Found at American Digest
This post from Bob Belvedere illustrates the difference between how the Left and Right view rights
…is awarded to Mark Steyn for his response to the pablum puked by a UN Official regarding Free Speech.
First: what the UN dickhead said:
Free speech is a “gift given to us by the [Universal] Declaration of Human Rights,” said Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations Jan Eliasson during a press conference on October 2nd at UN headquarters in New York. It is “a privilege,” Eliasson said, “that we have, which in my view involves also the need for respect, the need to avoid provocations.”
Free speech is a gift given to us in 1948 by U.N. officials? Who knew?
The only appropriate response of free-born peoples to such a statement is: **** off, ******. Free speech is not in the gift of minor Swedish timeserving hack bureaucrats, either to grant or withdraw.
The Left sees rights as collective, and they see them as things to be given by government, and, restricted by government as the government sees fit.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Whatever You Do on a College Campus – Do NOT Name Your Pineapple Mohammed – The Crazy mooslims Will Go Nuts
University atheist society ordered out of freshers’ fair for displaying ‘blasphemous’ pineapple called Mohammed
- Reading union staff claimed fruit caused ‘distress and upset’ to other students
- University accused of ‘pandering to the hurt feelings of the devout’
A group of atheist students were thrown out of their freshers’ fair because they included a pineapple labelled ‘Mohammed’ on their stall.
The Reading University Atheist, Humanist and Secularist Society (RAHS) said they wanted to celebrate free speech and promote their upcoming debate ‘Should we respect religion?’
But they were ordered to remove the offending fruit by union staff who said their actions were causing ‘upset and distress’ to a number of Muslim students and other societies.
RAHS refused, citing that they had labelled the pineapple after the Islamic prophet to ‘encourage discussion about blasphemy, religion, and liberty’.
A spokesman said: ‘We wanted to celebrate the fact that we live in a country in which free speech is protected and where it is lawful to call a pineapple by whatever name one chooses.’
They claimed the union then issued them with the ultimatum: ‘Either the pineapple goes or you do.’
According to RAHS, a group of students surrounded their stall and removed the pineapple’s name tag before the society was ‘forced to leave the venue’ accompanied by security, it was reported in the Huffington Post.
Rupert Sutton, who blogs on Student Rights, a website which claims to ‘tackle extremism on campuses’, said the student union was wrong to censor the society.
He said: ‘Extremes of free speech should be limited to ensure that they do not become hate speech.
‘However, students do not have the right to impose their religious sensibilities on others and they must accept that they may be offended by those who do not share their convictions.
‘Whilst this action by the RAHS may have been provocative, they should have every right to do it.
‘Instead of closing down debate, Reading University Student Union (RUSU) should be encouraging students to interact with one another rather than pandering to the hurt feelings of the devout.’
In a statement given to Student Rights, RUSU said: ‘The RAHS were asked to leave the Freshers’ Fayre after receiving complaints from individual students about a display they had on their stall.
‘They were initially asked to remove the display and after refusal were asked to leave. Our Freshers’ Fayre is an inclusive event for all students.
‘As the society’s actions were causing upset and distress to a number of individual students and other societies attending we took the decision to ask them to leave.’
Yesterday’s incident comes after a row erupted at a top London University when an atheist society posted a cartoon sketch featuring the prophet Muhammed having a drink with Jesus on its Facebook page.
The president of the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist society at the prestigious University College London (UCL), Robbie Yellon, stepped down over the controversy earlier this year.
Last year, it was reported Muslim students, including trainee doctors on one of the university’s medical courses began walking out of lectures on evolution claiming it conflicts with creationist ideas established in the Koran.
The portrayal of the prophet in a U.S.-made anti-Islam video have also sparked violent demonstrations around the world in recent weeks.
MONTREAL — Academics who study Islamic antisemitism are risking career advancement and younger scholars are shying away from the subject as a result, said Montreal native Charles A. Small, who headed a Yale University program in antisemitism until it was shut down last year amid controversy.
Cripes read this: College Labels Tantaros Anti-Jihad Speech ‘Racist, Sexist, Religiously Intolerant, or Otherwise Hurtful Language’
Tantaros–commenting on the philosophy of “radical jihadists,” not Muslims as a whole–quoted well-known scholar Berard Lewis (Princeton University) and said, “They attacked us on September 11–there wasn’t a cartoon, there wasn’t a video. The Quoran preaches tolerance, but only when they’re outnumbered… The prophet Muhammad encouraged Jihad so that one of two things could happen, and they will not stop until these two things happen. One, we are all Muslim, or two, we’re all ruled by Muslims.”
This quote apparently sparked one student to stand up and started shouting at Tantaros–and then he proceeded to storm out of the room. The flustered student said, “You should be patently ashamed of yourself, first and foremost, for even remotely implying the sorts of things you are, about Islam. I’m baffled first that you were brought here, that you came into this community and spewed this hate.”
Still Not Getting the Whole Free Speech Thing
The following is part of an OpEd published to al-Jazeera addressing the violent Muslim protests and deaths that have occurred through September.
America’s Most Biblically Hostile US President
By: David Barton
When one observes President Obama’s unwillingness to accommodate America’s four-century long religious conscience protection through his attempts to require Catholics to go against their own doctrines and beliefs, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Catholic. But that characterization would not be correct. Although he has recently singled out Catholics, he has equally targeted traditional Protestant beliefs over the past four years. So since he has attacked Catholics and Protestants, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Christian. But that, too, would be inaccurate. He has been equally disrespectful in his appalling treatment of religious Jews in general and Israel in particular. So perhaps the most accurate description of his antipathy toward Catholics, Protestants, religious Jews, and the Jewish nation would be to characterize him as anti-Biblical. And then when his hostility toward Biblical people of faith is contrasted with his preferential treatment of Muslims and Muslim nations, it further strengthens the accuracy of the anti-Biblical descriptor. In fact, there have been numerous clearly documented times when his pro-Islam positions have been the cause of his anti-Biblical actions.
Listed below in chronological order are (1) numerous records of his attacks on Biblical persons or organizations; (2) examples of the hostility toward Biblical faith that have become evident in the past three years in the Obama-led military; (3) a listing of his open attacks on Biblical values; and finally (4) a listing of numerous incidents of his preferential deference for Islam’s activities and positions, including letting his Islamic advisors guide and influence his hostility toward people of Biblical faith.
