA’s raison d’etre. Abedin held the position of assistant editor from 1996 through 2008 — from when she began working as an intern in the Clinton White House until shortly before she took her current position as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.
The IMMA was founded in the late 1970s by Abdullah Omar Naseef, who was then the vice president of the prestigious King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia. The IMMA’s chief product was to be its journal. For the important position of managing editor, Naseef recruited his fellow academic Zyed Abedin, who had been a visiting professor at the university in the early 1970s.
To join the IMMA, Dr. Abedin moved his family, including infant daughter Huma (born in 1976), to Saudi Arabia from Kalamazoo, Michigan. Zyed’s wife, Saleha Mahmood Abedin (Huma’s mother), is also an academic and worked for the journal from its inception. She would eventually take it over after her husband died in 1993, and she remains its editor to this day. Huma Abedin’s brother Hassan, another academic, is an associate editor at the journal.
The journal began publishing in 1979. For its initial edition, Abdullah Omar Naseef — identified in the masthead as “Chairman, Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs” — penned a brief introduction relating the IMMA’s vision for the journal. Zyed Abedin appeared as managing editor in the journal’s second edition in 1979, proclaiming in a short introduction his “deep appreciation to H.E. Dr. Abdullah O. Naseef, President, King Abdulaziz University, for his continued guidance, support, and encouragement.” (I am indebted to the Center for Security Policy, which obtained some copies of the journal, going back many years.)
Not long after the journal started, Naseef became the secretary general of the Muslim World League, the Saudi-financed global propagation enterprise by which the Muslim Brotherhood’s virulently anti-Western brand of Islamist ideology is seeded throughout the world, very much including in the United States.
We are not talking here about some random imam in the dizzying alphabet soup of Islamist entities. In the pantheon of Islamic supremacism, there are few positions more critical than secretary general of the Muslim World League. In fact, one of the MWL’s founders was Sa’id Ramadan, the right-hand and son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the Brotherhood’s legendary founder.
The MWL manages the “civilization jihad” — the Brotherhood’s commitment to destroy the West from within, and to “conquer” it by sharia proselytism (or dawa), as Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Brotherhood’s top sharia jurist, puts it.
Nevertheless, the MWL has a long history of deep involvement in violent jihad as well.
It was under MWL auspices in 1988 that Naseef created a “charity” called the Rabita Trust. The scare-quotes around “charity” are intentional. To direct the Rabita Trust, Naseef selected Wael Hamza Jalaidan. A few years earlier, Jalaidan had joined with Osama bin Laden to form al-Qaeda.
This would surprise you only if you waste your time listening to John McCain, Version 2012 — as opposed to John McCain, Version 2011, who professed himself “unalterably opposed” to the Muslim Brotherhood.
John McCain’s pro-Muslim hypocrisy should surprise no one who remembers his energetic support for the Clinton Administration’s war on behalf of the Balkan Muslim narcoterrorists, against the Orthodox Christian Serbs.
Under the Brotherhood’s interpretation of sharia, which is explained in such works as Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, all Muslims are supposed to donate a portion of their income. This obligation, known as zakat, is usually referred to as “charity” by Islamists and their Western pom-pom waivers. But it is not charity; it is fortification of the ummah – the notional global community of Muslims.
As Reliance instructs, zakat can only be given to Muslims, and one-eighth of it is supposed to be donated to “those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster.” Remember that the next time you hear the ubiquitous claim that Muslim charities are being misused as “fronts” for terrorism. This is not a “misuse” and they are not “fronts.” Under sharia, the streaming of donations to violent jihadists is quite intentional.
A month after the 9/11 attacks, Naseef’s Rabitah Trust was formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States government. Ultimately, branches of the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation and the International Islamic Relief Organization – other “charities” with roots in the MWL — were also designated as foreign terrorist organizations under federal law. This, too, should have not been a surprise. In 2003, in connection with a terrorism prosecution in Chicago, the Justice Department proffered that Osama bin Laden had told his aide Jamal al-Fadl that the Muslim World League was one of al-Qaeda’s three top funding sources. (Fadl later renounced al-Qaeda and cooperated with federal prosecutors.)
Huma Abedin was affiliated with the IMMA’s journal for a dozen years, from 1996 through 2008. She overlapped with its founder, Naseef, for at least seven years — it could be more, but I am assuming for argument’s sake that Naseef had no further involvement in his institute once his name was removed from the masthead.
Notice the time frame here
Huma Abedin began working for Abdullah Omar Nassif in 1996 – the same year Huma Abedin began her association with the Clintons. In other words, Huma Abedin worked for a prominent Muslim Brotherhood leader while at the same time working for the Clintons, and evidently carrying on an affair with Hillary.
But wait, there’s more…
From 1389 Blog: http://1389blog.com/
Actually, it’s a big dirty secret.
I could not help but notice, over the past few years, the right wing blogosphere’s silence on jihad and Islam. When I started blogging back in 2004-2005, there were literally scores of counter-jihad blogs in an already crowded field. Seven years later, it is a paltry few, save for Jihadwatch, Creeping Sharia, Logan’s Warning, Zilla …..
The first jolt and obvious disconnect was back in 2008, when Michelle Malkin and Hot Air suddenly and without explanation stopped running Robert Spencer’s “Blogging the Quran” series and his Jihad Watch v-logs. They were fantastic, informational and needed. Around the time she dropped Spencer, Malkin had a short-lived show on Fox and was trying to get more exposure there, and she also stopped writing as much as she had about Islam and jihad. I was surprised and disheartened at the time, but was unaware that these were just some early signs of a decision by the most influential people on the Right to sanction the jihad and sharia with their silence. Silence is sanction. Malkin still posts on big jihad stories every now and then (as do other right-of-center bloggers), and acts as if nothing has changed and she is still in the fight, but it has gone to the periphery of her concerns.
But this is not about just Michelle Malkin — not by a long shot. I wrote about her because the evidence in her case is fairly clear. But it is also about all of them: Drudge, Rush, Kathryn Lopez of National Review, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, etc. The email below makes the Right’s actions intelligible. It is unlikely — in fact, inconceivable — that the blogger described in it, who saw his path to money and traffic in abandoning the fight against jihad and Islamic supremacism, was the only one. Obviously, many others have gone down this road as well. The big blogs on the right never link counter-jihad blogs. They have all but surrendered.
It irked me that the party of constitutional rights and individual rights would adhere to the blasphemy laws under the sharia (do not criticize or offend Islam).
Which is worse: the left’s vocal support of the sharia or the right’s silence? The silence is more insidious. At least you know where you stand with the left.
From Atlas Shrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
“Lies, after all, are the heart and soul and the sword and shield of the Democrat party. ”
So all you have to doto occupy multiple epithets on the Democrats’ enemies list is to insist that they take their hands off yourself,
off your wallet, off your property, off your kids, off your diet, off your healthcare, off your household appliances, off your car, off your bank account, off your weapons of self-defense, off your liberty, and off your freedom of speech. Insist on all these good things – and that qualifies you to be spat upon by nasty, mean-spirited scum — by The Friends of All Mankind — by a gang of lying, thieving, dope-smoking, pill-popping, coke-snorting, sticky-fingered, bloodsxcking, tax-eating, gun-stealing, predatory humanitarian hoodlums, thugs and gangsters — by the Democrat party, in other words. No political party in the history of America more profoundly deserves absolute and outright destruction. — Comment by Osamapajamas inThe Real Reason ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Works — Daily Intel
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
Holder and Corzine Don’t Have to Worry – Commies Are Running the Show and Will Give Them A Free Pass
Holder, Corzine, Obama and all the rest don’t give a shit
that any of this is coming out.They are sitting back and LAUGHING at all of it. You know why?
Because they know damn good and well that no one is going to actually do ANYTHING about any of this, just like no one did anything about it in Russia under Lenin and Stalin or China under Mao….. You want to see justice? Kiss your wife and kiddies goodbye, gear up, and tell me where the mustering point is. Unless and until that happens, not only will there be no justice, but the crimes will only get exponentially worse until we are the New Vendee and infernal columns of the Free Shit Army are being sent into suburbia to kill every human being in their path in the name of hope, change, “tolerance” and free shit. — Anne Barnhardt
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
One of the more blatant displays of progressive thuggery is playing itself out in Boston and Chicago. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino threatened to keep fast food franchise Chick-fil-A from opening any restaurants in that city because he doesn’t want any business operating there “that discriminates against a population.” In Chicago, Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno announced that he will pursue the same course in his district for the same reason. “If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the 1st Ward,” Moreno told the Chicago Tribune. Such “tolerance” is based on an effort to deliberately mischaracterize as anti-homosexual what Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy said about traditional marriage. That mischaracterization has been aided and abetted by a media more than willing to amplify the distortion.
Sarah Palin and All True Conservative Christians Support Chick-Fil-A. Hatred Is Spewing From The Radical Pinko-Commie-Fag Obummer Liberals
And here’s the update, “Palin stops at Chick-fil-A, left responds with misogyny and sexism.”
And Doug Powers has some progressive backtracking at Michelle’s, “Rahm Emanuel’s office: He never said he’d block Chick-fil-A from opening here, just that their values aren’t Chicago’s” (via Memeorandum).
Fascism doesn’t fly, it turns out.
