Conservative Political Views



Communist disinformation, American-style

Shocking revolutionary roots not just of Obama, but top advisers Jarrett and Axelrod too

Published: 22 hours ago


By Paul Kengor

Editor’s note: Who could have imagined that one of the most audacious disinformation campaigns in American history would turn out, according to a recently declassified FBI file, to have a direct connection not only to today’s president of the United States, Barack Obama, but to top advisers David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett as well? Here, Professor Paul Kengor, author of “The Communist,” the new bestseller about Obama mentor Frank Marshall Davis, tells the incredible story of communist disinformation in America and its multiple ties to those now “fundamentally transforming” this country from the top.

If you want to see how Soviet-style disinformation has spread in our own country, look no further than the Communist Party USA. Sure, no one could spin a web of lies quite like the Soviets and the Kremlin, but their American devotees are likewise excellent at agitation, propaganda and deliberate deception. America’s communists have produced some impressive homegrown disinformation. Here, I’ll consider an especially productive example, which still bears bitter fruit today among the wider American left: the campaign against the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

In this skillful, cynical disinformation campaign, American communists, working with duped progressive/liberal accomplices, framed their accusers as “fascists,” “Nazis,” “McCarthyites” and even “racists” who were (allegedly) unfairly hounding and maligning them by investigating their ties to Moscow. In truth, the accused were frequently guilty – and, at the least, merited attention. Nonetheless, these leftist forces came together, under the leadership of the CPUSA, the Daily Worker and other far-left forces, in coordinated campaigns such as “Operation Abolition,” which sought to abolish the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which they tagged as “HUAC” – the “House Un-American Committee,” a label that sticks to this day.

Of special interest, one of those who engaged in this campaign was Frank Marshall Davis, a closet CPUSA member who in the 1970s would go on to mentor a young Hawaiian boy named Barack Obama, our current president.

Communist campaigns

Before examining this anti-”HUAC” campaign, consider a few words on the concept of communist campaigns.

Communists excelled at “campaigns” – that is, carefully concerted efforts where they exploited an issue or cause to further their agenda. Such campaigns were a very significant, still vastly unappreciated tactic vigorously employed by the communist movement throughout the 20th century. They were done with great effect, so much so that many of the outright untruths in these underhanded campaigns have slipped their way into history books as quasi-official versions of 20th century history.

These campaigns took on such a discernible, consistent pattern that they eventually prompted full-scale investigations by the U.S. government, which deciphered a clear tactic requiring constant surveillance. The FBI in the 1950s would produce a 100-plus-page report (classified) strictly on the subject of campaigns. The bureau defined campaigns as “concentrated, continuous and concerted succession of agitation and propaganda activities specifically devised and timed to sway public opinion. All communist campaigns are intended to arouse, influence and mobilize as many people as possible to further communist goals.” Those goals, naturally, included the promotion of the “welfare of the Soviet Union.” For American communists, the end-goal was always a “Soviet America,” or, as the 1930s CPUSA loyalty oath put it, “to insure the triumph of Soviet Power in the United States.”

Of special relevance to this article, communist campaigns, like communist fronts, thrived on deceit and disinformation. And American communists were vigilant in concealing their coordination. They needed to be ever ready to deny their participation.

The chief target audience in these campaigns was gullible liberals/progressives that communists believed could be duped. The dupes were indispensable to success. If the campaigns marshaled only the support of communists, they would be transparent and would collapse under public exposure. The presence of liberal/progressive dupes helped diminish the presence of communists.

The FBI noted that, “No other organization has ever engaged in so many diverse, intensive and extensive campaigns conducted with so much perseverance, deftness and potency as has the Communist Party USA.” CPUSA was “never without” a campaign of one type or another, and had been responsible for “an inestimable number of campaigns.”

The anti-’HUAC’ campaign

This brings me back to the anti-”HUAC” campaign.

One of the most controversial domestic battles of the Cold War was the fight between Congress’s House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUAA) and those accused by the committee of harboring private loyalties to the Soviet Union and international communist movement. It was before this committee that certain citizens were repeatedly asked the dramatic question, “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?” Many of those asked pleaded the Fifth Amendment.

There is much to this drama that today is misunderstood or unappreciated. To cite just one example, the actions of the House Committee are often identified with conservatives, with the political right, with McCarthyism and the man Joe McCarthy. In truth, Senator McCarthy was never a member of this House (of Representatives) Committee. In fact, throughout its history, the committee was chaired primarily by anti-communist Democrats. Its Democrat chieftains ranged from Rep. Martin Dies, D-Texas, to Rep. Francis Walter, D-Pa., to Rep. Richard Ichord, D-Mo., among others.

But more than that, and fundamental to the theme of this article, was the counter-campaign against the House Committee. That counter-campaign is known today only by a narrow group of Cold War researchers who have actually dug into the declassified archives – ranging from Soviet archives in Russia to the Comintern Archives on Communist Party USA (CPUSA), housed at the Library of Congress. A look at those archives, and other material, illuminates an interesting counter-response to the House Committee. That counter-response was a campaign called Operation Abolition.

Operation Abolition was a 1940s/1950s effort led by (among others) CPUSA, the Daily Worker, the ACLU and a splinter group from the ACLU, the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee – headed by Corliss Lamont and I. F. Stone. The goal of this coalition of left and far-left sources was to abolish the House Committee on Un-American Activities, or at least to so question and demonize the committee in the public’s mind as to discredit the committee.

It was incredibly ironic, and utterly outrageous, that after two decades of being wrong and being duped by Stalin, by Stalinists, and by secret supporters of Stalin, that America’s liberals/progressives – led by the ACLU and National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee – would come together to find their demon not in the duped liberals/progressives or pro-communists who defended Stalin as he murdered tens of millions, but in the anti-communists who tried to tell the truth to Americans about Stalin, his murderous state and his secret supporters in America. Can you imagine? Well, that is precisely what happened. Making it worse, I. F. Stone, who we now believe was a paid Soviet agent from 1936-38, helped lead the campaign.

So intense was this campaign that Congress itself ultimately investigated the campaign. Congress correctly perceived that the campaign was built upon a larger “anti-anti-communist” campaign that liberals/progressives pushed for decades and still advance to this day. That push had been so intense and problematic in the 1950s that the Senate Judiciary Committee (run by anti-communist Democrats) would hold hearings and publish a report titled, “The New Drive Against the Anti-Communist Program.”

As noted during those hearings, leading the charge in many of these anti-anti-communist thrusts was the New York Times. As testified by the feature source in the hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Times was one of the primary “organs of anti-anti-communism,” doing so ad nauseum with “heavyweight, comatose gibberish.”

Whether gibberish or not, this work was extremely effective in stirring the emotions of liberals/progressives, with the effect of inadvertently advancing the communist cause.

‘HUAC’s’ ‘Un-Americans’

Implicit to this effectiveness, and a huge propaganda success, was the very use of the acronym “HUAC.” Language became central to the debate.

Consider: America’s communists, socialists and liberals/progressives happily inverted the phrase “un-American,” charging the House Committee itself (and its chairs and members) with being “un-American.” The political left has done this so effectively that its historic term for the House Committee on Un-American Activities is not the proper acronym, “HCUAA,” but the commonly known and widely accepted term “HUAC,” which is actually a mis-ordered acronym that incorrectly reads: House Un-American Committee. This acronym is itself a major statement. Note, too, that the term “HUAC” shows that the political left in America is not shy about labeling certain people “un-American” – a tactic that the left claims is the typical domain of the right – so long as the left is doing the labeling.

Overall, the left has done this so aggressively that it has succeeded in permanently labeling HCUAA as “HUAC.” I have noticed the results when teaching college students. In my courses, when I attempt to use the correct acronym, HCUAA, I get quizzical looks as I scribble the letters on the chalkboard. To the contrary, the moment I revert to “HUAC,” students nod, understanding what I’m referring to. The left has won this battle over language. And most ironic, the greatest champions of the term “HUAC” were American communists, who used the term incessantly in the Daily Worker and all their publications. When non-communist liberals/progressives today use that term, they are actually, whether they know it or not, employing the propaganda language of CPUSA.

Particularly brazen was the Daily Worker. In fact, it is almost laughable that the Daily Worker put “communists” in quotes when reporting on actual communists identified by HCUAA, while simultaneously not placing “HUAC” in quotes, as if the former were fantasy and the latter reality. Oftentimes, communists and liberals/progressives alike simply called HUAC “the Un-American Committee” (leaving out “House”).

Even more brazen, CPUSA, throughout the Cold War and even post-Cold War, maligned what it dubbed “the racist, McCarthyite forces of evil” and the “fascist House Un-American Activities Committee.”

Yes, fascist. This was an obscene accusation against a generation that had faced the Nazis. And yet, typical of the American left, opponents were transmogrified into political monsters: “racists,” “fascists,” “Nazis.” Liberals/progressives hurl around these vicious names still today, almost reflexively. It isn’t anything new; they and their comrades have done this for a long, long time.