1. Acts of hostility toward people of Biblical faith:
- April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” 1
- February 2009 – Obama announces plans to revoke conscience protection for health workers who refuse to participate in medical activities that go against their beliefs, and fully implements the plan in February 2011. 2
- April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name be covered when he is making his speech. 3
- May 2009 – Obama declines to host services for the National Prayer Day (a day established by federal law) at the White House. 4
- April 2009 – In a deliberate act of disrespect, Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican; of course, the pro-life Vatican rejected all three. 5
- October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions. 6
- November 2010 – Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law. 7
- January 2011 – After a federal law was passed to transfer a WWI Memorial in the Mojave Desert to private ownership, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the cross in the memorial could continue to stand, but the Obama administration refused to allow the land to be transferred as required by law, and refused to allow the cross to be re-erected as ordered by the Court. 8
- February 2011 – Although he filled posts in the State Department, for more than two years Obama did not fill the post of religious freedom ambassador, an official that works against religious persecution across the world; he filled it only after heavy pressure from the public and from Congress. 9
- April 2011 – For the first time in American history, Obama urges passage of a non-discrimination law that does not contain hiring protections for religious groups, forcing religious organizations to hire according to federal mandates without regard to the dictates of their own faith, thus eliminating conscience protection in hiring. 10
- August 2011 – The Obama administration releases its new health care rules that override religious conscience protections for medical workers in the areas of abortion and contraception. 11
- November 2011 – Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial. 12
- November 2011 – Unlike previous presidents, Obama studiously avoids any religious references in his Thanksgiving speech. 13
- December 2011 – The Obama administration denigrates other countries’ religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights. 14
- January 2012 – The Obama administration argues that the First Amendment provides no protection for churches and synagogues in hiring their pastors and rabbis. 15
- February 2012 – The Obama administration forgives student loans in exchange for public service, but announces it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion. 16
Acts of hostility from the Obama-led military toward people of Biblical faith:
- June 2011 – The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burial ceremonies at Houston National Cemetery. 17
- August 2011 – The Air Force stops teaching the Just War theory to officers in California because the course is taught by chaplains and is based on a philosophy introduced by St. Augustine in the third century AD – a theory long taught by civilized nations across the world (except America). 18
- September 2011 – Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of programs and services available to them from chaplains. 19
- September 2011 – The Army issues guidelines for Walter Reed Medical Center stipulating that “No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials and/or facts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.” 20
- November 2011 – The Air Force Academy rescinds support for Operation Christmas Child, a program to send holiday gifts to impoverished children across the world, because the program is run by a Christian charity. 21
- November 2011 – The Air Force Academy pays $80,000 to add a Stonehenge-like worship center for pagans, druids, witches and Wiccans. 22
- February 2012 – The U. S. Military Academy at West Point disinvites three star Army general and decorated war hero Lieutenant General William G. (“Jerry”) Boykin (retired) from speaking at an event because he is an outspoken Christian. 23
- February 2012 – The Air Force removes “God” from the patch of Rapid Capabilities Office (the word on the patch was in Latin: Dei). 24
- February 2012 – The Army orders Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners that their archbishop asked them to read. 25
- April 2012 – A checklist for Air Force Inns will no longer include ensuring that a Bible is available in rooms for those who want to use them.26
- May 2012 – The Obama administration opposes legislation to protect the rights of conscience for military chaplains who do not wish to perform same-sex marriages in violation of their strongly-held religious beliefs.27
- June 2012 – Bibles for the American military have been printed in every conflict since the American Revolution, but the Obama Administration revokes the long-standing U. S. policy of allowing military service emblems to be placed on those military Bibles.28
3. Acts of hostility toward Biblical values:
- January 2009 – Obama lifts restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, forcing taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. 29
- January 2009 – President Obama’s nominee for deputy secretary of state asserts that American taxpayers are required to pay for abortions and that limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional. 30
- March 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. 31
- March 2009 – Obama orders taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. 32
- March 2009 – Obama gave $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that promotes abortion and works closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations. 33
- May 2009 – The White House budget eliminates all funding for abstinence-only education and replaces it with “comprehensive” sexual education, repeatedly proven to increase teen pregnancies and abortions. 3435
- May 2009 – Obama officials assemble a terrorism dictionary calling pro-life advocates violent and charging that they use racism in their “criminal” activities. 36
- July 2009 – The Obama administration illegally extends federal benefits to same-sex partners of Foreign Service and Executive Branch employees, in direction violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 37
- September 16, 2009 – The Obama administration appoints as EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, who asserts that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, if they may negatively affect homosexual “equality.” 38
- July 2010 – The Obama administration uses federal funds in violation of federal law to get Kenya to change its constitution to include abortion. 39
- August 2010 – The Obama administration Cuts funding for 176 abstinence education programs. 40
- September 2010 – The Obama administration tells researchers to ignore a judge’s decision striking down federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. 41
- February 2011 – Obama directs the Justice Department to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 42
- March 2011 – The Obama administration refuses to investigate videos showing Planned Parenthood helping alleged sex traffickers get abortions for victimized underage girls. 43
- July 2011 – Obama allows homosexuals to serve openly in the military, reversing a policy originally instituted by George Washington in March 1778. 44
- September 2011 – The Pentagon directs that military chaplains may perform same-sex marriages at military facilities in violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 45
- October 2011 – The Obama administration eliminates federal grants to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for their extensive programs that aid victims of human trafficking because the Catholic Church is anti-abortion. 46
4. Acts of preferentialism for Islam:
- May 2009 – While Obama does not host any National Day of Prayer event at the White House, he does host White House Iftar dinners in honor of Ramadan. 47
- April 2010 – Christian leader Franklin Graham is disinvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer Event because of complaints from the Muslim community. 48
- April 2010 – The Obama administration requires rewriting of government documents and a change in administration vocabulary to remove terms that are deemed offensive to Muslims, including jihad, jihadists, terrorists, radical Islamic, etc. 49
- August 2010 – Obama speaks with great praise of Islam and condescendingly of Christianity. 50
- August 2010 – Obama went to great lengths to speak out on multiple occasions on behalf of building an Islamic mosque at Ground Zero, while at the same time he was silent about a Christian church being denied permission to rebuild at that location. 51
- 2010 – While every White House traditionally issues hundreds of official proclamations and statements on numerous occasions, this White House avoids traditional Biblical holidays and events but regularly recognizes major Muslim holidays, as evidenced by its 2010 statements on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha. 52
- October 2011 – Obama’s Muslim advisers block Middle Eastern Christians’ access to the White House. 53
- February 2012 – The Obama administration makes effulgent apologies for Korans being burned by the U. S. military, 5455
Many of these actions are literally unprecedented – this is the first time they have happened in four centuries of American history. The hostility of President Obama toward Biblical faith and values is without equal from any previous American president.