Keep a spotlight on progressive hate. It’s all they have.
Added: From Marooned in Marin, “Corrupt DC Mayor Attacks Chick-Fil-A As “Hate Chicken,” Use 9/11 Anniversary To Promote ‘Peace & Tolerance’.”
Don Perry, Chick-fil-A Vice President for Public Relations, Dies Unexpectedly — Progressives Celebrate on Twitter
And the left’s response at Fire Andrea Mitchell, “Left wingers celebrate the death of Chick-Fil-A spokesman Don Perry on Twitter.” And Twitchy, “PR VP for Chick-fil-A has died; Left responds with viciousness.”
Rosanne Barr’s been aiming rapid-fire hate at Chick-fil-A, including wishing cancer on the people who eat the company’s food. Apparently she’s apologized, but there’s still a lot of vile tweets in her timeline:
off to grab a shit fil-A sandwich on my way to worshipping Christ, supporting Aipac and war in Iran.
Plus, CNN has another report uploaded to YouTube, “Chick-Fil-A gets the boot.”
And here’s a commentary from Jack Nicas, at WSJ, “First Amendment Trumps Critics of Chick-fil-A” (via Google):
CHICAGO — The First Amendment is coming to the rescue of a chicken-sandwich chain that has drawn the ire of politicians outraged by its president’s public opposition to gay marriage.
One by one, local officials here and in Boston have revised their comments regarding the entrepreneur’s stance against gay marriage, tiptoeing between their disapproval of remarks he made on the subject and his right to say them.
Last week, Dan Cathy, president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, a closely held company based in an Atlanta suburb that operates 1,600 fast-food restaurants in 39 states, said he opposed gay marriage and supported the “biblical definition of the family unit.”
The comment sparked a public backlash that included same-sex “kiss-in” protests at Chick-fil-A restaurants and social-media campaigns to boycott the chain. Public officials from Boston to Chicago announced their opposition to the company’s expansion in those cities.
Chicago Alderman Proco Moreno wrote in the Chicago Tribune Thursday, “Because of [Mr. Cathy's] ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward.”
On Friday, Mr. Moreno conceded that free-speech rights trump his authority on the issue, and shifted his focus from Mr. Cathy’s remarks to potential discriminatory policies at the fast-food chain. He said he would reopen talks with Chick-fil-A, but pledged to fight the company until it amends or clarifies its anti-discrimination policy.
Chick-fil-A, which promotes its Christian values and is closed Sundays, said in a statement that the “culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect—regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.”
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino have similarly sought to clarify earlier statements that they opposed Chick-fil-A, saying they never intended to legally block the chain’s efforts for new restaurants in their cities.
“The mayor simply said that Chick-fil-A’s [president] does not share Chicago’s values,” Mr. Emanuel’s spokeswoman said in a statement. “If they meet all the usual requirements, then they can open their restaurant just like any other business.” The clarifications comes as legal experts said there are no legal grounds to block a company’s land-use application because of an executive’s political views.
Alan Weinstein, a professor of law at Cleveland State University who specializes on the intersection of land-use law and constitutional issues, said he has seen officials try to use zoning laws to block adult stores or religious institutions, but never a commercial enterprise because of political views. He said that beyond the First Amendment, “in the land-use sphere, the government has no legitimate interest” in the political views of an applicant.
RELATED: At the New York Times, “Mayor Says Banning Chick-fil-A Is Wrong.”
It shouldn’t matter that I, an author with the audacity to select such a title, am black. The arguments presented should stand or fall on their objective merit. Nevertheless, I declare my racial identity at the outset to defuse any prejudice readers may bring regarding the motivation behind this piece. Indeed, it is in part because I am black that the following must be said.
All things considered, blacks and the civil rights culture surrounding them are the most open and prolific purveyors of racism in America. This is an ironic travesty which spits upon the graves of history’s abolitionists and offends all who are committed to a dream of equality under the law and goodwill among men.
Surely, such a claim is provocative. Unfortunately, it is also demonstrable.
In a recent interview with National Public Radio host Michel Martin, the Oscar-winning black actor Morgan Freeman made the odd declaration that President Barack Obama is not America’s first black president. NPR reports:
“First thing that always pops into my head regarding our president is that all of the people who are setting up this barrier for him… they just conveniently forget that Barack had a mama, and she was white – very white American, Kansas, middle of America,” Freeman said. “There was no argument about who he is or what he is. America’s first black president hasn’t arisen yet. He’s not America’s first black president – he’s America’s first mixed-race president.”
This is a new take on Obama’s racial identity from Freeman, who haspreviously cited Obama’s blackness as the chief motivation behind political opposition from both Republicans in Congress and the Tea Party movement. From an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan:
…Morgan asked the actor, “Has Obama helped the process of eradicating racism or has it, in a strange way, made it worse?”
“Made it worse. Made it worse,” Freeman replied. “The tea partiers who are controlling the Republican party… their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term. What underlines that? Screw the country. We’re going to do whatever we can to get this black man out of here.”
Apparently, Obama is black enough to trigger baseless charges of racism, but not black enough to qualify as the first black president. If that makes your brain hurt, you might be rational.
Freeman’s comments are not anomalies. He channels long-held, broadly accepted ideas regarding what it means to be black, the relevance of race, and the claim of blacks upon the rest of society. These ideas are horrifically racist, yet uniquely tolerated.
The tolerance of racist ideas openly expressed by blacks and the larger civil rights establishment is informed by sloppy thinking regarding both race and the role of government in society. True reconciliation requires confronting these ideas with reason. Here are eight ways in which blacks are perpetuating racism, and the one true way to effectively thwart it.
…………………..Obama’s not black enough for this guy.
8 ) Seeking Racial “Purity”
Individuals or groups who seek racial “purity” are properly condemned as bigots – if they are white. Non-whites are routinely given a pass, and in some cases encouraged to “preserve their culture” through sexual segregation.
Morgan Freeman laments President Obama’s “white mama” and cites her as evidence that Obama is not truly black. This raises a few questions, the first of which is: what is “black”?
At the very least, by Freeman’s standard, having a white mother disqualifies one from being black. (That counts me out, too.) But not all blacks are equally so. Freeman himself is relatively light-skinned, certainly on a global spectrum. Many native Africans are far darker than Freeman, closer to ebony than brown. Indeed, the American black is invariably of mixed race, distinct from African cousins by breeding with whites over hundreds of years. Of course, the same can be said of any race over a long enough period of time. American whites are commonly a melting pot of Norwegian, Swede, German, Irish, Latin, Russian, and any of a dozen others.
That speaks to a critical truth. Race is a social construct of little objective value beyond efficiently communicating an amalgam of physical descriptors. President Obama is black, not because both parents were so, but because his physical characteristics are categorized as such in our thought and language. Beyond that, race means nothing. The notion of racial “purity” is inherently irrational, because race itself is subjective.
Why then should we distinguish Obama as the first black president, or argue over whether he is black enough to qualify as such? What rational value does such a distinction have? What is Freeman getting at?
Given the political context, it seems likely that Freeman desires a president whose blackness more dramatically informs public policy. Of course, a president so oriented would necessarily disenfranchise everyone else. And that’s the idea.
……………………..…unless we’re the ones doing it.
7 ) Cultural Segregation
Perhaps the most objective metric supporting the claim that blacks prolifically purvey racism is the astounding number of organizations which openly segregate. There are names we have all come to know, from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to Black Entertainment Television. And there are many others which are lesser known. Consider this list from one of many similar ones available on the web:
* American Association of Blacks in Energy
* The Association of Black Psychologists
* The Executive Leadership Council
* Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
* National Association of Black Accountants
* National Association of Black Hotel Owners, Operators, and Developers
* National Association of Black Journalists
* National Black Business Council
* National Black Chamber of Commerce
* National Black MBA Association
* National Black Nurses Association
* National Council of Negro Women
* National Coalition of 100 Black Women
* National Medical Association
* National Newspaper Publishers Association
* National Urban League
* National Society of Black Engineers
* Organization of Black Designers
* United Negro College Fund
* 100 Black Men of America
Surely, blacks are not the only demographic group which chooses to associate together, and there is certainly nothing wrong with free association. The problem is the double standard. Substitute white for black in any of the above and you would have theatrical public outcry and claims of civil rights violations.
Segregation of blacks by whites is widely regarded as one of the banes of the civil rights movement. Yet segregation is widely tolerated when blacks choose to engage in it. Such an obvious double standard fuels racial animosity rather than soothing it. If the goal of the civil rights movement was and remains equality and inclusion, how does such prolific segregation advance that?
Little do they know one of them is responsible for the systematic oppression of the other.
6 ) Collective Responsibility
Comedian Chris Rock took this past Fourth of July as an opportunity to pimp antiquated racial hatreds. He tweeted:
Happy white peoples independence day the slaves weren’t free but I’m sure they enjoyed fireworks (sic)
Rock, of course, leads a life of distinguished privilege among the entertainment industry’s brightest stars. He has never lived in chains as the property of another human being. Nor has anyone he knows. Nor has any American in several generations. That the philosophical bias of emancipation was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776 is as elusive to Chris Rock as the fact that the men who signed it were not made free by the stroke of a pen. Ideas proceed actions, and the process of crafting government which regards all men as equal under the law continues even today.