Frank Marshall Davis

Interestingly, this war over language was waged not only at CPUSA organs like the Daily Worker but by a subject of remarkable modern political relevance: Frank Marshall Davis. Davis did so in his writings and publications, beginning at the Chicago Star (1946-48) and continuing with great frequency at the Honolulu Record (1949-57) – two communist-controlled publications.

For the record, Frank Marshall Davis was a card-carrying member of Communist Party USA – card no. 47544. He joined the Party in Chicago during World War II. He was founding editor-in-chief and a weekly columnist for the Chicago Star, where he wrote flawless pro-Soviet propaganda, blasting everything and everyone from the Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrine to Harry Truman and Winston Churchill. His position was always predictable: it was the Kremlin’s position. Davis continued that work in Hawaii, where he moved in 1949, and where he would eventually meet and mentor a young man named Barack Obama in the 1970s.

As to the theme of this article, I counted 43 examples of Frank Marshall Davis using the word “un-American” at the Honolulu Record in just 1949-50 alone. Some of these were in defense (to defend himself), others on offense (to attack the committee). Three times the words were typed into titles of his columns. Twice he used the word “un-Americanism.” Davis was not reticent about excoriating “the aptly named un-American committee.”

Some examples of Davis’s use of this phrase are worth highlighting:
In a May 1950 piece for the Honolulu Record, Davis described what he referred to as a natural alliance sought by bigoted anti-communists on “the un-American committee.” “This alliance with a revived Nazi Germany,” wrote Davis, “may please such persons as John Rankin of Mississippi and John Wood of Georgia, two past and present chairmen of the un-American committee whose ideas on race parallel those of Adolf Hitler.” In fact, said Davis, congressmen Rankin and Wood were not merely run-of-the-mill, redneck Democratic Party racists, but were themselves “upholders of master race theory of the Nazis.”

Frank Marshall Davis did not mince words: If America, and especially anti-communists at “HUAC,” wanted to see Nazis, they should look in the mirror.

Another “un-American” piece by Davis that’s especially illuminating was a September 20, 1947, column for the Chicago Star, titled, “I got radical thoughts.” Here, Davis candidly stated that he wanted to flat-out nationalize the packing-house industry, as well as impose national price controls and a federal tax on the rich and their “excess profits.” “I’m so un-American right now,” wrote Obama’s mentor, “that I want to see price controls clamped back on this minute, a new and stronger excess profits tax put into operation, and the whole packing industry nationalized.”

What’s fascinating about this particular article is who Frank Marshall Davis worked with at the communist-controlled packing house workers’ union – and how those comrades eerily relate to today.

Working with Davis in promoting the packing-house workers union was Vernon Jarrett. They collaborated in a communist-controlled group called the Citizens’ Committee to Aid Packing-House Workers. A surviving April 12, 1948, document printed on committee letterhead, and found by researcher Trevor Loudon, lists Davis as both committee member and among the small group of journalistically inclined individuals who comprised the committee’s publicity committee. Joining Davis in both capacities was Vernon Jarrett.

Vernon Jarrett would become a major name in Chicago and known nationally. He would also become father-in-law to a young woman named Valerie Jarrett, Barack Obama’s single most important adviser.

And the links don’t end there. Also working to advance the proletariat from the packing-house workers union was the Canter family, specifically Harry and David Canter, who in the 1930s lived in the Soviet Union while Harry worked for Stalin’s government as an official translator of Lenin’s writings. Hailing originally from Boston, where Harry was secretary of Boston’s Communist Party, the Canters eventually ended up in Chicago in the 1940s, where they worked with Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s mentor. In the 1970s, David Canter would, like Davis, become a mentor – of a young man named David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist.

The links are amazing, too extraordinary to try to make up. Nonetheless, they are as true as they are shocking. And to bring this full circle to the theme of this article, the likes of the Canters worked with Frank Marshall Davis in certain circles and fronts – and the literal pages of the Chicago Star, which incessantly called for the abolition of the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

In all, whether “un-American” was hurled by Frank Marshall Davis or his liberal/progressive or communist friends, think about their argument: The left was, in effect, arguing that the true Americans were the card-carrying, closet American communists – literally pledged to Stalin’s USSR and the Comintern – whereas the un-Americans were the anti-communists, especially those elected to Congress and fulfilling their duty of investigating possible secret Soviet agents or collaborators. For these congressmen, their duties to the U.S. Constitution mandated that they pursue potential indigenous security threats.

Frank Marshall Davis and his comrades constantly tried to argue that they weren’t communists, but were mere “progressives” being unfairly hounded by Neanderthal McCarthyites and the evil “HUAC.” This was disinformation they fed to liberals, which, in turn, fomented a wider anti-”HUAC” campaign. Liberals, naturally, swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker. In truth, these guys were communists, and they were rightly being pursued for their correctly suspected pro-Soviet activities.

And yet, still today, the likes of Frank Marshall Davis himself continue to be protected by liberals who portray him as an innocent civil-rights crusader hounded by McCarthyites. Who does this? Pro-Obama liberal biographers and journalists. They do this, of course, to protect Obama. Alas, then, the disinformation curiously continues.

The preceding was excerpted from the September issue of WND’s acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine, “DISINFORMATION AGE: How America’s news media have become ‘useful idiots’ for Marxists, sociopaths and tyrants.”

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and author of the new bestselling book “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.” His other books include “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”

September 30, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments




Hate List, Inc.

Astonishing amount of money spent on massive smear campaign

Published: 20 hours ago


author-image by Jack MinorEmail | Archive

Jack Minor is a former Marine who served under President Reagan. He has written hundreds of articles and has been interviewed about his work on multiple television and radio outlets. He is also a former pastor and has been acknowledged for his research ability in several books.More ↓

rss feed Subscribe to author feed

The Southern Poverty Law Center – which has labeled WND and other conservative organizations “hate groups” – is spending massive amounts of money to promote hate-crime propaganda rather than funding its purported mission.

The SPLC bills itself as a nonprofit civil rights group dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry. However, WND has reported extensively on how the organization ignores left-leaning groups, choosing instead to exclusively list conservative groups as so-called “hate” organizations.

The Capital Research Center recently published “Southern Poverty Law Center, Wellspring of Manufactured Hate” by James Simpson, which details how the organization designates conservative groups as hate groups similar to the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nations for the purpose of raising money.

The report noted that the SPLC has more than $238 million in assets, making it one of the wealthiest nonprofits in the country. Despite this, the organization spends nearly 20 percent of its budget on fundraising. In 2011, the group spent $6.5 million for fundraising, with $5.5 million going for salaries and administrative expenses.

According to the SPLC’s 2010 tax return, the group spent $12.5 million maintaining, publishing and promoting its hate group reports. However, when it came to fulfilling its primary mission, the group only spent $11 million.

The tax returns also noted the group enjoyed a net gain of $28.8 million, prompting Simpson to ask why it continues to raise funds. He said the group keeps adding tens of millions of dollars to its endowment fund, and some of its assets are tucked away in Bermuda and Cayman Island accounts.

While the SPLC does not appear to be breaking any laws, CRC Vice President Scott Walter said, at the very least, the expenditures violate good business practices.

“From a good business practice perspective, spending so much on fundraising while they are sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars – along with their lavish offices – is contributing to their losing their respect and prestige,” Walter said. “When you compare the amount that is actually used to defend people in court, that is a very small amount compared to their bigger balance sheet and far less than what they spend on fundraising, even though they have enough money to get by for years and years.”

According to Simpson, the SPLC has benefited from the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scam. The group’s biggest benefactor was the Picower Foundation, founded by Jeffrey Picower, who was friends with Bernie Madoff for 30 years and made $5 billion in profits from his “investments” with Madoff.

Following Picower’s death in 2009, federal prosecutors took over his estate in an attempt to recoup money for Madoff’s victims. The estate eventually settled and agreed to pay $7.2 billion to compensate Madoff’s victims. The Picower Foundation has since closed its doors, but Simpson asked if the SPLC will ever refund any of Picower’s donations to help those who lost their life savings in Madoff’s scheme.

In an article for the Progressive, SPLC Co-Founder Morris Dees’ first business partner, Millard Fuller, who later founded Habitat for Humanity, offered a different mission statement for the SPLC than that presented on the group’s website.

“Morris and I, from the first day of our partnership, shared the overriding purpose of making a pile of money,” Fuller said. “We were not particular about how we did it; we just wanted to be independently rich. During the eight years we worked together, we never wavered in that resolve.”

The group’s disproportionate emphasis on fundraising over helping those it claims to represent has sparked criticism from left-wing groups such as Nation magazine and Harper’s.

In a Harper’s article titled, “The Church of Morris Dees,” Millard Farmer compared him to former evangelist Jim Bakker, who went to prison for accounting fraud.

“He’s the Jim and Tammy Fayer Baker of the civil rights movement,” Farmer said, “though I don’t mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye.”

Harper’s has also described Dees’ fundraising as “flagrantly misleading” solicitations for money, while the Nation called him “the arch-salesman of hate mongering.”