From Wallbuilders: http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=106938
Found at Clash Daily:http://clashdaily.com/
Pat Caddell: Let’s face it, media bias has reached a new level of corruption
posted at 8:41 pm on October 1, 2012 by Allahpundit
If George W. Bush were president now, and had ordered the surge and was responsible for the strategic decisions taken and not taken in Afghanistan over the last four years, the mainstream press would be rubbing our noses in his miserable failures and inexcusable blunders 24/7. The New York Times and the Washington Post would be treating us to pictures of every fallen soldier. The PBS Newshour would feature nightly post-mortems on “America’s failed strategies in the Afghan War” and every arm-chair strategist in America would be filling the op-ed pages with the brilliant 20/20 hindsight ideas that our pathetic, clueless, failed president was too dumb and too cocky to have had.
There would be no end to the woes and the recriminations. There would be the most moving and eloquent examples of hand wringing in the New York Review of Books, elegantly demonstrating that the cretinous assumptions and moral failings that led Bush into his failed Afghan policy weren’t his alone, but reflected broader, deeper failings in America itself. One is almost sorry for the sake of the authors of these diatribes that Bush is gone; the failure of our Afghan strategy is so sweeping, so unavoidable, that it would be the best possible backdrop against which to paint a stirring portrait of a failed president misleading a flawed people. What works of polemical literature have been lost, what inspired jeremiads will never be penned, what scalding portraits of America’s inherent flaws will never see the light of day because W left the White House too soon.
He’s indicting the press twice there: Once for not being hard enough on O in matters of war and again for being overly hard on W, but both failings are explained by the same impulse. Same goes for Caddell’s point in the clip about Obama merrily jetting off to Vegas for a fundraiser the day after Chris Stevens was murdered in Benghazi. Under a Republican president, that’s worth three days of bloody-shirt waving in the press; under Obama, it’s five minutes of chin-pulling.
I think Joel Pollak is onto something in arguing that the media’s taken to treating Romney as the de facto incumbent, although I can’t decide if that’s something they’re doing consciously or by instinct. My hunch is that, for some of them, it’s less a deliberate strategy to put Romney on the defensive than it is a habit they’re falling into because they’re itching to return to adversarial/watchdog duty. Their partisan leanings have made that too difficult for four years, but now they’ve got a person on the other side who’s close to winning the presidency to whom they can speak “truth.” So President Romney’s statement the morning after the embassy attack is a Very Big Deal with Very Serious Implications for the race, but Obama blowing town to raise some money in Vegas later that night is “curious” or whatever. Rest assured, if Romney wins, Afghanistan will once again be a matter of pressing national interest subject to “grim milestone” watches on the news rather than the very minor foreign-policy subplot that it’s become. In fact, I doubt most members of the media would deny that. One thing I’ve noticed as media watchdogging has exploded online is that they’re much more open about admitting which way the press, as a whole, leans. There are too many examples of it to deny it, so why bother denying it? They’ll cop to it in the aggregate, so long as their own personal integrity isn’t questioned. Now if only they’d do something about it.
Oct 1, 2012 10:01 PM by Allahpundit
From Hot Air: http://hotair.com/
Secret Intel Documents Still Lying on the Floor of The Libyan Consulate…And Where is The FBI They Promised Would Investigate?
WaPo: Sensitive intel documents still lying on the floor of looted Benghazi consulate
posted at 6:36 pm on October 3, 2012 by Allahpundit
Among the information contained in these docs: The names of Libyan security contractors who protected the embassy and whose lives are, as you might expect, now in grave danger. But that’s not the bit I want to excerpt. This is:
At least one document found amid the clutter indicates that Americans at the mission were discussing the possibility of an attack in early September, just two days before the assault took place. The document is a memorandum dated Sept. 9 from the U.S. mission’s security office to the 17th February Martyrs Brigade, the Libyan-government-sanctioned militia that was guarding the compound, making plans for a “quick reaction force,” or QRF, that would provide security…
The security presence appears to have been bare-bones, with three or more members on the compound any time the “principal officer” was present — either the head of the mission or the ambassador.
When the principal officer was not present, a single militia member was instructed to be at the front gate between 8 a.m. and midnight. Between midnight and 8 a.m., one militia member was scheduled to be on roving patrol. The militia members were supposed to work a minimum of eight hours a day and were to be paid a stipend of about $28 a day, a relatively standard wage in Benghazi. They were housed on the compound.
The memorandum tells the militia security force to summon more guards from its nearby compound if the mission is attacked, suggesting that the Americans there were concerned that the regular guard force would be inadequate in an emergency.
They were worried that an attack was coming and they knew they didn’t have enough security on hand to handle it, and yet they were still forced to rely on a militia for protection. That was a risk twice over, once in that the militiamen were likely to be more poorly trained and equipped than professional security and twice in that using locals increased the risk of an inside job. Here’s what I really don’t understand, though: If State thought a militia was up to the task of securing the compound before the attack, why isn’t it up to the task of securing the compound now so that the FBI can get inside for a few days? That’s the excuse we’ve been given about the feds’ foot-dragging, that the city’s just too dangerous for American personnel. But it was dangerous on September 10th, too — enough so that the consulate was already making plans for back-up in the event of an attack. Why was the 17th February militia good enough on September 10th if it’s not good enough on October 3rd?
Here’s CNN’s Arwa Damon, just back from the scene. Click on Link below for video. She says a safe was carted away by looters, among other things. Exit question: If you’ve lost Maureen Dowd, then you’ve lost … no one really, I guess?
Update: CBS insta-poll shows decisive Romney victory; Update: Romney crushes Obama in CNN insta-poll
Oct 3, 2012 10:44 PM by Allahpundit
From Hot Air: http://hotair.com/
In the key swing state Pennsylvania, the fix is in:
Pennsylvania’s divisive voter identification requirement became the latest of its kind to get pushback from the courts ahead of Election Day, delivering a hard-fought victory to Democrats…
A demented dictate by Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson blocking voter ID requirements
“is good news for Obama’s chances in Pennsylvania, one of the nation’s biggest electoral college prizes, unless Republicans and the tea party groups that backed the law find a way to use it to motivate their supporters and possibly independents.”
Obviously anyone who believes in the concept of one man, one vote will want the openly crooked Democrats out of power at the soonest opportunity. But people who care whether elections are fair appear to be a minority in the age of Hopey Change.
The law requiring voter identification passed the state legislature without a single Democrat vote. But laws are just bumps in the road when moonbats control the courts.