Nevertheless, Rock feels justified feigning indigence at a crime to which neither he nor any person alive was a party. How is that possible? He subscribes to and relies upon an irrational sense of collective responsibility.
He is black. The slaves were black. So he is as a slave.
There exist whites. Slave masters were white. So whites are as slave masters.
It’s an elementary logical fallacy which is nonetheless amplified by academics and entertainers alike. It has become a kind of racial gospel, quite literally in the case of black liberation theology. Popular culture is replete with black commentators, preachers, authors, and celebrities testifying to the injustice of slavery as if it happened to them personally and continues to this day.
This offends on two fronts. First, a son is not responsible for the sins of his father. Second, though overt slavery has been long abolished in America, there remain rampant intrusions upon fundamental liberties to varying degrees throughout the world. It is stunningly disingenuous to wring hands over distant history while at best saying nothing about and at worst advocating the many encroachments upon individual rights commonplace today.
In a piece examining black author Touré and the objects of prescribed “spiritual liberation,” PJM associate editor David Swindle asks:
What are his primary liberation concerns in the chapter he titles “Keep It Real is a Prison”? Liberating the black children trapped in inner city schools mismanaged by Democrats and teacher union bureaucrats? Liberating the law-abiding, black families struggling to keep out of the crossfire amidst the the astronomical rate of black-on-black violence? What about liberating the untold numbers of African blacks oppressed by dictators and Islamists? How about all the black women around the world today living as victims of female genital mutilation? What about the black women victimized by gang rape in the Congo?
No tweets on any of that from Chris Rock.
O.J. Simpson was all smiles after his acquittal. Many black onlookers saw it as a victory against racism.
5 ) Masquerading Vengeance as Justice
You can’t have justice without equal treatment under the law. Yet many policy prescriptions and attitudes relating to race explicitly call for the preferential treatment of minorities.
Perhaps the most egregious example is affirmative action. Rather than apply the same standard to all candidates for a given opportunity, affirmative action lowers or eliminates standards for favored groups. This is insulting to all parties concerned, making experience and qualifications inferior to irrelevant political considerations. It is by definition an injustice. Yet is is tolerated and even mandated. Why?
Building on the notion of collective responsibility, affirmative action is sold as social justice. The sins of white fathers deprived black sons of opportunity, it is argued. So white sons must cede their place to blacks. This is not justice in any objective sense. It is an irrational vengeance exacted upon the innocent on behalf of the un-wronged. It is at best a punishment of the son for the sins of his father, and never connected to a demonstrable wrong. What are the odds that a given white person’s ancestor committed a crime against a given black person’s ancestor? To the black racist, it doesn’t matter, because white guilt is collective, as is black entitlement.
Another common way in which vengeance is masqueraded as justice is the rationalization of specific black crime as justified by generalized white crime. Blacks celebrated as O.J. Simpson was acquitted, not because they believed he was innocent, but because he put one over on the Man. Consider this 2007 admission from the blogger of The Black Factor:
For more than a decade, O.J. Simpson has been the Negro that got away. To put it into historical context, O.J. Simpson is the ni**er Whites couldn’t lynch at noon. O.J. was one of the few Black people, who could afford to play the legal system the way Whites have longed played the legal system (Claus Van Bulow, anyone?). And, right or wrong, he walked free. And, many Whites got all beside themselves. As a result, Blacks have been listening to Whites play the crying game every since (sic).
Note no concern for justice. O.J. was a black man getting back at whites for the collective injustices of the past. The object of such a sentiment isn’t to obtain equal treatment under the law, but to turn the tables of history and subject whites to injustice as revenge.
4 ) Loose Accusations of Racism
Race is one of several factors which inform an observer’s subjective judgment, and is not particularly special. What a person wears, how they talk, their posture and demeanor – all have an effect upon what an observer presumes about them. This is particularly true when the observer has to make a quick judgment in an impromptu encounter.
The ability to make snap judgments about another is an integral part of our survival instinct and ought not be blunted by political correctness or cited as evidence of racism. Prejudice, or pre-judgment, is something we rationally inculcate in our children at a very young age. We teach them to beware of strangers. How a person looks is one of the first and most effective means by which we determine them to be strange.
In this sense prejudice is both innate to all persons and appropriate in many contexts. If a woman taking a turn down an alley suppresses her prejudice regarding a gang of motley young men, she risks much unnecessarily.
Prejudice is not inherently racist, and loose accusations of racism based on isolated perceptions of prejudice are premature. Words have meaning, and we have different words to describe distinct concepts. Prejudice, bigotry, and racism are not interchangeable. While prejudice can be innocent and even reasonable in certain contexts, bigotry is the irrational maintenance of a prejudice in light of evidence to the contrary. Bigotry can be informed by a multitude of factors, of which race is only one. Racism is what we call bigotry informed by race.
These distinctions are important in any intellectually honest discussion of race relations. When prejudice, bigotry, and racism are used interchangeably, it is evidence that the discussion is not honest.
3 ) Fighting Irrationality with Irrationality
The consensus that racism is bad does not seem to be informed by a consensus as to why. For many, it seems that racism is simply out of fashion, rather than an objective wrong.
Bigotry offends reason. Sustaining a prejudice about an individual in light of evidence to the contrary does not make sense. It is a rejection of reality, and that is what makes it offensive. Attempts by hand-wringing “progressives” to combat racism with equally irrational assertions compound the offense.
A recent example is the so-called Unfair Campaign, an initiative out of Duluth which was until recently supported by the University of Minnesota. The mission of the Unfair Campaign is to “to raise awareness about white privilege in our community.”
The notion of “white privilege,” as articulated by the Unfair Campaign in the above video, is itself a racist sentiment. To assume that all whites have an inherent leg up on the rest of society is as irrational as assuming all blacks are somehow inferior. Indeed, the sentiments are one and the same, a point raised in this response featuring yours truly.
The University of Minnesota has since quietly removed its support of the Unfair Campaign.
…………………..Liberty fosters respect and cooperation.
2 ) Treating Whites as Hostiles Rather Than Traders
All of the above fosters racism because it perpetuates irrationalism in the culture. At worst, irrationalism becomes institutionalized through public policy, wielding government’s monopoly on force toward subjective and therefore unjust ends. As the populace perceives such injustice, animosity is created where it may not otherwise exist, and accelerated where it might otherwise be benign.
The underlying principle is applicable beyond race relations. Under a condition of liberty, where each individual is protected against the initiation of force by another, trust is engendered and people deal peaceably with one another in trade, offering value for value. When strangers meet in the market, they begin with a greeting.
Conversely, when strangers meet in the wild, they begin with a threat or warning. Why? Because they are not otherwise protected from the initiation of force. Suspicion and hostility is fostered whenever public policy treats people unjustly, such as when one race is granted preferential treatment over another. It doesn’t matter whether it’s whites being treated preferentially under Jim Crow, or blacks being treated preferentially under affirmative action, the injustice and resulting cultural degradation are the same.
……….These civil rights would enslave producers to consumers.
1 ) Lifting Civil Rights Above Inalienable Rights
The term “civil rights” has become sacrosanct in the political discourse. It has become interchangeable with “correct” and a rhetorical bludgeon with which to bloody opponents of “social justice.” To call something “a civil rights issue” is to end the argument. Health care. Marriage. Education. Jobs. All have been evoked as civil rights. In so doing, proponents of a new affirmative action hope to paint their opposition as bigots, because popular sentiment holds that only a bigot would oppose a civil right.
This is another corruption of the language, most egregious because of its effect upon public policy and the way in which force is applied in people’s lives. Not all civil rights are good. In fact, when they are crafted in opposition to the inalienable rights recognized in the Declaration and protected by the Constitution, they are downright evil.
Civil rights are legal grants from the state which can be wholly arbitrary. The inalienable rights of the individual are objectively derived and exist independent of the state. Good civil rights support inalienable rights. For instance, voting is a civil right which compliments the inalienable rights of the voter. Bad civil rights oppose inalienable rights. Granting a civil right to health care or any other provision places a burden upon producers to supply their wares without trade, something which used to be called robbery.
Because the civil rights movement of the 1960s was in opposition to institutionalized racism, civil rights have since been associated with decency and justice in the public discourse. That association has been abused to promote all manner of wrong. The potential exists to make a civil right out of anything. In fact, the claim of a slave owner over his “property” in a state with legal slavery would be a civil right. A hammer might be used to bash in someone’s head as readily as it may pound a nail. Likewise, civil rights may be crafted for ill as readily as for good.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed of a world where people were treated equally under the law, and judged by one another according to the content of their character. Such a world requires the condition of liberty, where people may only deal with each other in trade, not by force. Absent the fear and distrust which manifest in a system of political favoritism, people are incentivized to deal with each other respectfully. Free association can never deprive anyone of anything. Force can, however, and therefore ought to be removed from human relationships. That’s what proper government does. True concern for racial equality can only manifest in a vigorous defense of individual rights. Those who mindlessly seek civil rights in opposition to objectively derived individual rights seek tyranny, not equality, and deserve to be regarded as the agitators they are.
Christian Religious Belief and Freedom To Practice That Belief Now Running Head-on into Obamacare Mandates
The Justice Department last week presented the Newland family of Colorado – who own Hercules Industries, a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning business – with what amounted to an ultimatum: Give up your religion or your business.
“Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,” the Justice Department said in a formal filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
In response to the Justice Department’s argument that the Newlands can either give up practicing their religion or give up owning their business, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the family, said in a reply brief: “[T]o the extent the government is arguing that its mandate does not really burden the Newlands because they are free to abandon their jobs, their livelihoods, and their property so that others can take over Hercules and comply, this expulsion from business would be an extreme form of government burden.”
Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its mandate that individuals must buy health insurance, this suit which seeks to protect a small business from being forced to take actions that violate the moral and religious beliefs of the family that owns it is likely to be the next major court battle over Obamacare.
At stake is whether businesses are protected by the First Amendment – the part of the Bill of Rights that guarantees not only the free exercise of religion but also freedom of speech and of the press.
The Justice Department’s filing was made in Newland v. Sebelius – a suit brought by William, Paul and James Newland, and their sister, Christine Ketterhagen, who are Roman Catholics, and who together own Colorado-based Hercules Industries.
The Newland family founded Hercules in 1962 and have maintained it as a family-owned business ever since – growing it to the point where they now employ 265 people.
The Newlands’ lawsuit challenges a regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized earlier this year that requires virtually all health plans to cover–without cost-sharing–sterilizations and all Food-and-Drug Administration approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions.
Under the Obamacare law, businesses that have more than 50 employees must provide health insurance to their employees or face a penalty. To satisfy the mandate, the insurance must include the cost-sharing-free sterilization-contraception-abortifacient benefit. The regulation takes effect on Aug. 1, which means that as soon as any business starts a new plan-year for its health-insurance program after that date it will need to comply with Sebelius’s rule.
The Catholic Church, to which the Newlands belong, teaches that sterilization, contraception and abortion are intrinsically immoral. Last month, the Catholic bishops of the United States unanimously adopted a statement declaring Sebelius’s regulation an “unjust and illegal mandate” and a “violation of personal civil rights.”
While much of the media attention on Sebelius’ regulation has focused on the fact that it will apply to famous Catholic religious institutions such as Catholic University and the University of Notre Dame, the Catholic bishops have repeatedly pointed out that the regulation also violates the First Amendment-protected religious liberty of lay Catholic individuals. That includes employees who will be forced to pay insurance premiums on insurance plans that violate the teachings of their faith and business owners who will be forced to provide such plans.
In their unanimous statement, the Catholic bishops declared that Sebelius’s regulation created a class of Americans “with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values. They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing ‘services’ contrary to those values – whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves – without even the semblance of an exemption.”
The Newlands currently run a self-insurance plan, providing their employees with generous health-care coverage that is consistent with the teachings of the Newlands’ church in that it does not cover sterilizations, contraception and abortifacients. They are precisely among the class of people that the unanimous Catholic bishops said have “no conscience protection at all” under Sebelius’s regulation.
In their complaint against the Obama administration, which was prepared by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Newlands clearly explained why they could not comply with Sebelius’s regulation without violating their religious faith.
“The Newlands sincerely believe that the Catholic faith does not allow them to violate Catholic religious and moral teachings in their decisions operating Hercules Industries,” says the complaint. “They believe that according to the Catholic faith their operation of Hercules must be guided by ethical social principles and Catholic religious and moral teachings, that the adherence of their business practice according to such Catholic ethics and religious and moral teachings is a genuine calling from God, that their Catholic faith prohibits them to sever their religious beliefs from their daily business practice, and that their Catholic faith requires them to integrate the gifts of the spiritual life, the virtues, morals, and ethical social principles of Catholic teaching into their life and work.”
“The Catholic Church teaches that abortifacient drugs, contraception and sterilization are intrinsic evils,” says the complaint. “As a matter of religious faith the Newlands believe that those Catholic teachings are among the religious ethical teachings they must follow throughout their lives including in their business practice.”
The Justice Department responded by arguing that if the Newlands’ Roman Catholic faith prevented them from following the Obama administration’s command that they provide their employees with cost-sharing-free coverage for sterilizations, contraception and abortion-inducing drugs, the Newlands could simply give up their business entirely.
The Justice Department further argued that people owning for-profit secular businesses do not have a First Amendment right to the free exercise religion in the way they conduct their businesses—particularly if their business is incorporated.
“Here, plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the preventive services coverage regulations substantially burden their religious exercise,” the Justice Department told the court. “Hercules Industries, Inc., is not a religious employer; it is ‘an HVAC manufacturer.’”
“The First Amendment Complaint does not allege that the company is affiliated with a formally religious entity such as a church,” the Justice Department told the federal court. “Nor does it allege that the company employs persons of a particular faith. In short, Hercules Industries is plainly a for-profit, secular employer.”
“By definition,” the Justice Department claimed, “a secular employer does not engage in any ‘exercise of religion.’”
“Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,” DOJ told the court. “Any burden is therefore caused by the company’s choice to enter into a commercial activity.”
In its brief responding to the Justice Department on behalf of the Newland family, the Alliance Defending Freedom forcefully rebutted the claim that the First Amendment does not apply to corporations let alone to family-owned businesses.
“The government argues that the Newlands forfeited their right to religious liberty as soon as they endeavored to earn their living by running a corporation,” said the Newlands’ brief.
“Nothing in the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s decisions, or federal law requires – or even suggests – that families forfeit their religious liberty protection when they try to earn a living, such as by operating a corporate business,” they argued.
If the Obama administration’s understanding of the First Amendment were accepted, argued the Alliance Defending Freedom’s brief, the media would have no rights either.
“The government’s exclusionary attitude would push religion out of every sphere of life except the four wall of a church,” they said in their brief. “If for-profit corporations have no First Amendment ‘purpose,’ newspapers and other media would have no rights.”
If they refuse to sell their businesses, families like the Newlands are trapped by the Sebelius regulation. They can stop providing health insurance to themselves and their employees through the business, but then they and their employees would still be required, under Obamacare’s individual mandate, to buy health insurance, and under the Sebelius regulation all the health insurance plans they would be able to buy would still be required to cover sterilizations, contraception and abortion-inducing drugs. Their premiums would then contribute to those “services,” and the business owners would still be required to pay a penalty to the government of about $2,000 per year for each employee they did not insure.
If businesses like the Newlands’ try to simply flout the Sebelius regulation and continue providing insurance to their workers that does not cover the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient benefits that the Obama administration demands, they will be hit with confiscatory financial penalties.
“PPACA also imposes monetary penalties if Hercules were to continue to offer its self-insured plan but continued omitting abortifacients, contraceptive and sterilizations,” said the Newlands’ complaint. “The exact magnitude of these penalties may vary according to the complicated provisions of PPACA, but the fine is approximately $100 per day per employee, with minimum amounts applying in different circumstances.
With 265 employees, a business like the Newlands’ would need to pay the government $26,500 per day if they decided not to comply with Sebelius’s regulation and insured their employees anyway. Over 365 days that would amount to $9,672,500.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/#
……Is that the Left driven by greed and a hatred of Capitalism kills business with taxes and regulations. Via William Teach
The Democrats who wrote, passed, and support the “American Care Act” probably thought that companies would just roll over and willingly pay a higher tax rate for their medical devices. Alas, the Real World has intruded on the Dem fantasies of collecting more tax money to spread around to their campaign contributors and voters
(Fox News) An Indiana-based medical equipment manufacturer says it’s scrapping plans to open five new plants in the coming years because of a looming tax tied to President Obama’s health care overhaul law.
Cook Medical claims the tax on medical devices, set to take effect next year, will cost the company roughly $20 million a year, cutting into money that would otherwise go toward expanding into new facilities over the next five years.
“This is the equivalent of about a plant a year that we’re not going to be able to build,” a company spokesman told FoxNews.com.
He said the original plan was to build factories in “hard-pressed” Midwestern communities, each employing up to 300 people. But those factories cost roughly the same amount as the projected cost of the new tax.
“In reality, we’re not looking at the U.S. to build factories anymore as long as this tax is in place. We can’t, to be competitive,” he said.
Surprise! Who could imagine that increasing taxes could cause a company to change its behavior rather than rolling over in docility? Liberals might say that a 2.3% tax on medical devices isn’t a big deal, but when that increases costs on a company by $20 million dollars, which is real money when you get outside the Washington, D.C. bubble, things have to be changed. And that cost also tends to be passed on to the consumer, who might think twice about making the purchase, and go with that product that was made in another country and is not subject to the tax.
But the Cook Medical spokesman said the impact is greater than just a 2.3 percent uptick in taxes. He said the impact on actual earnings is another 15 percent, and he projected the company’s total tax burden next year will rise to over 50 percent.
Go read the rest. Don’t you just love how that “spreading the wealth around” hurts, rather than helps working people. The jobs Cook Medical WOULD have created are gone, and of course Cook is not the only company being forced to cut back expansion plans. Just another example of how the Left promises to spread the wealth, but actually spreads the misery.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi of American Freedom Law Center and Pamela Geller
What began as a clear first amendment issue has exploded into a landmark case regarding the status of Islam as a political entity. Today the Detroit Transit Authority (SMART), a government entity, argued before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that our “Leaving Islam” ad was political because Islam is political. At least two of the three judges seemed to go along.