WND has noted that the SPLC also received funding from billionaire activist George Soros, who recently donated $1.5 million to help re-elect President Obama, and other left-leaning groups including the Daily Kos, SEIU,, the Huffington Post and Media Matters.

The SPLC frequently accuses organizations such as WND, Family Research Council and even the American Constitution Party as adhering to “extreme anti-government doctrines.”

(The American Constitution Party in Colorado is officially a major political party in the state.)

The FRC, which advocates for traditional marriage, has said the SPLC’s designation of the organization as a hate group may have been what inspired a gunman to shoot a security guard in August.

Floyd Corkins II walked into the FRC headquarters with a backpack full of Chik-fil-A sandwiches. He pulled out a loaded weapon shot guard Leo Johnson. Authorities said Corkins made a “negative reference” about the FRC’s work prior to shooting.

WND columnist Matt Barber, who is affiliated with Liberty Counsel Action, noted the shooting was a logical outcome of the SPLC’s policy of designating conservative organizations “hate groups.”

“This was intended to dehumanize Christian organizations and smear as hate the biblical view of sexual morality,” Barber said. “I pointed this out months ago in a column I wrote for WND, titled ‘Liberal Violence Rising,‘ where I basically predicted this sort of thing.”

Walter said because the SPLC uses hate groups to raise money, designating pro-family and other conservative organization as such is directly beneficial to the organization.

“The problem with their using their policy of using hate crime lists to raise money is you always have to keep upping the ante over time,” he said. “That’s how you go from the Aryan Nations and KKK to listing the tea party and FRC as a hate group.”

September 30, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Gay muslims

Gay muslims (Photo credit: hebedesign)



Cops to answer in court for ‘stoning’ of Christians

Lawsuit follows Michigan Muslim mob attack on believers

Published: 2 days ago




Hundreds of angry Muslims threw chunks of concrete and eggs at a team of Christians, spraying them with urine and cursing at them – all while police stood by and then threatened the victims with “disorderly conduct.”


Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Somalia?


No. Dearborn, Mich.


So now a team of attorneys from the American Freedom Law Center is going to court on behalf of the victims of the violent Muslim mob at the Arab International Festival last June, an attack that was captured on video.


The federal civil rights complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan names as defendants officials from the Wayne County sheriff’s office who “sided with the Muslim mob intent on suppressing the Christians’ speech.”


The complaint explains authorities not only failed to protect the Christians, they ordered them to leave the Arab Festival under threat of arrest for “disorderly conduct.”


However, not one Muslim was arrested for the attack that left several members of the Christian group bloodied, the complaint states.


Among the defendants is Deputy Chief Mike Jaafar, a Muslim who was featured in the now-canceled show “All American Muslim,” which appeared on The Learning Channel.


As WND reported, the crowd can be heard chanting “Allahu Akbar!” – Arabic for “Allah is the greatest!”– on the video.


It shows the crowd – reminiscent of a rock-throwing “intifada” scene from the Middle East – hurling a dizzying barrage of objects at the Christians standing passively with their signs, causing some injuries.


WND later learned that the Christian crowd had been carrying a pole with a pig’s head attached to the top, further angering the Muslim crowd. At the beginning of the video, Christian street preachers shout, “God is good, and God is not Allah!”


First, police approached Ruben Israel of, warning him: “The city of Dearborn has an ordinance, OK, that you guys can’t use the megaphone. So, if you guys continue to use that, you will get a citation.”


Israel noted that the group was allowed to use the megaphone in 2011. Then he asked the officer, “So, if we don’t use a megaphone, can we throw water bottles at the crowd?”


The officer shook his head.


“So what are you going to do if they throw water bottles at us?” Israel asked.


“If that happens, we will take care of that and address it,” the officer promised.


When Israel said he had captured the mob’s assault on the Christians on video, the officer suggested he “take it through the proper channels, and we’ll try to find them.”


However, at the 2:17 mark of the video, the mob can be heard screaming: “You want to jump ‘em? C’mon, let’s go!”


One boy yells, “Let’s beat the sh-t out of them!”


A girl shouts, “Go home! Do you understand English?!”


The Christians are no longer using megaphones, as the mob advances on them from all angles – hurling bottles, cans, eggs, chunks of concrete and even milk crates toward their heads.


Even young children shout obscenities such as, “F—k you, b-tch!”


Meanwhile, police are nowhere to be seen in the video.


One of the Christians asks another, “Is this worse than last year?”


He replies, “Oh my goodness, yeah!! This is insanity.”


An irate 18-year-old man from Iraq gets into the Christians’ faces, screaming: “If you don’t like Dearborn, then go the f—k back home! … I am an American citizen, and I have my rights. There’s freedom of religion, isn’t there?”


He screams, “So why do you guys pray like this on the bank? Oh Lord. Why don’t you get on the ground, like the prophets, huh? You’re Christian. That’s what it says in the Bible, you stupid sh-t!”


Many minutes into the video and after much of the shouting takes place, Dearborn mounted police ride through the crowd. The video states that no arrests were made.


According to the video, the mob began chucking more stones, bottles and debris as the Christians were injured and property damaged.


“Dearborn Police finally arrive after 30 mins of assault,” a caption states.


Despite the attacks the Christians had endured, a man identified in the video as Deputy Chief Dennis Richardson of the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office tells them, “You’re a danger to the safety right now.”


Officers claim they don’t have the manpower to protect the Christians at the festival.


“Your safety is in harm’s way. You need to protect everybody,” said Deputy Chief Mike Jaafar of the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office. “You do have the option to leave. I just want to make that clear.”


Israel replied, “You have the option to stand with us” as Jaafar walked away, leaving the Christians to the mob.


When police leave, the crowd continues harassing the Christians and screaming profanities.


Then police begin escorting the Christians away from the crowd.


Deputy Chief Richardson tells Israel: “We have the responsibility of policing the entire festival, and obviously your conduct is such that it’s causing a disturbance and is a direct threat to the safety of everyone here. Someone could get hurt. You already have blood on your face. One of the festival people, one of my officers, anybody can get hurt. Now we’re going to escort you out.”


Israel explains that the mob throws things and becomes more aggressive when police leave the scene.


“Part of the reason that they throw things on someone is because you tell them stuff that enrages them,” Richardson argues.


The AFLC said the Christians were wearing shirts with Scripture quotes and Christian messages.


“In our society, which is guided by Judeo-Christian principles, free speech and religious freedom are protected against censorship or punishment,” said Robert Muise, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel.


“Consequently, law enforcement officials have a constitutional duty not to effectuate a heckler’s veto, nor may they join a violent mob intent on suppressing speech. Instead, officials must take reasonable action to protect persons exercising their free speech rights. Here, we have an angry and violent mob of Muslims intent on suppressing free speech and law enforcement officials aiding and abetting the violence in violation of the Constitution.”


Daivd Yerushalmi, co-founder of the AFLC, said: “What is shocking is that this Shariah-mandated violence in response to speech contrary to Islam is not just occurring overseas in places like Egypt and Libya, it is happening right here in the United States. One thing is clear: no citizen should be stoned in a city street in America for exercising his constitutional rights. In the United States, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not Shariah.”


AFLC attorneys already successfully have litigated several challenges on behalf of Christians whose rights were violated in Dearborn – which is described as “a city with one of the largest Muslim populations in the United States.”


The team said, for example, a Christian pastor was banned from handing out Christian literature in 2009, and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided the pastor’s First Amendment rights were trampled.


Then the next year, four Christians were handcuffed and jailed by police for preaching during the Arab Festival. They were accused of “breach of the peace.”


A jury acquitted the four, and in a subsequent civil rights complaint, a federal judge rejected city demands to dismiss it.


The current case alleges Wayne County officials violated the Christians’ rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment, and that the officials deprived the Christians of the equal protection of the law guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment.


(Editor’s note: The following 22-minute video contains profane statements shouted by an angry mob and may be offensive to viewers.



September 30, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments


English: Billboard challenging the validity of...

English: Billboard challenging the validity of Barack Obama’s birth certificate. The billboard is located in South Gate, and photo taken on November 12, 2010. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Where's the Birth Certificate?

Where’s the Birth Certificate? (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


To all Obama supporters–rather than name-calling, demonizing, and ridiculing the folks who actually see problems within the released long-form birth certificate, why not support your words with hard facts, which cannot be unsubstantiated?  You will have to come up with information that will be clean, and separate, from connections with this Administration at all levels–without any suspicion of threats used to coerce Hawaiian authorities, who claim the document is authentic–without suspicion of threats and other coercion to force any other person(s) to support the document as genuine–and above all, look at all of the judges who have thrown out cases on this issue, and determine how many were appointed by Obama.  The present Arizona, 9th Circuit Appeals Court judge is an Obama appointee!  Well, duh!!!

Just Me


Obama eligibility odds: 1 in 62.5 quintillion

Lord Monckton crunches numbers on ‘mistakes’ in White House birth certificate

Published: 5 days ago

Entire books have been written about the problems with the “birth certificate” that was released by the White House purportedly documenting Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

Computer imaging experts have found it to be fraudulent and the conclusion of an official law enforcement investigation assembled by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is that it is just not real.