In Pennsylvania, election workers will still be allowed to ask voters for a valid photo ID, but people without it can use a regular voting machine in the polling place and would not have to cast a provisional ballot or prove their identity to election officials afterward.
We’ve had voter fraud in presidential elections before, most famously when it put JFK over the top in 1960 but Nixon didn’t make an issue of it for fear of tearing the country apart. But never have we been given such conspicuously obvious advance notice. This time, not making an issue of it could tear the country apart — or allow it to collapse into a banana republic.
On tips from Henry and Laurie.
Armed Forces personnel risk life and limb for their country. Unfortunately they have to do it under a government controlled by Democrats, who repay their service by suppressing their votes:
Requests from military voters for absentee ballots have dropped significantly since 2008, according to newly released statistics, prompting claims that the Department of Defense is dragging its feet in enacting a law meant to boost military voting.
The drop in the battleground states of Virginia and Ohio is among the most pronounced. According to statistics released Monday by The Military Voter Protection Project, the number of absentee ballot requests by both military members and other overseas voters in the two states has dropped 70 percent since 2008.
In August military ballot requests were down in Virginia by an astounding 92%.
About two thirds of members of the military need to vote absentee — and yet:
Across Virginia, North Carolina and Ohio, the group reported that less than 2 percent of eligible voters had requested ballots as of August.
Funny how this is mainly happening in crucial swing states. Soldiers tend not to vote for liberal weenies who leave them hanging in the wind for political reasons rather than putting them in a position where they can win. That’s why Democrats have gone out of their way to suppress the military vote again and again and again.
But Obama, Holder, et al. make up for it by encouraging the welfare and illegal alien blocs to vote repeatedly.
On tips from Stormfax, Bob Roberts, Clingtomyguns, wingmann, J, and TED.
Excerpts of a great article by: Daniel Greenfield
The debate, like the electoral college, is an outmoded institution dating back to another time when candidates for political office were capable of expressing ideas that could not be compressed into a misleading five word slogan.
The modern political debate is not a test of ideas, but of candidates. HD cameras and screens make it possible for us to see every wince and grimace, and to measure how slowly a candidate responds. The debate is not won by intelligence, but by a combination of populist empathy and low zingers. Those zingers are usually all we remember from past debates because the age of the public and politician that could participate in the marathon Lincoln Douglas debates is long over and everyone knows it.
The debates are rarely about a public interested in weighing and measuring ideas, but a reality show where the candidate who has one bad moment becomes fodder for the late night jokes of the next day. And if the candidates and the public are sub-par, the moderators are even worse appearing only to promote one candidate and one agenda…
How do you debate a compulsive liar while trying to convince voters who already tuned out during the introductory remarks and are planning to wait and see what the media and SNL tells them are the best parts of the debate? It’s a challenge and it’s also the new politics where your goal is to convince unfit voters who can’t figure out how to get a Voter ID that you are fit for the job…
Among the unfit voters are a sizable percent of those who do not understand the issues or care about the issues. All they want to do is vote for the candidate that everyone else is voting for. But they are dwarfed by special interest voters who understand only those issues immediately relevant to them. They don’t care about the national interest, about the national economy or national security, what they want to know are the immediate benefits that will come to them one way or another.
The world could end tomorrow and they would take it as a personal slight, rather than a global tragedy. They have been trained to have a chip on one shoulder and a hand thrust out from the other. They don’t want to hear anything about America, they want to hear only about themselves. They will pay attention only far enough to determine which politician is pandering hardest to them. And they will almost always vote leftward, not because the left represents their interests, but because their egos never let them explore their interests past the pandering…
The perverse thing about the internet is that not only are people not better informed than they were in 1858, but they actually know much less than their great-great-grandparents did. And that isn’t about to change. What new media has done is helped create a stalemate, but it hasn’t broken the perversion that is modern journalism, all it has done is made it uneasy and kept it from claiming all the mental territory that it has attempted to occupy. But it has done this at a cost of generating more noise to drown out the signal. To beat the media, it has become like the media, and the media has become like it. In five years there will hardly be any difference between them as they tumble into a volcano with a death grip around each other’s pageviews…
Millions more will tune in to next week’s Saturday Night Live to find out what they should think about the debate.
Read the entire article at Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
by Gramfan on October 2, 2012
There’s nothing quite like getting the truth from the horse’s mouth.
“Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis.”
Our work is done here…
Oh, wait. You mean even this isn’t enough to convince the liberal media?
Published on Apr 24, 2012 by uri870
Hamas interior minister, Fathi Hamad, Tells the Egyptian television the truth: Half of Palestinians came from Egypt and the other half from Saudi Arabia, “the invented people”.
From 1389 Blog: http://1389blog.com/
Obama Loves To Say That White People Are Racist – He Loudly Proclaimed it In This Video – In His “Black” Voice
In Heated ’07 Speech, Obama Lavishes Praise On Wright, Says Feds ‘Don’t Care’ About New Orleans (Videos)
In a video obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama tells an audience of black ministers, including the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, that the U.S. government shortchanged Hurricane Katrina victims because of racism.
“The people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!” Obama shouts in the video, which was shot in June of 2007 at Hampton University in Virginia. By contrast, survivors of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Andrew received generous amounts of aid, Obama explains. The reason? Unlike residents of majority-black New Orleans, the federal government considers those victims “part of the American family.”
The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event.
Obama gave the speech in the middle of a hotly-contested presidential primary season, but his remarks escaped scrutiny. Reporters in the room seem to have missed or ignored his most controversial statements. The liberal blogger Andrew Sullivan linked to what he described as a “transcript” of the speech, which turned out not to be a transcript at all, but instead the prepared remarks provided by the campaign. In fact, Obama, who was not using a teleprompter, deviated from his script repeatedly and at length, ad libbing lines that he does not appear to have used before any other audience during his presidential run. A local newspaper posted a series of video clips of the speech, but left out key portions. No complete video of the Hampton speech was widely released.
Obama begins his address with “a special shout out” to Jeremiah Wright, the Chicago pastor who nearly derailed Obama’s campaign months later when his sermons attacking Israel and America and accusing the U.S. government of “inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color” became public. To the audience at Hampton, Obama describes Wright as, “my pastor, the guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He’s a friend and a great leader. Not just in Chicago, but all across the country.”