If the Court rules against us, it will be ruling that Islam is political and that Sharia is a political program — something that other government agencies have strenuously denied. If that happens, will Islam and Sharia deserve the protection of a religion?
The case was argued today before 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Raymond Kethledge, John Marshall Rogers and Algenon L. Marbley. Chris Hildebrand, the lawyer for Detroit SMART, began by referring to and based his whole argument on our recent victory over the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority in another First Amendment case about a completely different ad (a pro-Israel ad). Hildebrand argued that the Judge in that case, Paul Engelmayer, had said that that ad was political, and thus that the MTA had to accept it in accord with their guidelines. Hildebrand asserted that our “Leaving Islam?” bus ad, which Detroit SMART rejected, was also political, and thus was rightly rejected by SMART, which (in contrast to the MTA) does not take political ads. His client, said Hildebrand, does not reject ads because they’re provocative (as he claimed that ours was), or controversial, but because they’re political, and SMART does not and will not take political positions.
Judge Rogers then told him that he had gotten SMART into a “blurry area” to be making a distinction between the political and religious. Hildebrand countered that while the ad may be anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, and anti-Sharia (actually it was designed wholly and solely to offer help to people whose lives were threatened), it was also political. Judge Marbley then pointed out that an imam, who would issue a fatwa (referring to the part of our ad that asked, “Is your family threatening you? Is there a fatwa on your head?”) was not an elected official.
Hildebrand then dropped the bomb that has extraordinary implications for the debate about anti-Sharia laws and the status of Islam in the United States: he said that yes, imams have a religious function, but they also “control Sharia law,” and Sharia is political. Marbley said that that might be so in Iran, but not in Detroit, where they had a purely religious function. Hildebrand then dug in even deeper, saying that imams in Dearborn deal with Sharia on both a religious and political basis. When Marbley then asked him how our ad was different from one that SMART accepted from an atheist group, calling on people to become atheists, Hildebrand said that it differed because Islam is not only religious, but also a “political series of laws.” Marbley then pointed out that the same thing could be said about the Catholic Church, since the Vatican was a political entity, and that could be used to rule out advertising from Catholic groups. Hildebrand then argued that our ad was both religious and political, and that the reference to a fatwa made it primarily political and not religious — which would only be true if Sharia itself is primarily political and not religious.
Judge Kethledge seemed to go along with this argument, telling our own lawyer, Robert Muise (who ably argued for our side), that Sharia is “arguably” political as well as religious. Judge Rogers then outrageously compared our ad to an ad repeating a vile and disgusting blood libel against the Jews as part of Jewish law (which it most certainly is not, but the death penalty for apostasy most certainly is part of the sharia) — showing the truth of his and Marbley’s admission that they knew next to nothing about Islam (or Jewish law). Clearly they were unaware of Islam’s death penalty for apostasy. If they did, they would never have said that our public service ad constituted “scorn and ridicule.”
Kethledge clearly had his mind made up already, getting testy with Muise and helping Hildebrand with his case, inviting him when he returned to the stand to explain why our ad — designed to save lives — constituted “scorn and ridicule” of Muslims and thus was also disallowed on those grounds according to SMART’s guidelines. This entangled SMART in a self-contradiction: Hildebrand said that they didn’t disallow our ad because it was “controversial” but also that our ad constituted “scorn and ridicule” — but none of the judges seemed to notice and certainly no one challenged Hildebrand on this. Hildebrand did not, and could not, explain why our ad constituted scorn and ridicule, and instead simply kept asserting that it did. He did not argue his case persuasively, but with Kethledge and also Rogers so clearly on his side, he had a clear advantage.
If SMART wins, however, the implications for the status of Islam and Sharia as political will be enormous. Incalculable. SMART may end up winning the battle for Sharia in the U.S., but losing the war.
ITALY’S TOP 5-STAR HOTEL OK’S MUSLIM PORTER WHO REFUSES TO REPORT TO WOMAN BOSS: “I DO NOT TAKE ORDERS FROM A WOMAN”
The sublime, legendary Danieli Hotel is a monument to Venetian magnificence and without doubt one of the world’s most outstanding luxury hotels…
….that bows to the sharia and the subjugation of women.
Slowly but most assuredly, the most anti-human, anti-woman, anti-freedom ideology on the face of the earth infuses itself into Western culture. These types of daily occurrences would have been unimaginable, impossible, twenty years ago.
What a difference weakness and lack of civilational self-esteem makes.
If it were me, I would have driven this misogynist supremacist to the airport and bought him a one-way ticket back to his richly derserved cave.
Needless to say, there ought to be a global boycott of Hotel Danieli. Any woman who would stay is a slave.
“Top Italian hotel OK’s Muslim porter won’t have to take orders from woman boss“ The Examiner July 27, 2012, (hat tip David)Named one of the top 500 hotels on the planet, the 5-Star Hotel Danieli of Venice, Italy has played host to the likes of Johann von Goethe, Richard Wagner, Honoré de Balzac, Charles Dickens and Emile Zola.
A one night stay in this swankiest of Venetian hotels runs the range of $12,198.88 (£7,747.29) to $308.05 (£195.64) per night.
It must cost that much in order to hire a go-between for a Muslim porter who refuses to take orders from his female supervisor.
As reported by the Italian newspaper Il Gazzettino, an unnamed Muslim porter of Egyptian origin at the hotel was quoted as stating:
“I do not take orders from a woman.”
So to ensure the centuries old hotel properly adhered to the young immigrant’s ”rigid religious vision,” the Danieli hired a male as a full time employee whose sole responsibility is to relay orders from the female supervisor to the sharia-compliant employee.
As reported by Il Gazzettino:
“We therefore decided to guarantee that during his work hours, his boss would have a male colleague at her side who would act as a liaison with the Egyptian to communicate the tasks to be performed.”
The savage should have been fired. On the spot.
Liberal Morons Want Catholic University to Remove Crosses So Not to Offend mooslims? If The Cross Offends Them…Tough Shit. Everything About islam’s Evil Ideology is Offensive.
GW SCHOOL OF LAW PROFESSOR JOHN BANZHAF IS DEMANDING THAT CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN WASHINGTON D.C. REMOVE CROSSES AND CHRISTIAN SYMBOLS SO AS NOT TO OFFEND MUSLIMS
As colleges and universities continue to make extraordinary accommodation to Muslims on their campuses (ie Muslim prayer rooms, foot baths, sharia compliant curriculum etc) the war on non-believers widens:
“Law Professor John Banzhaf Wants Crosses Removed at Catholic U” J. Christian Adams, PJM, July 28, 2012
George Washington School of Law Professor John Banzhaf is demanding that Catholic University in Washington D.C. remove crosses and Christian symbols so as not to offend Muslim sensibilities.
The Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights confirmed that it is investigating allegations that Catholic University violated the human rights of Muslim students by not allowing them to form a Muslim student group and by not providing them rooms without Christian symbols for their daily prayers.
Realize of course that Catholic University is a private institution. Attacks on the freedom of the Catholic Church are the sort of things thug regimes do around the world and throughout history.
The only thing more frightening than asking a government to force a church to remove religious symbols is perhaps the fact that law professor John Banzhaf is teaching legions of subservient law students such dangerous and un-American nonsense.
Extraordinary dhimmitude. Contact this tool here.
A woman was burnt alive by her Muslim husband. The woman’s children witnessed their devout Muslim father, grandma and aunt set their mother ablaze. “Nobody has been arrested yet.”
That could be the epitaph of thousands of Muslim women.
Woman burnt alive in front of daughters Times of India, July 28, 2012 (hat tip David)
MALDA: The failure to give birth to a son and the inability to fulfill her husband and in-laws’ demand formoney cost a woman her life. She was burnt alive allegedly by her husband and in-laws in front of her minor daughters on Friday night. The victim, a resident of Khejurbona village, succumbed to her injuries on Saturday morning. The woman’s mother has lodged a complaint but the accused have gone into hiding.
The victim, Jahiran Biwi, married Serajul Islam, a labourer, seven years back. They had two daughters – Tamanna, 5, and Sahamida, 2.
Jahiran’s mother Aisanur Biwi said, “Since the birth of the younger daughter, my daughter was being tortured by her husband and in-laws. She was beaten up and abused for her failure to deliver a son.” The torture stopped for a while after complaints were made against Serajul at Malda police station.
Jahiran was also asked to get money from her parents to bring up the daughters. Initially, Aisanur met her son-in-law’s demand. “But a few days back, he demanded Rs 5,000 which was beyond our capacity. This triggered them to start torturing my daughter again,” the victim’s mother said.
On Friday, Jahiran was set ablaze in her house. Tamanna told police that her grandmother and aunt poured kerosene on her mother, while her father set Jahiran on fire.
While the daughters looked on helplessly, Jahiran ran out of the house with flames all over her body, crying for help. Her neighbours rushed to her rescue and rushed her to a hospital. Jahiran succumbed to her injuries on Saturday morning.
Aisanur lodged a complaint against Serajul, his parents Nemaj Ali and Salekha Biwi, his brothers Tinku and Rinku and sister Tajo.
Police have initiated a probe but nobody has been arrested yet.
By George Neumayr on 7.26.12
While he wages a culture war on Christians, the president tells Americans not to worry about global Islam.