But it wasn’t until now, through the work of the Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, that the world was informed just exactly what the odds are against all of those anomalies occurring naturally.

One in 62,500,000,000,000,000,000. (That’s 62.5 quintillion)

Or, if one prefers, the chances are 0.0000000000000000000016 that those curious developments happened by accident.

The question at hand is whether Obama is constitutionally qualified for the office, under the Constitution’s requirement that presidents be a “natural born citizen.” Some say even if he was born in Hawaii, he wouldn’t qualify, because of his father’s foreign student status.  Many believe a “natural born citizen” is the offspring of two citizen parents.

Monckton previously has advised Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher about the fallacies of global warming, has written for the Yorkshire Post, was editor of the Catholic paper The Universe, managing editor of the Telegraph Sunday Magazine, assistant editor of Today, and consulting editor of the Evening Standard.

In a column today for WND, he crunched the numbers to show that such things developing in the ordinary course of events and those “mistakes” carrying no meaning are, well, unlikely.

Get the definitive “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?” by Dr. Jerome Corsi.

He said it’s not the first time he’s used mathematics to shoot down a popular theory.

“When I worked for Margaret Thatcher, I used math several times to catch scientific fraudsters. In 2007, for the first time, I used it to catch a Democrat blue-handed. That year Stuart Dimmock, a lorry-driver from Dartford, Kent, sought a high court order restraining HM Secretary of State for Education from circulating copies of Al Gore’s mawkish, sci-fi comedy horror movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ to schools in England. He did not want his two lads subjected to sanctimonious, hard-left politics in class,” he explains.

“At the invitation of the plaintiff’s lawyers, I provided scientific testimony that the movie contained numerous errors. Two eminent scientists concurred. The defendants caved. The court accepted that nine serious errors existed. All nine errors exaggerated the supposed climate threat. The probability that this had happened accidentally was accordingly … less than 0.002,” he wrote.

“Accordingly, the high court found Gore’s movie political, not scientific.”

Read all about the numbers crunching.

So he said, “We can use the same method to determine the likelihood that Fu Manchu’s ‘birth certificate’ is genuine.”

He said the process simply estimates the probability that each of the “errors and anomalies” was accidental.

He cites:

  • The fact that the registrar’s signature-stamp on the electronic form can be moved about: 100:1 against.

  • Registrar’s date-stamp ditto: 100:1 against.

  • Multiple 1-bit monochrome layers and one 8-bit color layer: 60:1. (Experts twice found no such pattern in 600 file-optimization programs: I allow for 10 anomalous programs to exist.)

  • “Lavishly funded bureaucracy uses wonky typewriter:” 10:1

  • Human error: Certificate number out of sequence: 25:1

  • Incorrect birth date of father: 40:1

  • Use of “African” contrary to written form-filling rules and 20 years before the term came into common use: 25:1

  • Miscoded statistical data: 25:1 (official government estimate).

  • White halo around letters: 10:1

  • Chromatic aberration absent: 100:1

  • Other identity documents: Anomalously worded abstract on short-form birth certificate: 100:1

  • Two-digit year on selective service stamp against DoD written rules: 100:1 (actually impossible: no two-digit example other than that of Kenya’s “son of the soil” is known)

  • Non-citizen of Connecticut holds Connecticut social security number: 100:1.

“There are many other errors, but these suffice. Defenders of Mr. Community Organizer say each error could have just happened by accident. I mean, it’s government form-filling, right?,” he wrote. “But here’s where the math comes in. If each error is a genuine accident, the errors are independent events, so the probabilities of each error are multiplied together to determine the probability that all occurred in one document.

“Thus the odds against all of these errors occurring in a single document except by design are 1 in 100 x 100 x 10 x 10 x 25 x 40 x 25 x 25 x 10 x 100 x 100 x 100 x 100. Accordingly, the probability that Mr. Obama’s birth narrative is in substance true is no better than 1 in 62,500,000,000,000,000,000, or 0.0000000000000000000016.”

He wrote, “Don’t be misled by the simplicity of the method. It’s simple but sound.”

And he offered a suggestion:

“Here is what you can do about it. Write by Return Receipt Requested to the head of the Secret Service and demand an investigation into the forged ‘birth certificate.’ When you get no reply, write again by Return Receipt Requested giving the Secret Service two weeks to reply.

“When you still get no reply, apply to your federal district court for judicial review of the administrative decision of the Secret Service to refuse to do its job. It has a specific remit to investigate the authenticity of identification documents,” he explained.

“The courts cannot legitimately deny standing to any citizen seeking an order to tell the Secret Service to get on with its work rather than sullenly crossing the street, looking the other way, shutting its eyes, blocking its ears and singing ‘la-la-la’ in a hysterical monotone.”

September 30, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Administration Asks Appeals Court for Stay on Indefinite Detention Ban, Triggers Constitutional Showdown by CHRIS HEDGES, TRUTHDIG


Administration Asks Appeals Court for Stay on Indefinite Detention Ban, Triggers Constitutional Showdown

Monday, 17 September 2012 10:30 By Chris Hedges, Truthdig | News Analysis

Administration Asks Appeals Court for Stay on Indefinite Detention Ban, Triggers Constitutional Showdown.

In January I sued President Barack Obama over Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorized the military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely, strip them of due process and hold them in military facilities, including offshore penal colonies. Last week, round one in the battle to strike down the onerous provision, one that saw me joined by six other plaintiffs including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg, ended in an unqualified victory for the public. U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, who accepted every one of our challenges to the law, made her temporary injunction of the section permanent. In short, she declared the law unconstitutional.

Almost immediately after Judge Forrest ruled, the Obama administration challenged the decision. Government prosecutors called the opinion “unprecedented” and said that “the government has compelling arguments that it should be reversed.” The government added that it was an “extraordinary injunction of worldwide scope.” Government lawyers asked late Friday for an immediate stay of Forrest’s ban on the use of the military in domestic policing and on the empowering of the government to strip U.S. citizens of due process. The request for a stay was an attempt by the government to get the judge, pending appeal to a higher court, to grant it the right to continue to use the law. Forrest swiftly rejected the stay, setting in motion a fast-paced appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly, if her ruling is upheld there, to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Justice Department sent a letter to Forrest and the 2nd Circuit late Friday night informing them that at 9 a.m. Monday the Obama administration would ask the 2nd Circuit for an emergency stay that would lift Forrest’s injunction. This would allow Obama to continue to operate with indefinite detention authority until a formal appeal was heard. The government’s decision has triggered a constitutional showdown between the president and the judiciary.

“This may be the most significant constitutional standoff since the Pentagon Papers case,” said Carl Mayer, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

“The administration of President Obama within the last 48 hours has decided to engage in an all-out campaign to block and overturn an order of a federal judge,” said co-lead counsel Bruce Afran. “As Judge Forrest noted in her opinion, nothing is more fundamental in American law than the possibility that journalists, activists and citizens could lose their liberty, potentially forever, and the Obama administration has now lined up squarely with the most conservative elements of the Republican Party to undermine Americans’ civil liberties.”

The request by the government to keep the law on the books during the appeal process raises a disturbing question. If the administration is this anxious to restore this section of the NDAA, is it because the Obama government has already used it? Or does it have plans to use the section in the immediate future?

“A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the U.S. and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots,” Afran said. “It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA—so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests.”

The decision to vigorously fight Forrest’s ruling is a further example of the Obama White House’s steady and relentless assault against civil liberties, an assault that is more severe than that carried out by George W. Bush. Obama has refused to restore habeas corpus. He supports the FISA Amendment Act, which retroactively makes legal what under our Constitution has traditionally been illegal—warrantless wire tapping, eavesdropping and monitoring directed against U.S. citizens. He has used the Espionage Act six times against whistle-blowers who have exposed government crimes, including war crimes, to the public. He interprets the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving him the authority to assassinate U.S. citizens, as he did the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. And now he wants the right to use the armed forces to throw U.S. citizens into military prisons, where they will have no right to a trial and no defined length of detention.

Liberal apologists for Barack Obama should read Judge Forrest’s 112-page ruling. It is a chilling explication and denunciation of the massive erosion of the separation of powers. It courageously challenges the overreach of Congress and the executive branch in stripping Americans of some of our most cherished constitutional rights.

In the last 220 years there have been only about 135 judicial rulings that have struck down an act of Congress. Most of the cases involved abortion or pornography. Very few dealt with wartime powers and the separation of powers, or what Forrest in her opinion called “a question of defining an individual’s core liberties.”

Section 1021(b)(2) authorizes the military to detain any U.S. citizen who “substantially supported” al-Qaida, the Taliban or “associated forces” and then hold them in military compounds until “the end of hostilities.” The vagueness of the language, and the refusal to exempt journalists, means that those of us who as part of our reporting have direct contact with individuals or groups deemed to be part of a terrorist network can find ourselves seized and detained under the provision.