By the time Obama appeared at Hampton, Jeremiah Wright had become a political problem. Wright told The New York Times earlier that year that he would no longer be speaking on the campaign’s behalf because his rhetoric was considered too militant. And yet later in the Hampton speech Obama explicitly defends Wright from unnamed critics, a group he describes as “they”: “They had stories about Trinity United Church of Christ, because we talked about black people in church: ‘Oh, that might be a separatist church,’” Obama said mockingly.
The spine of Obama’s speech is a parable about a pregnant woman shot in the stomach during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. The baby is born with a bullet in her arm, which doctors successfully remove. That bullet, Obama explains, is a metaphor for the problems facing black America, namely racism. (At a similar speech he gave in April of 2007 at the First AME Church in Los Angeles to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the riots, according to a church member who was there, Obama described the slug as, “the bullet of slavery and Jim Crow.”)
At least 53 people were killed during the chaos in Los Angeles, many of them targeted by mobs because of their skin color. But Obama does not describe the riots as an expression of racism, but rather as the result of it. The burning and shooting and looting, he explains, amounted to “Los Angeles expressing a lingering, ongoing, pervasive legacy, a tragic legacy out of the tragic history of this country, a history this country has never fully come to terms with.”
And with that, Obama pivots to his central point: The Los Angeles riots and Hurricane Katrina have racism in common. “The federal response after Katrina was similar to the response we saw after the riots in LA,” he thunders from the podium. “People in Washington, they wake up, they’re surprised” ‘There’s poverty in our midst! Folks are frustrated! Black people angry!’ Then there’s gonna be some panels, and hearings, and there are commissions and there are reports, and then there’s some aid money, although we don’t always know where it’s going – it can’t seem to get to the people who need it – and nothin’ really changes, except the news coverage quiets down and Anderson Cooper is on to something else.”
It’s at about this point that Obama pauses, apparently agitated, and tells the crowd that he wants to give “one example because this really steams me up,” an example that he notes does not appear in his prepared remarks:
Listen to the difference:
“Down in New Orleans, where they still have not rebuilt twenty months later,” he begins, “there’s a law, federal law – when you get reconstruction money from the federal government – called the Stafford Act. And basically it says, when you get federal money, you gotta give a ten percent match. The local government’s gotta come up with ten percent. Every ten dollars the federal government comes up with, local government’s gotta give a dollar.”
“Now here’s the thing,” Obama continues, “when 9-11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act – said, ‘This is too serious a problem. We can’t expect New York City to rebuild on its own. Forget that dollar you gotta put in. Well, here’s ten dollars.’ And that was the right thing to do. When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, ‘Look at this devastation. We don’t expect you to come up with y’own money, here. Here’s the money to rebuild. We’re not gonna wait for you to scratch it together – because you’re part of the American family.’”
That’s not, Obama says, what is happening in majority-black New Orleans. “What’s happening down in New Orleans? Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act money?” Obama shouts, angry now. “Makes no sense! Tells me that somehow, the people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!”
It’s a remarkable moment, and not just for its resemblance to Kayne West’s famous claim that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” but also because of its basic dishonesty. By January of 2007, six months before Obama’s Hampton speech, the federal government had sent at least $110 billion to areas damaged by Katrina. Compare this to the mere $20 billion that the Bush administration pledged to New York City after Sept. 11.
Moreover, the federal government did at times waive the Stafford Act during its reconstruction efforts. On May 25, 2007, just weeks before the speech, the Bush administration sent an additional $6.9 billion to Katrina-affected areas with no strings attached.
As a sitting United States Senator, Obama must have been aware of this. And yet he spent 36 minutes at the pulpit telling a mostly black audience that the U.S. government doesn’t like them because they’re black.
As the speech continues, Obama makes repeated and all-but-explicit appeals to racial solidarity, referring to “our” people and “our neighborhoods,” as distinct from the white majority. At one point, he suggests that black people were excluded from rebuilding contracts after the storm: “We should have had our young people trained to rebuild the homes down in the Gulf. We don’t need Halliburton doing it. We can have the people who were displaced doing that work. Our God is big enough to do that.”
This theme – that black Americans suffer while others profit – is a national problem, Obama continues: “We need additional federal public transportation dollars flowing to the highest need communities. We don’t need to build more highways out in the suburbs,” where, the implication is, the rich white people live. Instead, Obama says, federal money should flow to “our neighborhoods”: “We should be investing in minority-owned businesses, in our neighborhoods, so people don’t have to travel from miles away.”
The solution, Obama says, is a series of new federal programs, including one to teach punctuality to the poor: “We can’t expect them to have all the skills they need to work. They may need help with basic skills, how to shop, how to show up for work on time, how to wear the right clothes, how to act appropriately in an office. We have to help them get there.”
In the prepared version distributed to reporters, Obama’s speech ends this way:
“America is going to survive. We won’t forget where we came from. We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, 15 years ago, thousands of years ago.”
That’s not what he actually said. Before the audience at Hampton, Obama ends his speech this way:
“America will survive. Just like black folks will survive. We won’t forget where we came from. We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, or 15 years ago, or 300 years ago.”
Three hundred years ago. It’s a reference the audience understood.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Why Was Obama‘s Audio Book Version Of ‘Dreams From My Father’ Purged Of All References To Communist Mentor?
You might recall TheBlaze’s series of reports on Dr. Paul Kengor’s powerful book, “The Communist,” which offered a detailed account of the Communist Party ties of President Obama’s longtime mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. “Frank,” as he is referred to in Obama’s memoir “Dreams From My Father,” is mentioned multiple times in the print edition of the president’s book, however, Kengor now reveals that all references to “Frank” were purged from the volume’s abridged audio version.
It’s an observation that was first broached, albeit very briefly, by Jack Cashill in a July article. And since then, the scrubbing has gone unnoticed. Until now.
“Frank” – whose influence Kengor asserts was key to the fledgling politician and that the eccentric activist appears in “each mile-marker” of Obama’s path from Hawaii to the halls of Washington, D.C. – is mentioned no less than 22 times by name in “Dreams From My Father” and is referenced via pronouns numerous other times throughout the book.
But while listening to the audio version recently, Kengor noticed “Frank” had disappeared. He re-listened to the entire audio book on Tuesday afternoon and compared it to the unabridged memoir.
“Every reference to ‘Frank’ everywhere in the book, from every section – and there are many of them – are gone,” Kengor told TheBlaze in an email.
The omissions are important because a review of thex reveals that all audio versions of “Dreams,” along with Obama’s subsequent book, “The Audacity of Hope,” are only available in the abridged format.
While the Obama campaign could certainly argue that during the editing process many excerpts, not just the ones referencing Frank, were eliminated from the audio version for brevity, some might find it odd that such an important figure in the president’s life would have been relegated to the cutting room floor.