Last week Barack Obama marked the beginning of Ramadan by saying to Muslims that the “United States continues to stand with those who seek the chance to decide their own destiny, to live free from fear and violence, and to practice their faith freely.” While he undercuts Christianity at home — under his Obamacare abortifacient/contraceptive mandate, resistant Catholic and Protestant schools, hospitals, and charities will soon face crushing fines — he never fails to tout Islam abroad.
One would think his allies at the ACLU might cringe at his lavish tributes to global Islam as a great and blameless religion and his “Iftar dinners” at the White House. But they don’t. His undiluted enthusiasm for Islam, which amounts to a case of Islamophilia, never triggers any of the usual separation-of-church-and-state objections and anxieties from them.
The elite’s pooh-poohing of questions from Congressmen this week about Huma Abedin’s well-documented familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood is an outgrowth of this Islamophilia. Under its chic influence, enlightened Americans are simply not supposed to care about such matters. Rather, they should welcome global Islam’s reach into the White House and the State Department. After all, “jihad” is merely a harmless concept of self-improvement, “a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community,” as Obama security adviser John Brennan has confidently put it.
Attorney General Eric Holder prides himself on refusing to identify radical Islam as a motive for terrorism. He maintained this view even after self-identified Muslim terrorists killed soldiers at the Fort Hood military base, tried to blow up a plane over Detroit on the day of Jesus Christ’s birth, and attempted to bomb tourists in Times Square.
After the Fort Hood shooting by an open jihadist in the military’s very ranks, Obama’s top brass still kept up their politically correct patter about Islam. General George Casey, the Army’s top official, fretted on talk shows about the greater tragedy that could come from the loss of “diversity” a backlash from the Fort Hood shooting might cause.
Read the Rest at The American Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/26/obamas-islamophilia-week
President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comment has become a top campaign issue.
The uproar began when Obama, speaking on July 13 in Roanoke, Virginia, emphasized how an individual’s success in business is directly dependent upon the government’s spending on roads, bridges, education, etc.
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help,” he proclaimed. “Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
The Romney campaign responded by scheduling “We Did Build This” events in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Hampshire, Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, Nevada, New Mexico, and Florida, featuring small business owners who wanted to respond to Obama’s perceived deprecation of entrepreneurship, individualism, and small business success.
Romney called Obama’s remark “extraordinarily revealing,” an unveiling of “an ideology that somehow says it’s the collective and government that we need to celebrate.”
The Obama campaign claims that the “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that” comment is being taken “out of context” and that Obama’s “didn’t build that” words were referring back to the “roads and bridges” in the prior sentence.
They’re maintaining that Obama just got the grammar wrong, misaligning a plural “roads and bridges” with a singular “that.” The campaign is arguing that it may have sounded like he was saying “you didn’t build that business” but what he was really saying was “you didn’t build that roads and bridges.”
Either way, President Obama now has a television ad playing that attempts to calm the uproar. “Of course Americans build their own businesses,” he states, looking directly into the camera. “Every day, hardworking people sacrifice to meet a payroll, create jobs, and make our economy run. And what I said was that we need to stand behind them, as America always has.”
Well, that’s not what he originally said, but it sounds good, sounds better than trying to stir up class resentments and votes by saying that freeloading bosses in America are riding around each day on the collective’s roads and bridges and not paying their “fair share.”
There’s no mention from the White House about how America’s top income groups contribute a disproportionate amount in taxes to pay for all the roads, bridges, tunnels, Senate salaries, White House parties, green bankruptcies, missiles and bombs. “The rich” are far from getting a “free ride.”
Read it all at The American Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/27/redistributing-context
The Media Are the Enemy – They Deliberately Lie and Distort All Truth, All The Time. They Are the Lowest Scum of Humanity for they Have Directly Contributed to The Decline of Western Civilization.
Breitbart Is Right
As might you, I remember exactly where I was, and what I was doing when I heard about the Aurora massacre.
I was driving to work, like many a man who has not suffered an unimaginable tragedy. On the radio there came a brief mention — the true magnitude of how many had died was not yet known — of the massacre.
It was only two sentences. The second sentence was a denial that any “overseas” (that was the euphemism used) terrorists groups were involved.
That immediately tickled my suspicions. I used to work for a newspaper, as a writer and as an editor. It takes time to do policework, to check credit card records, to check if a suspect had been overseas, to get warrants, to read his old mail, to talk to neighbors. There is no way, no possible way, any responsible police agency could have investigated between midnight (when the crime occurred) and morning (when I heard the news) when all the businesses were closed and announced that it had ruled out anything.
The newsman was not reporting an official announcement: he was merely making the literally true but deliberately deceptive statement that no evidence had yet emerged of any link to overseas terror. There was also no evidence to a link to Ethiopia, to Elocutionists, to Eggplants, or to Ecumenism, because six hours is too soon for any confirmed evidence of any kind. So why single out terrorists for exculpation?
Parking my car a few minutes later, I walked into my work. I have a dayjob, working for a military subcontractor. As all military facilities in which I have ever worked, there is a television tuned 24/7 to the mainstream news channels in the break room. Why US Military ordains that Orwellian viewscreens should be tuned constantly to channels that disseminate anti-Military agitprop, I cannot guess. As I walked past the break room door, I heard the massacre being discussed by the news entertainment heads.
I only heard two sentences yet again. The first mentioned the location and time of the shooting. The second sentence was speculation that the shooter was a rightwing extremist or a neo-Nazi.
The next thing I heard about it was not the numbers of the victims, nor the heroism of those who threw themselves in harm’s way to save sisters and girlfriends, and not the little twelve year old girl who tried to give CPR to a six year old who died under her hands.
No. The next thing I heard about was Brian Ross, who had announced on ABC news that the shooter was a member of the Tea Party.
I did not see or hear civilized and sane voices calling for prayer, for silence, or for dignity until much later in the week, or, as we measure time now, much later in the newscycle.
That was not where the emphasis was. We live in a Dark Age, where civility, piety, decency and honesty are not praised nor prized.
No, instead, the headlines of the radio and television news, the first thing I heard before I heard any details, was those two assertions being hammered home: the attacker was not a Muslim terrorist. The Right was to blame.
(As of the time of this writing, Mr Ross has not been fired, or even censured, for this slander presented as news to a trusting and nationwide audience. If he has issued an official apology, I am unaware of it.)
Of my other thoughts, I will be silent. But I will add my voice to the choir of condemnation against the mainstream media:
You are vermin.
I mean this in the literal sense: a vermin is an animal that destroys livestock and must be put down for human life to be successful.
You could have been newsmen and told the truth as you knew it.
You could have been gentlemen and told the truth without a sick and sadistic desire to fatten yourselves on the blood of the slain, and then spew out that blood, mixed with bile, into to faces of your political rivals in the game of power. You could have been polite, and civil, and honest, and sane.
You could have been human.
But no. The most vicious town gossip who seeks ever to destroy the reputation and blacken the character of an enemy never launched so quickly and so immediately a campaign to stir up slander, hate, and malice against an innocent foe.
You were running on autopilot, dear newsmen.
The autopilot of ideology charts only one course: when there is a gun-massacre or an act of terror, you blame your political rivals as long as possible and as often as possible because that is what the simplistic fairy tale of your world view demands. You immediately, long before any evidence is in, exculpate your allies, because this is also what your simplistic fairy tale demands.
George Zimmerman, a registered Democrat, is reported as being a “white Hispanic” because Caucasians shooting Negroes in cold blood fits the fairy tale, and the facts do not fit the fairy tale.
When Dr. Amy Bishop shot and killed three colleagues at a faculty meeting, the Left speculated that she was a Tea Partier because that fits the fairy tale, and the facts do not fit the fairy tale. In fact, she was lifelong Democrat and Obama donor.
James Lee, 43, took three hostages at the Discovery Channel’s headquarters in Maryland. The media speculation was that Lee a “climate-change denier” who’d resorted to violence. . That fits the fairy tale, and the facts do not fit the fairy tale. In fact, he was a radical environmentalist who viewed humans as parasites on the Earth
The census-taker Bill Sparkman in rural Kentucky was supposedly hanged by extremist anti-tax Tea Partiers. Such insanely murderous acts by the peaceful protesters (who clean up after themselves when they gather in public areas) fits the fairy tale. In fact, he hanged himself. The facts do not fit the fairy tale
Mayor Bloomberg immediately speculated that the bomber was someone upset about the president’s new health-care law. The media trumpeted the idea that crazed conservatives had turned to violence. In fact, the perpetrator was Faisal Shahzad, jihadist terrorist. The facts do not fit the fairy tale.
Joe Stack who flew his plane into the IRS in Texas was supposedly a Tea Partier, because according to the fairy tale the ordinary Americans in the Tea Party are insane murdering scum. In fact, he quoted from the Communist Manifesto in his suicide note. But the facts do not fit the fairy tale.
Amidst the debate over the Ground Zero Mosque, Michael Enright stabbed a Muslim cab driver in the neck. It was immediately dubbed an “anti-Muslim stabbing,” with “rising Islamophobia” on the political right to blame. Because the fairy tale is that the Tea Party commit acts of random violence for political ends. In fact, Enright, a left-leaning art student, had worked with a firm that produced a pro-mosque statement.