“The Government was unable to offer definitions for the phrases ‘substantially support’ or ‘directly support,’ ” the judge wrote. “In particular, when the Court asked for one example of what ‘substantially support’ means, the Government stated, ‘I’m not in a position to give one specific example.’ When asked about the phrase ‘directly support,’ the Government stated, ‘I have not thought through exactly and we have not come to a position on ‘direct support’ and what that means.’ In its pre-trial memoranda, the Government also did not provide any definitional examples for those terms.”

The judge’s ruling asked whether a news article deemed by authorities as favorable to the Taliban could be interpreted as having “substantially supported” the Taliban.

“How about a YouTube video?” she went on. “Where is the line between what the government would consider ‘journalistic reporting’ and ‘propaganda?’ Who will make such determinations? Will there be an office established to read articles, watch videos, and evaluate speeches in order to make judgments along a spectrum of where the support is ‘modest’ or ‘substantial?’ ”

Forrest concurred with the plaintiffs that the statute violated our free speech rights and due-process guarantees. She noted that “the Court repeatedly asked the Government whether those particular past activities could subject plaintiffs to indefinite detention; the Government refused to answer.” The judge went on to criticize the nebulous language of the law, chastising the government because it “did not provide particular definitions.” She wrote that “the statute’s vagueness falls far short of what due process requires.”

Although government lawyers argued during the trial that the law represented no change from prior legislation, they now assert that blocking it imperils the nation’s security. It is one of numerous contradictions in the government’s case, many of which were illuminated in Forrest’s opinion. The government, she wrote, “argues that no future administration could interpret § 1021(b)(2) or the AUMF differently because the two are so clearly the same. That frankly makes no sense, particularly in light of the Government’s inability at the March and August hearings to define certain terms in—or the scope of—§ 1021(b)(2).” The judge said that “Section 1021 appears to be a legislative attempt at an ex post facto ‘fix’: to provide the President (in 2012) with broader detention authority than was provided in the AUMF [Authorization to Use Military Force Act] in 2001 and to try and ratify past detentions which may have occurred under an overly-broad interpretation of the AUMF.”

The government, in effect, is attempting to push though a law similar to the legislation that permitted the government to intern 110,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II. This law, if it comes back into force, would facilitate the mass internment of Muslim Americans as well as those deemed to “support” groups or activities defined as terrorist by the state. Calling the 1944 ruling “an embarrassment,” Forrest referred to Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the government’s internment of Japanese-Americans.

The judge said in her opinion that the government “did not submit any evidence in support of its positions. It did not call a single witness, submit a single declaration, or offer a single document at any point during these proceedings.” She went on to write that she found “the testimony of each plaintiff credible.”

“At the March hearing, the Court asked whether Hedges’ activities could subject him to detention under § 1021; the Government stated that it was not prepared to address that question. When asked a similar question at the August hearing, five months later, the Government remained unwilling to state whether any of plaintiffs’ (including Hedges’s) protected First Amendment future activities could subject him or her to detention under § 1021. This Court finds that Hedges has a reasonable fear of detention pursuant to § 1021(b)(2).”

The government has now lost four times in a litigation that has gone on almost nine months. It lost the preliminary injunction in May. It lost a motion for reconsideration shortly thereafter. It lost the permanent injunction. It lost its request last week for a stay. We won’t stop fighting this, but it is deeply disturbing that the Obama administration, rather than protecting our civil liberties and democracy, insists on further eroding them by expanding the power of the military to seize U.S. citizens and control our streets.


September 29, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment



Judge OKs social workers‘ invasion of homeschoolers

Search ruled ‘voluntary’ despite threat armed officers would seize children

Published: 18 hours ago

author-image by Bob UnruhEmail | Archive Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.


Police cars screech to a halt outside your door, six deputies approach along with two social workers who warn they have information from an anonymous tipster and threaten that unless you allow them to enter RIGHT NOW, the armed officers will take your children away from you.

So your decision to allow the authorities to enter is completely voluntary?

That’s the determination of a federal judge who has relieved two social workers – Rhonda Cash and Jenna Cramer – of liability for their actions in a case brought by homeschooling parents John and Tiffany Loudermilk in Arizona.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that deputies Joshua Ray, Joseph Sousa, Richard Gagnon and Michael Danner had qualified immunity for their role in the 2005 confrontation with the Loudermilks, the parents of five children.

Jim Mason, a senior counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association’s litigation team, which represents the Loudermilks, explained that in 2005, the couple was confronted at their door by authorities investigating a two-month-old anonymous allegation that their home was unsafe.

Faced with losing their children, Mason said, the Loudermilks opened their door to the investigators, “and the allegation was quickly proven false.”

However, the Loudermilks’ civil rights lawsuit against the social workers and the deputies, citing Fourth and 14th Amendment rights, has faced an uphill battle.

“We argued that the search of the Loudermilks’ home was coerced because the social workers used the threat of taking their children to gain access,” Mason said. “Both the social workers and sheriff’s deputies argued that they were immune to such claims because the Loudermilks ‘voluntarily’ opened their home to be investigated.”

The district court ruled in the Loudermilks’ favor in 2010, but the deputies then obtained a ruling from the 9th Circuit, which said the deputies were entitled in immunity.

Then the lower court, which originally concluded that such searches were not voluntary, changed its mind, Mason said.

“While the sheriff’s deputies had arrived on the scene late and were not insisting to enter the home, the social workers were. It was the social workers who claimed that their visit was an ‘emergency’ despite the allegation being two months old. The social workers, not the deputies, threatened to take the Loudermilk children into custody. Despite our response to the social workers’ request, the district court ruled that the social workers were also immune from violating the Loudermilks’ rights based on the ruling of the Ninth Circuit in favor of the deputies,” he said.

Mason said the organization now is considering whether there should be an appeal.

“Based on the facts and the law, it is our view that the social workers should not be entitled to the same benefit of the doubt that the Ninth Circuit afforded the deputies,” he said.

The HSLDA has noted in court papers: “For 40 terrifying minutes, this homeschooling couple had asserted their Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search of their home. The two investigative social workers were eventually joined by six uniformed sheriff’s deputies who were called because the social workers considered the Loudermilks to be ‘uncooperative.’”

But the HSLDA said the Loudermilks were forced to allow the search when the social workers “played their ace-in-the-hole,” warning, “If you don’t let us in immediately, we will take your children into state custody.”

The court filing explains that the still-anonymous tipster told authorities that there was a danger to the children in the new home, but social services took some two months to respond.

“In the two months between receiving the anonymous report and arriving unannounced on the Loudermilks’ front porch, social services clearly never believed that the situation needed emergency intervention,” HSLDA asserted. “No one ever asked a judge for a court order. But when it came time for the social workers to complete their investigation, the family’s Fourth Amendment rights just got in the way.”

According to court filings, the Loudermilks had been building their dream home in Arizona. They eventually obtained permission from the county to move in, even though there were minor projects to be finished.

One social worker left a business card and later explained when the parents contacted the office that there had been an anonymous tip. A visit was scheduled for the social worker to investigate what allegedly was a “danger” to the children two months later.

However, the family consulted a lawyer who warned the county that the county itelf had given proper permission for the family to move in.

When social workers Cash and Cramer appeared at the home unannounced some weeks later, they threatened to take the family’s five children.

The petition says Cash “appeared to believe that her simple inability to determine the children’s living conditions was sufficient grounds for her to remove the children from their parents.”

That’s even though the social workers were allowed to talk to the children to see that they were fine.

Nevertheless, the threats from Cash continued.

“Faced with unrelenting ultimatum that the officers would physically remove the children from the home unless they were admitted, together with a significant show of force, John felt that he had no option besides allowing the search of his home. He believed that he would be arrested and the children removed if he continued to refuse. … Tiffany believed her children would be immediately removed from the home if she did not allow the social workers and officers to search her home.”

The ultimate search took only minutes and uncovered no issues, showing that the “tip” was wrong.

U.S. District Judge Earl H. Carroll previously concluded the lawsuit by the family against the social workers, sheriff and deputies would be allowed to continue, because the social workers’ concerns were based on “an anonymous tip that the … Loudermilk children were being neglected and that plaintiffs’ home was uninhabitable.”

However, the judge said that under federal law, an anonymous tip “without more, does not constitute probable cause.”

Related articles

September 29, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , | Leave a comment


President Barack Obama greets and thanks membe...

President Barack Obama greets and thanks members of the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships during a drop by in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, March 9, 2010. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Joshua DuBois, Director of the White House Off...

Joshua DuBois, Director of the White House Office for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in the Oval Office, July 20, 2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Hussein Barack Obama/Muslim Brotherhood -- Wea...