It is also important to note that the audio version of “Dreams” was released in 2005, shortly after Obama’s now-infamous 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention – a speech which made it fairly clear that the aspiring politician would indeed rise to prominence on the national stage one day. Back in 1994, when the original text version of “Dreams” was released, Obama was a relative “nobody,” hence his memoir, complete with references to a seemingly obscure character named “Frank” would hardly have been on the public’s radar.
Given that the president himself narrated the audio version of “Dreams,” approved the final edits and even won a Grammy award for his efforts leaves little room for doubt that Obama is aware, if not directly responsible, for the omissions. In turn, the fact that the audio book appears to have been sanitized of the myriad references to Obama’s controversial mentor strikes Kengor as being in no way coincidental.
“It’s amazing to read along the text as you listen to the audio, and see and hear everything word for word, paragraph after paragraph, line after line, page after page, and then suddenly – wham, boom! – it skips a paragraph or line or page that just happened to mention “Frank” in the original,” Kengor added. It’s almost creepy, chilling to see.”
To refresh, Kengor’s book posits that Frank Marshall Davis served as a young Barack Obama’s most influential role model throughout the 1970s. Davis, an actual card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA, was unabashed in his political leanings, writing and eventually editing key Communist newspapers across various U.S. cities, particularly in Honolulu and Chicago (sound familiar).
In an op-ed to be published on TheBlaze, Kengor writes:
It’s hard to imagine that anyone could see Davis as a mentor. And yet, in the autumn of 1970, Davis was introduced to Obama by Obama’s grandfather, who was seeking a role model/father figure to mentor his grandson. Davis and Obama would meet throughout the 1970s, right up until Obama left Hawaii for Occidental College in 1979. In fact, in Dreams from My Father, Obama notes the parting advice he got from Davis before leaving for Occidental; it was a classic Davis diatribe trashing “the American way.”
Kengor posits that the audio version of “Dreams” was scrubbed in an effort to distance the president even further from the controversial Davis.
“As noted on the back cover, the audio version was personally ‘approved’ by Obama himself,” Kengor wrote in his exclusive forthcoming op-ed for TheBlaze.
“The audio version is abridged, but the abridgment somehow excludes every single mention of ‘Frank’ that appeared throughout all parts of the original print edition. That’s right, all of them; they’re all gone. The old communist is purged, blacklisted.”
To illustrate the type of effort that was clearly involved in the editing process, Kengor mapped out one difference in content between the original 1995 text version of the book and the 2005 audio version:
Original text version (1995): “It was the same dilemma that old Frank had posed to me the year I left Hawaii.”
Audio version (2005): “It was the same dilemma posed to me the year I left Hawaii.”
“This is blatant, flagrant – clearly a concealment,” Kengor concludes. “And it’s in Obama’s voice. There’s no question that Obama knew of this. No question.”
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
The Daley Gator has the story below:
Why won’t the Libya story go away? Why can’t the memory of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and his staff be consigned to the same sad-and-sealed file of Americans killed abroad in dangerous line of duty? How has an episode that seemed at first to have been mishandled by the Romney camp become an emblem of a feckless and deluded foreign policy?
The story-switching and stonewalling haven’t helped. But let’s start a little earlier.
The hour is 5 p.m., Sept. 11, Washington time, and the scene is an Oval Office meeting among President Obama, the secretary of defense, the national security adviser and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi has been under assault for roughly 90 minutes. Some 30 U.S. citizens are at mortal risk. The whereabouts of Ambassador Stevens are unknown.
What is uppermost on the minds of the president and his advisers? The safety of Americans, no doubt. So what are they prepared to do about it? Here is The Wall Street Journal’s account of the meeting:
“There was no serious consideration at that hour of intervention with military force, officials said. Doing so without Libya’s permission could represent a violation of sovereignty and inflame the situation, they said. Instead, the State Department reached out to the Libyan government to get reinforcements to the scene.”
So it did. Yet the attack was far from over. After leaving the principal U.S. compound, the Americans retreated to a second, supposedly secret facility, which soon came under deadly mortar fire. Time to call in the troops?
“Some officials said the U.S. could also have sent aircraft to the scene as a ‘show of force’ to scare off the attackers,” the Journal reported, noting that there’s a U.S. air base just 450 miles away in Sicily. “State Department officials dismissed the suggestions as unrealistic. ‘They would not have gotten there in two hours, four hours or six hours.’”
The U.S. security detail only left Benghazi at 8 a.m. on Sept. 12, more than 10 hours after the attacks began. A commercial jet liner can fly from D.C. to Benghazi in about the same time.
All this is noted with the benefit of hindsight, and the administration deserves to be judged accordingly. But it also deserves to be judged in light of what it knew prior to the attack, including an attack on the mission in June and heightened threat warnings throughout the summer.
So how did the administration do on that count? “That the local security did so well back in June probably gave us a false sense of security,” an unnamed American official who has served in Libya told the New York Times last week.
The logic here is akin to supposing that because the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center failed to bring down the towers, nobody need have been concerned thereafter. But let’s still make allowances for the kind of bureaucratic ineptitude that knows neither administration nor political party.
The more serious question is why the administration alighted on the idea that the attack wasn’t a terrorist act at all. Also, what did the White House think it had to gain by adopting the jihadist narrative that a supposedly inflammatory video clip was at the root of the trouble?
Nobody can say. All the administration will acknowledge is that it has “revised [its] initial assessment to reflect new information that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack.”
That’s from James Clapper, the director of national intelligence. It suggests that our intelligence agencies are either much dumber than previously supposed (always a strong possibility) or much more politicized (equally plausible).
No doubt the administration would now like to shift blame to Mr. Clapper. But what happened in Benghazi was not a failure of intelligence. It was a failure of policy, stemming from a flawed worldview and the political needs of an election season.
The U.S. ignores warnings of a parlous security situation in Benghazi. Nothing happens because nobody is really paying attention, especially in an election year, and because Libya is supposed to be a foreign-policy success. When something does happen, the administration’s concerns for the safety of Americans are subordinated to considerations of Libyan “sovereignty” and the need for “permission.” After the attack the administration blames a video, perhaps because it would be politically inconvenient to note that al Qaeda is far from defeated, and that we are no more popular under Mr. Obama than we were under George W. Bush. Denouncing the video also appeals to the administration’s reflexive habits of blaming America first. Once that story falls apart, it’s time to blame the intel munchkins and move on.
It was five in the afternoon when Mr. Obama took his 3 a.m. call. He still flubbed it.