John Patrick Bedell shot two Pentagon security officers at close range. The media went wild with speculation that a right-wing extremist had reached the end of his rope. Bedell turned out to be a registered Democrat and 9/11 Truther. The facts do not fit the fairy tale.
The Fort Hood shooting is reported as being unrelated to the religious affiliation of the gunman because this fits the fairy tale, and the facts do not fit the fairy tale.
When Congresswoman Giffords was shot, even though this was done by a deranged man with (as far as we know) Leftwing political views, the rhetoric of the Right was blamed by Paul Krugman, and Sarah Palin was blamed. By what torturous line of Palin-Derangement-Syndrome suffering stream-of-consciousness the Senator from Alaska is blamed for a shooting in Arizona, I leave for psychiatrists to explain.
But I know the explanation for the slander, and all these slanders. It fits the fairy tale, and the facts do not fit the fairy tale.
Friends, who you hear of some enormity or ghastly crime, is your first thought to speculate that your political rivals and the game of seeking popular political power resorted to random atrocities? Do you think everything is politics? Is it the only lens through which you view the world, the only tale that you ever tell, the only tale you ever believe? Then you believe in fairy tales.
I was in the newspaper business not so very long ago. I never saw anything of this magnitude. I never saw such pure malice, such reckless disregard for and hatred of the truth, such pure propaganda. And I was in the muckraking yellow-journalism side of the business.
Can you imagine if someone in your neighborhood did this? Suppose every crime committed in the neighborhood was blamed by your next door neighbor’s wife on you. Each time, there is no evidence. Nor has the young man ever done anything wrong. Each time the accusation is immediate, utterly baseless, and it does not matter what the crime is. Purse snatched? You get blamed. Power line down? You get blamed. Car stolen? You get blamed. How long would it take before you became convinced that your neighbor’s wife was a lunatic with no ability to control herself, no ability to tell the truth, a nutcase in a delirium? Five times? I have listed more than that right here.
And what if your lunatic neighbor’s wife was getting paid for her ability to report the facts honestly and fairly. It is how she makes her money. What then? At what point would you become convinced she was your deadly enemy?
The mainstream media are the enemy. Andrew Breitbart was right about that.
It is not the Democrat party, not the socialists, not the activist Judges or lunatic University academics who poison the minds of millions and slander all that is godly, good, wholesome and sane. These are side effects, mere epiphenomena.
The media are the enemy.
They are vermin, dangerous beasts, parasites and maggots. They must be abolished, hounded by the public square, harassed by the law, scourged by the intolerance of the righteous, driven into the fringes of society, exiled. We trusted them; they betrayed us. They betrayed the truth, and betray the nation, and betray humanity itself.
They must be broken. The media are the enemy.
From John C. Wright: http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/07/breitbart-is-right/
We have reached the appalling point in our decay into liberal totalitarianism where companies associated with traditional morality are not allowed to do business by militantly degenerate government authorities. Flamboyantly perverted Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has announced that Chick-fil-A will not be permitted to create jobs by building restaurants in his fiefdom because the CEO of the company opposes the blasphemous travesty of homosexual “marriage”:
“What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we are as a city.”
The thought crime that precipitated this latest liberal assault on free enterprise:
Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy was quoted last week as saying he was “guilty as charged” for supporting, what he called the “biblical definition” of marriage as between a man and a woman.
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that,” Cathy was quoted as saying.
Because he holds this highly conventional view — which any decent person would find admirable — his company is effectively banned from expanding business in the cesspool of corruption that gave us Barack Hussein Obama.
Emanuel piously screeches that Christian values “are not Chicago values.” What are Chicago values? Here’s a hint: Emanuel has opened his arms in welcome to the rabidly anti-Semitic, anti-Caucasian, and anti-American lunatic Louis Farrakhan.
Chicago isn’t alone in persecuting Chick-fil-A:
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has said Chick-fil-A “doesn’t belong in Boston” because of Cathy’s discriminatory stance.
The word “discriminatory” in this context is particularly absurd, considering that the discrimination is against anyone who will not abandon conventional morality and embrace repugnant sexual abnormalities in the name of political correctness.
Because government has bloated to the point that it has total power over all human activity, verminous bureaurats will have no trouble keeping businesses associated with decency out of town:
Moreno said he has an ace in his back pocket if he runs into legal trouble: traffic and congestion issues caused by the store that have been the subject of behind-the-scenes negotiations for the last nine months.
“The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years and we have notified Chick-Fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors. Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD.”
GLAAD is a warped moonbat sect devoted to mainstreaming depravity.
To his credit, Mike Huckabee has declared August 1 to be Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. But why only August 1? If there’s a franchise within driving distance, countermoonbats should celebrate Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day at least once a week.
Obama’s crony capitalist Solyndra debacle — which cost taxpayers a staggering $535 million — is only the tip of the iceberg. Green energy is a license to indulge in graft, allowing massive amounts of our money to be laundered through absurd boondoggles before passing into the pockets of Obama donors, or simply to be flushed away as offerings to the deranged gods of liberal ideology. Behold the Green Graveyard:
• Abound Solar (Loveland, Colorado), manufacturer of thin film photovoltaic modules.
• Beacon Power (Tyngsborough, Massachusetts), designed and developed advanced products and services to support stable, reliable and efficient electricity grid operation.
• Ener1 (Indianapolis, Indiana), built compact lithium-ion-powered battery solutions for hybrid and electric cars.
• Energy Conversion Devices (Rochester Hills, Michigan/Auburn Hills, Michigan), manufacturer of flexible thin film photovoltaic (PV) technology and a producer of batteries and other renewable energy-related products.
• Evergreen Solar, Inc. (Marlborough, Massachusetts), manufactured and installed solar panels.
• Mountain Plaza, Inc. (Dandridge, Tennessee), designed and implemented “truck-stop electrification” technology.
• Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsens Mills Acquisition Co. (Berlin, Wisconsin), a private company producing ethanol.
• Range Fuels (Soperton, Georgia), tried to develop a technology that converted biomass into ethanol without the use of enzymes.
• Raser Technologies (Provo, Utah), geothermal power plants and technology licensing.
• Solyndra (Fremont, California), manufacturer of cylindrical panels of thin-film solar cells.
• Spectrawatt (Hopewell, New York), solar cell manufacturer.
• Thompson River Power LLC (Wayzata, Minnesota), designed and developed advanced products and services to support stable, reliable and efficient electricity grid operation.
Each has been handed money stolen from taxpayers; each has filed for bankruptcy.
How many times does this have to happen before some enterprising prosecutor files racketeering charges against the Wealth Redistributor in Chief?
On a tip from TheWrightWing.
Found at Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
Posted on | July 26, 2012
“I agree with the late Hunter S. Thompson that a lot of what passes for ‘objective journalism’ is bullshit. . . . The reason so many Americans hate the news media is because so many supposedly ‘objective’ journalists are transparently dishonest in what they’re doing.”
– Robert Stacy McCain, April 16, 2009
The futile pursuit of that elusive phantom, “objective journalism,” may be more than a mere waste of time, but also a disservice to readers:
A new experimental study . . . finds that opinionated reporting is better at motivating the politically unengaged than objective reporting.
For years, much of the media has assumed that objective education, alone, was enough to promote a healthy democracy. What traditional media failed to realize is that a good chunk of the population needs a reason to care in the first place. “News articles that are written through the eyes of a mere observer, without a perspective or slant, can foster political disaffection among citizens,” explains author Minha Kim of Sungkyunkwan University.
An “experimental study”? The science is settled! The study itself appears to be motivated by left-wing sentiment, but makes valid points:
In situations where news consumers have well-established knowledge of important issues and converse frequently with fellow citizens, objective reporting actually promotes the legitimization of political actions, resulting in stronger participatory intentions on the part of the news consumer. An obvious limitation of journalistic objectivity is that a journalist must take on the role of a disengaged third person, but the willful ignorance of such a practice is not supposed to be the goal of the public journalist. Instead, objectivity needs to be distinguished from social detachment, and it is the latter rather than the former that a journalist needs to overcome. Although it is true that objectivity and social detachment overlap each other to a certain extent, a careful examination of the desirable journalistic role allows the two to be distinguished from each other.
Of course, this study doesn’t really tell us anything that students of Gonzo journalism didn’t already know. Outside of hard-core political junkies, nobody gets much excited about political news reported with bland even-handed neutrality by a bunch of faceless nobodies.
Grant that somebody has got to perform the thankless task of filing that toothlessly objective Associated Press story about the State of the Union speech, and we would be shocked if we picked up our local paper and saw an article like this on the front page:
PRESIDENT’S SPEECH REACHES HISTORIC
NEW LOWS IN SHAMELESS DISHONESTY
By Helmund Gormworthy
WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Obama’s annual State of the Union speech was a gigantic lie from start to finish, as he told one fib after another in an increasingly desperate effort to hide the multiple failures of his administration.
“My fellow Americans,” Obama began, in an obvious attempt to conceal his Kenyan ancestry, before proceeding to tell Congress a series of big fat whoppers in a deceitful lecture that continued for more than an hour before concluding with a trite and transparently insincere, “God bless America.”
During the course of his 72-minute speech, the president told 64 outright lies and more than three dozen half-truths, according to an analysis provided by the Republican National Committee.