Hussein Barack Obama/Muslim Brotherhood — Weapons, Media, Internet, Freedoms — Under Their Control (Photo credit: Richard Loyal French)


On Friday, March 30, 2012, Hisham Y. Altalib visited the White House. According to visitor logs, Altalib was received by Joshua DuBois, the director of President Obama’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.  Four days later, White House officials welcomed a foreign delegation of the radical Sharia-enforcing Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt.  The White House meeting with overseas Muslim Brotherhood leaders was reported in April by a few mainstream journalists and questioned loudly by conservative media. But the White House confab in March with U.S.-based Altalib — which appears to be a prep session with the global Muslim Brotherhood’s American advance team — has received no attention until now.So, who is Hisham Yahya Altalib?  What is his agenda?  And why exactly did the Obama administration conduct domestic “faith-based” outreach with this Muslim Brotherhood figure in Virginia, who just happens to be 1) tied to bloody jihad and 2) a major contributor to the left-wing Center for Constitutional Rights, the group of jihadi-sympathizing lawyers who helped spring suspected Benghazi terror plotter Abu Sufian bin Qumu from Gitmo?

September 29, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


English: Hadas Logo

English: Hadas Logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Logo Muslim Brotherhood

Logo Muslim Brotherhood (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Thanks, for this lead!  Just Me

The Muslim Brotherhood “Project” By: Patrick Poole | Thursday, May 11, 2006

One might be led to think that if international law enforcement authorities and Western intelligence agencies had discovered a twenty-year old document revealing a top-secret plan developed by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world to launch a program of “cultural invasion” and eventual conquest of the West that virtually mirrors the tactics used by Islamists for more than two decades, that such news would scream from headlines published on the front pages and above the fold of the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, Le Monde, Bild, and La Repubblica.

If that’s what you might think, you would be wrong.

In fact, such a document was recovered in a raid by Swiss authorities in November 2001, two months after the horror of 9/11. Since that time information about this document, known in counterterrorism circles as “The Project”, and discussion regarding its content has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson of Le Temps, and his book published in October 2005 in France, La conquête de l’Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (The Conquest of the West: The Islamists’ Secret Project), has information regarding The Project finally been made public. One Western official cited by Besson has described The Project as “a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents, in the end, the greatest danger for European societies.”

Now FrontPage readers will be the first to be able to read the complete English translation of The Project.

What Western intelligence authorities know about The Project begins with the raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, director of the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, who has had active association with the Muslim Brotherhood for more than 50 years and who admitted to being one of the organization’s international leaders. The Muslim Brotherhood, regarded as the oldest and one of the most important Islamist movements in the world, was founded by Hasan al-Banna in 1928 and dedicated to the credo, “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

The raid was conducted by Swiss law enforcement at the request of the White House in the initial crackdown on terrorist finances in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. US and Swiss investigators had been looking at Al-Taqwa’s involvement in money laundering and funding a wide range of Islamic terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, HAMAS (the Palestinian affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood), the Algerian GIA, and the Tunisian Ennahdah.

Included in the documents seized during the raid of Nada’s Swiss villa was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlines a 12-point strategy to “establish an Islamic government on earth” – identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by “Islamic researchers” associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

What makes The Project so different from the standard “Death of America! Death to Israel!” and “Establish the global caliphate!” Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood “master plan”. As can be seen in a number of examples throughout Europe – including the political recognition of parallel Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent “cartoon” jihad in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London – the plan outlined in The Project has been overwhelmingly successful.

Rather than focusing on terrorism as the sole method of group action, as is the case with Al-Qaeda, in perfect postmodern fashion the use of terror falls into a multiplicity of options available to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West. The following tactics and techniques are among the many recommendations made in The Project:

  • Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations;

  • Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”;

  • Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals;

  • Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law;

  • Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims;

  • Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers;

  • Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection and data storage capabilities;

  • Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of “international plots fomented against them”;

  • Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements;

  • Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world;

  • Balancing international objectives with local flexibility;

  • Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant;

  • Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;

  • Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;

  • Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation;

  • Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels, including the development of processes for conflict resolution;

  • Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals;

  • Creating autonomous “security forces” to protect Muslims in the West;

  • Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”;

  • Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;

  • Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims;

  • Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination;

  • Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them;

  • Actively creating jihad terror cells within Palestine;

  • Linking the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror movement;

  • Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world;

In reading The Project, it should be kept in mind that it was drafted in 1982 when current tensions and terrorist activities in the Middle East were still very nascent. In many respects, The Project is extremely prescient for outlining the bulk of Islamist action, whether by “moderate” Islamist organizations or outright terror groups, over the past two decades.

At present, most of what is publicly known about The Project is the result of Sylvain Besson’s investigative work, including his book and a related article published last October in the Swiss daily, Le Temps, L’islamisme à la conquête du monde (Islamism and the Conquest of the World), profiling his book, which is only available in a French-language edition. At least one Egyptian newspaper, Al-Mussawar, published the entire Arabic text of The Project last November.  

In the English-language press, the attention paid to Besson’s revelation of The Project has been almost non-existent. The only mention found in a mainstream media publication in the US has been as a secondary item in an article in the Weekly Standard (February 20, 2006) by Olivier Guitta, The Cartoon Jihad. The most extensive commentary on The Project has been by an American researcher and journalist living in London, Scott Burgess, who has posted his analysis of the document on his blog, The Daily Ablution. Along with his commentary, an English translation of the French text of The Project was serialized in December (Parts I, II, III, IV, V, Conclusion). The complete English translation prepared by Mr. Burgess is presented in its entirety here with his permission.

The lack of public discussion about The Project notwithstanding, the document and the plan it outlines has been the subject of considerable discussion amongst the Western intelligence agencies. One US counterterrorism official who spoke with Besson about The Project, and who is cited in Guitta’s Weekly Standard article, is current White House terrorism czar, Juan Zarate. Calling The Project a Muslim Brotherhood master plan for “spreading their political ideology,” Zarate expressed concerns to Besson because “the Muslim Brotherhood is a group that worries us not because it deals with philosophical or ideological ideas but because it defends the use of violence against civilians.”

One renowned international scholar of Islamist movements who also spoke with Besson, Reuven Paz, talked about The Project in its historical context:

The Project was part of the charter of the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was official established on July 29, 1982. It reflects a vast plan which was revived in the 1960s, with the immigration of Brotherhood intellectuals, principally Syrian and Egyptians, into Europe.

As Paz notes, The Project was drafted by the Muslim Brotherhood as part of its rechartering process in 1982, a time that marks an upswing in its organizational expansion internationally, as well as a turning point in the alternating periods of repression and toleration by the Egyptian government. In 1952, the organization played a critical support role to the Free Officers Movement led by Gamal Abdul Nasser, which overthrew King Faruq, but quickly fell out of favor with the new revolutionary regime because of Nasser’s refusal to follow the Muslim Brotherhood’s call to institute an ideologically committed Islamic state. At various times since the July Revolution in 1952, the Brotherhood has regularly been banned and its leaders killed and imprisoned by Egyptian authorities.

Since it was rechartered in 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood has spread its network across the Middle East, Europe, and even America. At home in Egypt, parliamentary elections in 2005 saw the Muslim Brotherhood winning 20 percent of the available legislative seats, comprising the largest opposition party block. Its Palestinian affiliate, known to the world as HAMAS, recently gained control of the Palestinian Authority after elections secured for them 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Its Syrian branch has historically been the largest organized group opposing the Assad regime, and the organization also has affiliates in Jordan, Sudan, and Iraq. In the US, the Muslim Brotherhood is primarily represented by the Muslim American Society (MAS).

Since its formation, the Muslim Brotherhood has advocated the use of terrorism as a means of advancing its agenda of global Islamic domination. But as the largest popular radical movement in the Islamic world, it has attracted many leading Islamist intellectuals. Included among this group of Muslim Brotherhood intellectuals is Youssef Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born, Qatar-based Islamist cleric.

As one of the leading Muslim Brotherhood spiritual figures and radical Islamic preachers (who has his own weekly program on Al-Jazeera), Qaradawi has been one of the leading apologists of suicide bombings in Israel and terrorism against Western interests in the Middle East. Both Sylvain Besson and Scott Burgess provide extensive comparisons between Qaradawi’s publication, Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase, published in 1990, and The Project, which predates Qaradawi’s Priorities by eight years. They note the striking similarities in the language used and the plans and methods both documents advocate. It is speculated that The Project was either used by Qaradawi as a template for his own work, or that he had a hand in its drafting in 1982. Perhaps coincidentally, Qaradawi was the fourth largest shareholder in the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, the director of which, Youssef Nada, was the individual in whose possession The Project was found. Since 1999, Qaradawi has been banned from entering the US as a result of his connections to terrorist organizations and his outspoken advocacy of terrorism.

For those who have read The Project, what is most troubling is not that Islamists have developed a plan for global dominance; it has been assumed by experts that Islamist organizations and terrorist groups have been operating off an agreed-upon set of general principles, networks and methodology. What is startling is how effectively the Islamist plan for conquest outlined in The Project has been implemented by Muslims in the West for more than two decades. Equally troubling is the ideology that lies behind the plan: inciting hatred and violence against Jewish populations around the world; the deliberate co-opting and subversion of Western public and private institutions; its recommendation of a policy of deliberate escalating confrontation by Muslims living in the West against their neighbors and fellow-citizens; the acceptance of terrorism as a legitimate option for achieving their ends and the inevitable reality of jihad against non-Muslims; and its ultimate goal of forcibly instituting the Islamic rule of the caliphate by shari’a in the West, and eventually the whole world.