From The Daley Gator:
Obama Mega-Donor Bill Maher After Debate: “I Can’t Believe I’m Saying This, But Obama Looks Like He Does Need A Teleprompter”…
He’s just realizing this now?
ZIP | October 3, 2012 11:44 pm |
Yeah, it was that bad.
ZIP | October 3, 2012 11:37 pm
ZIP | October 3, 2012 11:29 pm
She also makes the bizarre claim that it wasn’t Obama’s “specific purpose” to win the debate. Huh?
All of this from Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
HURT: Obama the debater: Making Jimmy Carter look awesome
W ednesday, October 3, 2012
Party like it’s 1980!
Bewildered and lost without his teleprompter, President Obama flailed all around the debate stage last night. He was stuttering, nervous and petulant. It was like he had been called in front of the principal after goofing around for four years and blowing off all his homework.
The split screen was most devastating. Mitt Romney spoke forthrightly, with carefully studied facts and details at the ready. He looked right at the president and accused him of being miles out of his depth.
Mr. Obama? His eyes were glued to his lectern, looking guilty and angry and impatient with all the vagaries of Democracy. This debate was seriously chaffing him.
From The Washington TImes
Read more: HURT: Obama the debater: Making Jimmy Carter look awesome – Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/3/hurt-obama-debater-making-jimmy-carter-look-awesom/#ixzz28KTQPR2o
Found at Ann Althouse: http://althouse.blogspot.com/
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Posted on | October 3, 2012
UPDATE 10:32 p.m. ET: Damn. Mitt won it straight-up. I’ve turned my TV to MSNBC to watch their reaction.
Rachel Maddow: “I personally do not know who won this debate.” This means . . . yeah, Mitt won. He beat the hell out of Obama.
Ed Schultz: “[Obama] created a problem for himself tonight on Social Security. He agreed with Mitt Romney. . . . I thought he was off his game.”
UPDATE 10:25 p.m. ET: Jim Lehrer babbling like an idiot about time running out. He wants Obama to get re-elected so ObamaCare will cover treatment for his senility.
UPDATE 10:22 p.m. ET: “Mr. President, you’re entitled to your own house and your own plane, but not your own facts.” Zing!
UPDATE 10:06 p.m. ET: They’ve been going back and forth about ObamaCare for 10 minutes. If you believe what Obama says — as opposed to the actual facts — then you’ll probably think he won this part of the debate. But if you believe what Obama says, you’re probably too stupid to read this anyway.
UPDATE 9:55 p.m. ET: More Twitter:
SHORTER OBAMA: “Vouchers! Republican vouchers! Run for your life, Granny, the vouchers are comin’ to get you!
UPDATE 9:45 p.m. ET: Been watching and Tweeting, so let me stick some of the Tweets in here:
Mitt just hit Obama on the Medicare issue. Obama hit back. Score it a draw, I think.
UPDATE 9:31 p.m. ET: Now they’re talking debts and deficits, and Obama’s worst broken promise: He claimed he’d cut the deficit in half and, instead, has doubled it.
UPDATE 9:20 p.m. ET: Obama and Romney are going back and forth on taxes. This is getting so good, I’m going to stop the frequent updates for a few minutes and just watch a while.
UPDATE 9:16 p.m. ET: Damn it, Obama keeps claiming to have given a “tax cut” to the middle class, but there was no rate reduction. Instead, he’s put in a series of tax credits, which are not the same as tax cuts.
UPDATE 9:13 p.m. ET: Romney gets a chance to hit back at Obama. Does pretty good, but gets a bit too “into the weeds” for my tastes.
UPDATE 9:11 p.m. ET: Obama comes back talking a lot of details, claiming Romney’s plan will “cost” money and have to be “paid for.” The government-centric point of view.
UPDATE 9:09 p.m. ET: Mitt opens with humorous anniversary congratulations, then goes into his 5-Point Plan for economic recovery. Having followed Mitt on the trail, I’ve heard this a zillion times, but for many of the 50 million people watching, it’s new.
UPDATE 9:07 p.m. ET: Obama opens with anniversary shout-out to Michelle. Then gets all into class warfare, blaming Bush, etc. He sucks.
EXPECT FURTHER UPDATES . . .
* * * PREVIOUSLY (8 p.m. ET) * * *
This verdict may shock some readers, seeing as how I’m publishing it a full hour before the debate actually begins.
Everybody’s playing the “expectations game” (notice Nate Silver trying to raise the ante for Romney) which, like a lot of what goes on in politics, is transparent bulls–t. Once you realize they’re trying to manipulate your perceptions, you should not be deceived, e.g.:
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos is doing his part for team Obama to make sure that Mitt Romney’s performance at Wednesday evening’s debate is a disappointment, one that will surely lead to his losing the election in November.
On Tuesday morning’s Good Morning America, the former Clinton Administration staffer sternly warned that if Romney doesn’t exceed expectations in the debates, he’s finished.
Why? Because Romney is under “huge, huge” pressure, Stephanopoulos says. And “he’s behind right now,” so if he doesn’t overperform, he’ll be considered a failure.
Give that everyone else is at it, therefore, I’m getting out ahead of this psychological gamesmanship with the pre-emptive declaration of Romney’s unquestional triumph.
And so this is your official “Debate Thread.”
Bite me, Nate. And bite me, George.
UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!
UPDATE II: Linked by the Lonely Conservative — thanks!
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Posted on | October 4, 2012
– compiled by Wombat-socho
ROMNEY ADMINISTERS EPIC BEATDOWN TO OBAMA ON NATIONAL TV
MSM, Secret Service helpless to stop thrashing as President stumbles through first debate
Even MSDNC, Democrat Party leaders know it
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Muslims Murder Our Troops and Pathetic Pentagon Blames Us
By Clash Daily /1 October 2012 /
By PAUL SPERRY- Afghan security forces, our supposed allies, are slaughtering American troops. Thirty-three soldiers have been killed by “green on blue” attacks this year alone. The situation is so bad that the training of Afghan forces has been temporarily suspended.
How has the Pentagon responded?
By blaming our troops.
Top officials believe culturally offensive behavior is the motivation behind the killings, so it’s stepped up Islamic sensitivity training for our troops.
If you don’t want to be shot in the back by your Afghan training partners, the Pentagon advises, don’t offend their religious sensibilities. Don’t kick your feet up on a table, for instance, and never ask to see a picture of their wives and kids. “There’s a percentage [of attacks] which are cultural affronts,” Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said in a recent interview.