“Frankly, the overwhelming stench of bullshit nearly made me vomit,” Speaker of the House John Boehner said afterwards. “This was the most heinously dishonest speech I’ve ever been forced to sit through. Not even Bill Clinton told this many outrageous lies.” . . .
You see my point, perhaps. What we are becoming accustomed to in the New Media age, however, is selecting our news from a vast smorgasbord of choices that didn’t exist 40 years ago, when the average person could choose from one local newspaper and three broadcast TV channels. Today there are not only multiple cable-TV news outlets — Fox, MSNBC, CNN — but also talk radio and a bewildering profusion of online sources, many of them strongly opinionated or at least quite selective in terms of their coverage.
I take it for granted that anyone reading this blog is a highly engaged news consumer, who is also gathering information from many other sources, and this assumption frees me from the burden of reporting everything in an entirely balanced way, as though my lack of objectivity might unfairly prejudice the reader’s viewpoint.
The larger the outlet, and the more it strives to be a “one-stop” outlet for news, the greater the danger that the biases of the editors and reporters might distort public perception.
This is why the biases of NBC Nightly News (about 8 million viewers) matter more than the biases of Fox News (about 3 million viewers for The O’Reilly Factor), especially because no one who tunes in to watch Bill O’Reilly is misled into thinking that he is strictly neutral in his viewpoint. I’ve repeatedly pointed this out: The combined audience for the “Big Three” evening news broadcasts is six or seven times larger than the Fox News audience, so why the Media Matters obsession with the alleged evils of right-wing bias at Fox?
What must be fought against is the journalistic herd instinct, the phony manufactured “consensus” of the Conventional Wisdom. The phenomenon we call “liberal bias” is merely one variety of this problem: Most news reporters and editors are liberal Democrats and therefore, however much they may pretend to be providing Neutral Objective Journalism, their coverage will necessarily reflect certain biases of their herd, for example in regard to the evils of homophobia, the dangers of global warming and the benefits of socialized medicine.
Those of us who don’t share those biases, and who wish to counteract the incessant yammering from vendors of Conventional Wisdom, are freed from any need to pretend that what we write is “balanced” to the point of being neutral. This doesn’t free us, however, from the need to provide readers with facts. Expressing our opinions is only helpful insofar as we are giving the reader access to facts they might not see in the mainstream media. One of my beefs about coverage of the 2010 mid-term elections is that it tended to downplay the sheer size of the Republican victory:
Buerkle’s victory brings to 63 the number of House seats gained by Republicans in the mid-term election. That’s the GOP’s biggest net gain in any election since 1938, and gives Republicans 242 House seats — the most they’ve held since 1949. Their majority is bigger by 12 seats than the one captured by Newt Gingrich’s GOP in 1994.
Nearly two years later, most people still don’t realize that the Republican victory in 2010 was actually bigger than in 1994, and I believe this lack of public awareness explains the persistent obstructionism — the do-nothing inertia — of Harry Reid’s Senate Democrats. Media talking heads keep whining about the alleged unwillingness of Republicans to “compromise,” but why should they compromise with the vastly unpopular liberal agenda of Democrats who just got embarrassed by one of the most lopsided electoral ass-whuppings in American history?
For essentially the same reason, I think the mainstream media are underrating the prospects of a landslide win for Mitt Romney in November. Defeating an incumbent president is, historically, a very difficult task. If you exclude LBJ’s decision not to seek re-election in 1968, only three times since 1932 has an incumbent president been defeated: When Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford in 1976, when Ronald Reagan beat Carter four years later, and when Bill Clinton beat George Bush in 1992. But all three of those elections occurred when the economy was bad, and this year the economy is much worse than it was in 1992, if not (yet) quite as bad as it was during the 1970s era of “stagflation.”
So when I went to an Obama campaign event in Virginia, which is supposed to be a crucial “swing state” this year, and found hundreds of fired-up Tea Party protesters outside the event, it struck me that the Conventional Wisdom might be completely wrong: Maybe Virginia will be safely Republican in November, and the public perception of Obama’s economic ineptitude will be so widespread that, rather than Obama hoping to win “purple” states like Colorado, Nevada and Iowa, the Democrats will find themselves fighting desperately to avoid defeat in previously “blue” states like Michigan and Pennsylvania.
I’m not saying that will happen, but it could happen, and the only reason most in the media are ignoring the possibility of a complete Democratic meltdown this year is that the Conventional Wisdom blinds them to evidence that might indicate that possibility. They haven’t even acknowledged the significance of the Republican landslide in 2010, and seem to have in mind that this was a trivial aberration.
Everybody seems to be taking for granted that this is going to be another election decided by a few percentage points in the popular vote and a slight tilt in a few key “battleground” states and who knows? They’re probably right. But if things start shifting toward a GOP landslide, don’t let the mainstream media tell you this is a shocking and unexpected development, because there are plenty of little clues that this is well within the range of possible outcomes, although not what you’d call a “likely scenario.”
The prejudice of political pundits is to keep their predictions strictly within the realm of the most likely scenarios, which is why really important shifts in the electoral landscape are always a shock to the people who manufacture and consume Conventional Wisdom. Back in March, I warned that if Romney got the nomination and polls showed Obama losing ground, the media would start playing the Mormon card, so I was scarcely surprised to see Brian Williams raise the issue during his interview with Mitt.
That’s a legitimate issue for a Republican, whereas no one in the media can be permitted to mention the 20 years Obama spent in the pews of Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American church.
Such are the parameters of public discourse as established by the Conventional Wisdom, and we aren’t supposed to notice the resultant artificiality of our political conversation.
Only by stepping outside that consensus to call attention to the overlooked facts — or to provide an interpretation of facts that doesn’t fit neatly within the consensus — is it possible to see anything other than what the Conventional Wisdom machine dispenses. If it were indeed a fact that Barack Obama is the Antichrist foretold in Bible prophecy, for example, you’d never see that reported on NBC News. The appearance of apocalyptic omens from the Book of Revelation would not be headlined as such in the New York Times.
RIVERS OF BLOOD, DARKNESS AT NOON
Women, Minorities Hardest Hit; GOP Denies Responsibility
Satan could not be reached for comment.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Obama a Christian? — No. Obama your typical far-left secular humanist? — Yes.
Via Washington Times:
About one in six voters still thinks President Obama is Muslim while only half identify him as a Christian, according to a new national poll released Thursday.
Just 49 percent of voters surveyed by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life said the president is Christian, while 17 percent said he is Muslim and 31 percent did not know his religion.
The percentage who think Mr. Obama is Muslim has actually increased by 5 percentage points since he was elected in 2008, although it has decreased 2 percentage points since an August 2010 poll.
Thursday’s poll showed that the percentage of Republicans who think Mr. Obama is Muslim has nearly doubled over the past four years, from 16 percent in 2008 to 30 percent this month.
ZIP at Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Say it with us Jay, J-E-R-U-S-A-L-E-M.
ZIP at Weasle Zippers:
Can’t make this stuff up. And this is from Egypt’s Al-Azhar University, which is considered Sunni Islam’s top institution.
Dear brother, thank you for your question that shows your interest in Islam and your commitment to best perform your fasting.
As for your question, Muslim scholars say that swallowing unavoidable things such as one’s saliva doesn’t break the fast.
In his response to your question, Dr. Wael Shihab, PhD in Islamic Studies, Al-Azhar University [Sunni Islam's top body -ed.], and the Head of the (English) Shari`ah Dept. of Onislam.net website, stated,
Fasting in Ramadan is one of five pillars of Islam. This fact is well-established by the Qur’an, the authentic Sunnah, and consensus (ijma`) of Muslim scholars.
On the authority of abu `abdur-Rahman `Abdullah, the son of `Umar ibn al-Kattab (may Allah be pleased with them) who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) saying, “Islam is built upon five [pillars]: testifying that there is none worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establishing the prayers, giving zakah, making pilgrimage (hajj) to the House and fasting the month of Ramadan.” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim) [...]
Regarding your question about swallowing one’s saliva while fasting, this doesn’t invalidate the fast as it is unavoidable. Scholars say that the following acts do not break the fast:
b) Wearing Kuhl.
c) Kissing one’s wife or husband if he/she is able to control himself/herself.
d) Rinsing: rinsing the mouth or nostrils with water provided that it is not overdone.
e) Swallowing unavoidable things such as one’s saliva.
f) Tasting food.
g) Taking injections.
h) Smelling flowers or wearing perfumes, etc.
i) Experiencing a wet dream.
j) Eating or drinking due to forgetfulness.
k) Involuntarily vomiting.
May Allah accept your and our good deeds!
Allah Almighty knows best.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Rather ironic gays demand people respect them but at the same time refuse to accept people who they don’t agree with.
(CBS News) — Gay rights group Equality Illinois is asking gay and lesbian couples to go to their local Chick-Fil-A restaurant next Friday for a “kiss-in” campaign, which the group is promoting along with other gay rights organizations nationwide, reports CBS affiliate WBBM in Chicago.
The “kiss-in” is one of several public protests against Chick-Fil-A that have come about since CEO Dan Cathy said in an interview with the Baptist Press he was “guilty as charged” when asked about his “support of the traditional family.”
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that,” he said in the interview. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”
ZIP at Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses To Affirm 1st Amendment Rights, Commit To Not Criminalizing Criticism Of Islam…
Pretty simple yes or no question.
ZIP at Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/