If the experience over the past quarter of a century seen in Europe and the US is any indication, the “Islamic researchers” who drafted The Project more than two decades ago must be pleased to see their long-term plan to conquer the West and to see the Green flag of Islam raised over its citizens realized so rapidly, efficiently and completely. If Islamists are equally successful in the years to come, Westerners ought to enjoy their personal and political freedoms while they last.

To read the English translation of The Project, click here. 

September 29, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Joe Biden und Barack Obama in Springfield, Ill...

Joe Biden, Obama’s dog and pony show  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Official portrait of United States At...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia) Department of Justice Scoundrel


English: Cropped version of File:Official port...

Barack Hussein Obama, Traitor and Bolshevik (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Projects to Watch

2012 Election Integrity Project


Thank you for requesting “8 Things You Can Do Now To Help STOP Voter Fraud.” Your complimentary copy will be in the mail to you shortly.

Will you help us fight in court today for election integrity and help put tens of thousands more Voter Fraud guides into the hands of concerned citizens by making a a tax-deductible donation now in support of this important project?


Judicial Watch sent its initial warning letters on February 7, 2012, to election officials in Indiana and Ohio, as well as letters of inquiry to Florida and California officials, investigating problematic voting lists in those states. Additional letters are forthcoming.On February 9th, 2010, Judicial Watch announced the launch of its 2012 Election Integrity Project to pressure states and localities, through Judicial Watch lawsuits if necessary, to clean up voter registration rolls pursuant to Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). A Judicial Watch investigation based upon publicly available data indicates voter rolls in the following states appear to contain the names of individuals who are ineligible to vote: Mississippi, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida, Alabama, California, and Colorado. The Election Integrity Project will be conducted in partnership with True the Vote and the Election Law Center.

According to Judicial Watch’s investigation, there appear to be more individuals on voter registration lists in these states than there are individuals eligible to vote, including individuals who are deceased. Judicial Watch’s initial warning letters notified election officials in Ohio and Indiana that they are required by law to “maintain accurate lists of eligible voters for use in conducting elections,” and that Judicial Watch is prepared to take legal action if election officials fail to clean up their voter rolls:

Allowing the names of ineligible voters to remain on the voting rolls harms the integrity of the electoral process and undermines voter confidence in the legitimacy of elections… As the top election officials… it is your responsibility under federal law to conduct a program that reasonably ensures that the lists of eligible voters are accurate…

We hope our concerns can be resolved amicably. However, with the November 2012 election on the horizon and in light of the importance of Section 8 of the NVRA to ensuring the integrity and legitimacy of the electoral process, we must emphasize the importance of timeliness. Accordingly, if we believe you do not intend to correct the above-identified problems, a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief may be necessary.

As Judicial Watch makes clear in its letters, under Section 8 of the NVRA, states must make a “reasonable effort” to clean up registration rolls. Section 8 also requires states to make available for public inspection “all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.”

Election fraud was a significant concern during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons, with ACORN/Project Vote being linked to massive voter registration fraud. A total of 70 ACORN employees in 12 states have been convicted of voter registration fraud. As documented in a July 2009 report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of the 1.3 million registrations Project Vote/ACORN submitted in the 2008 election cycle, more than one-third were invalid.

Judicial Watch has uncovered documents showing that, rather than taking action to enforce Section 8 of the NVRA, the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) is now working with ACORN-front Project Vote, Barack Obama’s former employer, to push for strict enforcement of Section 7 of the NVRA relating to welfare office voter registration obligations.  The purpose of this campaign is evidently to use voter registration laws to register greater numbers of low-income voters, widely considered to be an important voting demographic for the Obama presidential campaign.

Policy changes prompted by stricter enforcement of Section 7 have resulted in increased incidents of voter registration errors.  For example, a separate Judicial Watch investigation found that the percentage of invalid voter registration forms from Colorado public assistance agencies was four times the national average after Project Vote successfully forced the state to implement new policies for increasing the registration of public assistance recipients during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons.

Judicial Watch notes in its letters that while Attorney General Eric Holder appears intent on enforcing Section 7 of the NVRA, which will yield an increased risk of voter fraud, he apparently has no interest in enforcing Section 8 to ensure clean elections:  “While you may be aware that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has prioritized enforcement of Section 7 of the NVRA, which seeks to expand opportunities to register to vote, the Attorney General has not demonstrated any similar interest in prioritizing enforcement of the list maintenance provisions of Section 8 of the NVRA. Nonetheless, Section 8 is an important counterpart to Section 7. The two provisions represent a carefully crafted compromise by the U.S. Congress to increase both voter registration and the integrity of voter rolls.”

“President Obama and the Holder Justice Department evidently have no interest in clean elections this year, so this responsibility has now fallen to Judicial Watch. And given the rampant election fraud that occurred during the last two election cycles, this is a matter of the highest priority as we head into the 2012 election season.  It is simply impossible to have any faith in the integrity of an election where dead people remain on the voting rolls. This is a recipe for voter fraud and stolen elections,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

To read Judicial Watch’s report, The Voter Fraud Threat to Free and Fair Elections, please click here.

Also available is the February 10th 2012 weekly update as well as the June 1st 2012 weekly update.

September 29, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now, Videos | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment



Terrence Lakin

On April 13, 2010, the United States Army announced that it would court-martial Lt. Colonel Terrence Lee Lakin, a surgeon in the Army Medical Corps, for refusing to report for deployment to Afghanistan. Lakin asserted that, because of citizenship issues, Obama is not legally the Commander in Chief and, therefore, lacks the authority to send him to Afghanistan. The military revoked Lakin’s Pentagon building pass and confiscated his government laptop computer.[184] Lakin was assigned to Walter Reed Army Medical Center while awaiting trial.[185]

Lakin’s case differed from Stefan Cook’s case in that Cook volunteered to deploy, received orders, and then filed a civil suit refusing to serve; the military responded by revoking Cook’s voluntary orders.[48] Lakin was ordered to deploy and he refused the orders, whereupon the military eventually initiated a criminal law prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. On September 2, 2010, Presiding Judge Colonel Denise Lind issued a ruling in the case that Obama’s status as a natural-born citizen is irrelevant in the court martial case against Lakin, as (1) his orders had come not from Obama himself but rather from senior officers with the independent legal authority to issue them and (2) Obama’s eligibility is outside the jurisdiction of the military and falls within the jurisdiction of the United States Congress instead.[186]

Three retired generals publicly expressed support for Lakin. The first was Army Major General (retired) Paul E. Vallely, a senior military analyst for Fox News. In an interview, Vallely stated “I think many in the military, and many out of the military, question the natural-birth status of Barack Obama.”[187] Following Vallely’s announcement, Army Major General (retired) Jerry Curry and Air Force Lt. General (retired) Thomas G. McInerney also expressed public support for Lakin.[187][188]

On December 7, 2010, Lakin entered a guilty plea to the charges of disobeying his orders;[189] and, on December 15, 2010, a military jury convicted him on a charge of Missing Movement by Design.[190] He was sentenced to six months confinement and dismissed from service.[191] During the sentencing phase of the trial, the prosecution played a video that Lakin had posted online in which he challenged Obama’s eligibility. Lakin tearfully responded that the video had been a mistake and that he “would not do this again”.[191] Lakin served his time at the Midwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; and, on July 28, 2011, the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals granted Lakin’s request to withdraw his case from appellate review.[192]

In February 2012, the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts denied Lakin a license to practice medicine in that state because of his actions.[193] Board members noted that Lakin had jeopardized the health of soldiers in his unit by refusing to deploy. There was also doubt about whether Lakin would obey the law on any health-related legislation signed by Obama.

Theresa Cao

On January 6, 2011, the United States Constitution was read on the floor of the House of Representatives. As the section regarding the president’s qualifications was being read, Theresa Cao shouted from the gallery, “Except Obama, except Obama. Help us, Jesus.” Cao was arrested for disrupting Congress.[194]

Foot- and EndNotes, and more go to: 


September 29, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment



NATIONAL SECRET: What Obama daughter’s vacation cost

Lawsuit filed over government funds expended on Mexican spring break

Published: 14 hours ago


The Obama administration is unlawfully withholding public records about the spring break trip to Mexico funded by taxpayers last March for Malia Obama, according to a new lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, the government watchdog organization based in Washington.

It’s not the first blackout the government has imposed on the trip, Judicial Watch noted.

Press reports of the trip for the then-13-year-old, a dozen friends and an estimated 25 Secret Service agents were erased from the Web on orders from the White House.

The new lawsuit claims not only are the records for the expenses of the trip required to be public, it is illegal for the administration to withhold them.

“Contrary to federal law, the Obama administration has simply ignored this basic [Freedom of Information Act] request. I have little doubt that this stonewall is because of the embarrassment of the security costs for the spring break trip of the Obamas’ daughter,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

The organization previously has ferreted out details, including estimated expenses, for other Obama vacations at taxpayer expense.