Dempsey echoes the concerns of Gen. Sher Mohammad Karimi, the Afghan National Army’s chief of staff, who earlier this month argued both sides need to do more to “teach” foreign troops Islamic traditions and values to reduce the chance of violent reactions to cultural slights.
AFGHAN INSIDE ATTACK KILLS US TROOPS: OFFICIALS
“It is our duty to teach this to them. Our indifference about these issues causes the incident,” he said.
In the past three years, uniformed Afghans have murdered at least 97 US and NATO troops.
The Taliban has taken credit for many of the attacks, but the Pentagon has been reluctant to admit widespread infiltration of the Afghan security forces it’s training.
Standing up a national army and police force that can protect the US-sponsored government in Kabul is the linchpin of President Obama’s announced 2014 withdrawal strategy.
Some 120,000 American and other foreign troops mix closely with 350,000 Afghan security forces. Afghan trainees and guards are co-located on US bases, where they share bathrooms, gyms and mess halls.
To avoid offending them, US commanders are putting troops through intense Muslim sensitivity training. Among other things, they’ve been ordered to:
* Wear surgical gloves whenever handling a copy of the Koran.
* Never walk in front of a praying Muslim.
* Never show the bottom of boots while sitting or lying across from a Muslim, which in Islam is considered an insult.
* Never share photos of wives or daughters.
* Never smoke or eat in front of Muslims during the month long Ramadan fasting.
* Avoid winking, cursing or nose-blowing in the presence of Muslims — all viewed as insults in Islam.
* Avoid exiting the shower without a towel.
* Avoid offering and accepting things with the left hand, which in Islam is reserved for bodily hygiene and considered unclean.
Troops who violate the sensitivity rules face severe punishment.
Read more: foxnews.com
From Clash Daily:
Hamas-supporter Keith Ellison (D-MN) wants to make it even easier for Somali Muslim savages to come here and suck on the government teat
Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, sworn into Congress on a quran, today introduced the ‘Strengthening (Muslim) Refugee Resettlement Act, which increases coordination and provides resources the country can ill-afford for even more Muslim parasites from Somalia so they can come here, live on welfare while pushing up the crime rates (especially underage sex trafficking) in Christian communities.
ELLISON.GOV (H/T ROD F) The bill streamlines Muslim knuckledragger processing abroad, while taking advantage of that processing time to provide 3rd world inbreds with English classes and
work welfare orientation training. It also allows Muslims to be admitted to the United States as lawful permanent residents, saving scarce government and non-governmental organization (NGO) resources. (It takes years for European immigrants to become permanent residents, but Ellison wants to make sure these dregs of society get all the benefits of citizens without waiting at all)
strengthens forces Muslim integration into local communities (whether they want it or not). In particular, it expands the public-private Matching Grant program, (the government gets corporations to help support them)
America’s refugee program should reflect our values of generosity and inclusion for all Americans—new and old (They are not Americans and never will be. They are Muslims). The ‘Strengthening Refugee Resettlement Act’ achieves this by making sure Muslim welfare families have the resources they need to be self-sufficient as quickly as possible (even without working).
Strengthening support not only helps the 34,000 Muslim refugees who have come to Minnesota recently, but improves America’s image abroad.” (Like Hell it does)
According to the University of Minnesota, over 50,000 Somalis alone currently live in Minnesota. (Which is how Keith Ellison keeps getting re-elected)
From Bare Naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
From Bare naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
It’s not just that wind farms are nearly useless extravagantly expensive boondoggles that hideously mar the landscape. They also pose a serious threat to our health. The constant low-frequency noise they emit causes wind turbine syndrome, symptoms of which include:
…dizziness; balance problems; memory loss; inability to concentrate; insomnia; tachycardia; increased blood pressure; raised cortisol levels; headaches; nausea; mood swings; anxiety; tinnitus; palpitations; depression…
In December 2011, in a peer-reviewed report in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Dr Carl Phillips — one of the U.S.’s most distinguished epidemiologists — concluded that there is ‘overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate’.
The combination of low-frequency noise and amplitude modulation also stimulates an alert response, putting restful sleep out of the question.
Low-frequency sound has so much potential to cause harm, the military has studied its use as a weapon:
A 1997 report by the U.S. Air Force Institute For National Security Studies notes: ‘Acoustic infrasound: very low frequency sound which can travel long distances and easily penetrate most buildings and vehicles.
‘Transmission of long wavelength sound creates biophysical effects, nausea, loss of bowels, disorientation, vomiting, potential organ damage or death may occur.’
The malefic effects of wind turbines are not limited to the dangerous even when subaudible noise they produce:
From economists such as Edinburgh University’s Dr Gordon Hughes we are told that wind energy is unreliable and intermittent, with no real market value because it requires near 100 per cent back-up by conventional fossil-fuel power.
From research institute Verso Economics we are told that that for every ‘green job’ created by taxpayer subsidy, 3.7 jobs are killed in the real economy.
It is said that thanks to the artificial rise in energy prices caused by renewable subsidies, expected to reach £13 billion per annum by 2020, at least 50,000 people a year in Britain are driven into fuel poverty.
And newly released Spanish government research claims that each turbine kills an average 300 birds a year (often rare ones such as eagles and bustards) and at least as many bats.
Those bats eat mosquitoes by the millions; mosquitoes are mankind’s worst enemy (unless you count progressives).
So why do whole fields of these evil towers keep sprouting?
As Matt Ridley noted recently in The Spectator, there are ‘too many people with snouts in the trough.’ …
In Britain, onshore wind farms are subsidised by a levy on consumer bills at 100 per cent; offshore wind is subsidised at 200 per cent: no matter how little energy the turbines actually produce, in other words, healthy returns are guaranteed.
At least until such a time as wasteful public spending on this kind of lunacy begins to bring down whole countries, as has been happening in Spain.
In a free market economy, no one would build wind turbines because they make no sense economically. But under moonbat economics, making sense would be inappropriate.
On a tip from Byron.
What are the purposes of the CIA and FBI? To collect intelligence, investigate crimes, defend American interests, ensure public safety? Of course not. They are federal agencies; therefore, their purpose is to advance moonbattery:
From the CIA’s website:
From the FBI’s website:
Meanwhile, our ambassadors are getting murdered and dragged naked through the streets in part because bureauweenies are too busy promoting sexual depravity to collect intelligence that would allow us to defend ourselves. The FBI still hasn’t secured the crime scene (or rather, act of war scene) at our overrun consulate in Libya.
The consequences of allowing our government to be dominated by liberals will continue to be hideous.
Hat tip: Before It’s News, on a tip from Joe B.
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
Found at Weasel Zippers