For example, the organization said it discovered a February 2012 weekend ski vacation to Aspen, Colo., for Michelle Obama and her two daughters included U.S. Secret Service costs of nearly $49,000.

And Judicial Watch said costs for the U.S. Air Force and the Secret Service for Michelle Obama’s August 2010 vacation to Spain were at least $467,000. Further, a trip by Michelle, her family and her staff to South Africa in 2011 cost another $424,000, excluding transportation, security and other costs.

The lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service seeks to force compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.

Judicial Watch said it submitted a FOIA request to the Secret Service on March 29 by certified mail seeking, “Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the expenditure of U.S. government funds to provide security and/or any other services for Malia Obama and any companions during her March 2012 visit to Mexico.”

Although the Secret Service acknowledged receiving the letter and assigned it a file number, the administration has refused to respond.

“The Secret Service’s determination was due by May 4, 2012, at the latest. As of the date of this complaint, Defendant Secret Service has failed to … determine whether to comply with plaintiff’s requests [or] notify plaintiff of any such determination.”

It was on March 19 when “numerous online press outlets reported that the president’s 13-year-old daughter, Malia Obama, was on a spring break trip to Mexico accompanied by 25 U.S. Secret Service agents and as many as 12 of her friends.”

However, Judicial Watch explained, “shortly after the press reports surfaced, they were quickly removed from the Internet.”

“The trip reportedly took place shortly after the Texas Department of Public Safety issued a statement advising students on spring break ‘to avoid Mexico.’”

Politico reported at the time that the removal was on orders from the White House.

Kristina Schake, communications director for Michelle Obama, emailed to Politico: “From the beginning of the administration, the White House has asked news outlets not to report on or photograph the Obama children when they are not with their parents and there is no vital news interest. We have reminded outlets of this request in order to protect the privacy and security of these girls.”

Politico reported the story was picked up by Yahoo, the Huffington Post and the International Business Times along with overseas publications such as the London Daily Mail, the London Telegraph and The Australian. By the end of the day, however, the story had been removed from the sites.


Let me see if I have this right; Obama, from the beginning of the Administration, “asked” the media not to report on, or take pictures of his daughters, or Michelle, when they are without him and there is nothing news worthy to report–is that correct?  He wants to protect the privacy and security of his family?  Well, don’t we all?  Mr. President, you are not the US king.  You are, we’re hoping, a legitimately elected official, and everything you do, as well as the other members of your family who live in our White House, is news worthy!  And it is especially worth knowing that the Obama family is living high on the hog while most of us are suffering and going hungry!

This Administration is an abomination and an embarrassment to the United States on a global scale!   The secrecy is criminal and doesn’t come anywhere near the transparency Obama promised during the 2007-8 campaign.   I have a huge problem with the blind media.  How, and when, did “freedom of the press” turn into such an ugly propaganda machine?

We are presently living in a Bolshevik Russia, and I, for one, never counted on that!  There are US citizens being picked up and detained without due process, a right our Department of Justice is supposed to oversee and ensure.  The individual who allegedly made the film, held to account for the “bumps in the road” in Libya and across the middle east, has been arrested and charged with some kind of tax crime.  Really?  Long before this person was arrested, the media reported extensive allegations of a criminal past; so from the beginning, this man was determined guilty without a trial, blamed for an event that the White House new was a terrorist action and not a spontaneous reaction to the film, and he very well may never be heard from again.  We are in very deep water here, and this President will do much more before he is finished.  To date, a stroke of a presidential pen will impose martial law upon all US citizens, and it is very likely that will happen in October.

Just Me

September 29, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , | 5 Comments


Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Des...

Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


‘Liberals, Obama is laughing his a– off at you’

Exclusive: Kathy Shaidle recaps boldest statements made on air

Published: 3 hours ago

author-image by Kathy ShaidleEmail | Archive

Kathy Shaidle is a blogging pioneer whose is now in its 12th year. Her most recent book – “The Tyranny of Nice: How Canada Crushes Freedom in the Name of Human Rights, and Why It Matters to Americans” – features an introduction by Rush Limbaugh guest host Mark Steyn.More ↓
rss feed Subscribe to author feed

Sean Hannity

Hannity took the media to task for spreading Obama’s misinformation about the Libyan embassy attack (FREE audio).

“I’m going to tell you something,” Hannity said on his radio show. “All you liberals out there, all you people in the media, I’m telling you, Obama in private is just laughing his a– off at all of you because you are so dumb, so gullible, so easily manipulated. And all he has to do is tell you that there is a doughnut in the sky and you’ll report there’s a doughnut in the sky.”

Rush Limbaugh

This week, Rush boldly proclaimed, “Barack Obama is a serial liar, and I think it’s time to call him out on this” (FREE audio).

That was in response to the overwhelming evidence that the administration has been lying about the true cause of the attack on the American embassy in Libya.

On a lighter note, Limbaugh mocked Madonna’s “outstanding, uplifting endorsement of Obama” – who she referred to as “a black Muslim in the White House” (FREE audio).

Michael Savage

Savage bashed CNN’s Piers Morgan for cozying up to Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad on his show this week (FREE audio).

“Piers Morgan asked Ahmadinejad how many times he’s been in love,” an incredulous Savage told his listeners. “He didn’t ask him why he makes genocidal statements or why he wants to kill Jews. I’d say, ‘Shame on you,’ but it’s the stockholders of CNN who should really be ashamed.”

Savage also blasted First Lady Michelle Obama for talking about slavery and Jim Crow laws during an address to the Congressional Black Caucus, “stirring up racial division and distrust in a way I have never seen” (FREE audio).

Aaron Klein

Should any doubts remain about the president’s true agenda and beliefs, this week Klein played a newly discovered audiotape in which the young Barack Obama declares himself in favor of “wealth distribution.”

Klein also exchanged words with a British Muslim radical who is clinging to the myth that his co-religionists around the globe are rioting in response to a low-budget video on YouTube. Along with the latest news from North Africa and the Middle East, Klein served up an exclusive interview with Ed Koch, asking the former mayor of NYC if he still planned to support Obama’s reelection in light of the president’s tepid support for the state of Israel (FREE audio).

Mark Levin

To call Mark Levin unimpressed by Obama and Clinton’s “apology crap” would be an understatement. Instead of getting serious about national security, says Levin, the president and his predecessor are all over the media, apologizing to Muslim fanatics instead of defending cherished American rights and freedoms (FREE audio).

The first lady didn’t escape Levin’s wrath, either. He castigated her draconian school lunch programs – and praised the students who were speaking out against what is amounting to a starvation diet (FREE audio).

Laura Ingraham

The ever-controversial Ann Coulter joined Laura Ingraham to talk about her new book “Mugged,” which looks at the history of race relations in America from the 1960s up to today. Coulter explained that contrary to popular belief, the Democrats, not the Republicans, have been the ones supporting slavery and Jim Crow laws.

She also spoke with George Buckley Sr., whose son, Lance Corporal George Buckley Jr., was killed by a police trainee in Afghanistan. Buckley said the U.S. government lied about the circumstances of this son’s murder, and he wants answers. However, it seems Obama was too busy partying with celebrities to meet Buckley when he had the chance (FREE audio).

Glenn Beck

Who is really waging a “war on women”? Republicans or Democrats? Glenn Beck’s answer may not surprise you: He criticized Obama’s (female) deputy chief campaign manager for implying that most American women don’t know or care much about political issues (FREE audio).

Beck countered that women “are the ones who are most often in the trenches and have felt the pain of the last four years probably more than anyone. They are the ones that are shuffling the kids to and from practice, getting them to daycare … taking them to a friend’s house or going to the doctor’s office with them.”


Of course Obama is laughing at Liberals, and he’s screwing the rest of us!

To the person(s) owning up to the brown shirt commentary below: Please tell me how anyone can confuse three, et al, conservatives with the Hitler Left?  Is no one getting educated in this country any longer?  What do you people do–simply repeat what you’ve heard on TV or what another Progressive has said?  To the know-nots: Hitler was more Progressive and a fanatical Leftie.  More than that, he was an insane, tyrannical murderer, and the brown shirts did his insane bidding!  Conservatives are on the Right, and when they become fanatical, they are Anarchists–not dictators!  Get educated, for cryin’ out loud!!  At least stop spewing falsehoods.  You think you’re right, so that tells me you have, at least, an interest in being right–so verify what you put out there or look like a moron again!

O’Reilly | Hannity | Limbaugh [aka brownshirts]

Just Me

September 28, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


The 47% Speaks: She’s Voting for Obama Because He Gave Her a Free Phone

September 27, 2012

Listen to it Button


RUSH: Let’s go back to the Grooveyard of Forgotten Favorites, the archives. Here’s Ken Rogulski, our man in Detroit at WJR, our blowtorch affiliate there. In October 2009, people were in line for money from Obama’s stimulus, and Ken Rogulski went out and talked to ’em.ROGULSKI: Why are you here?WOMAN #1: To get some money.ROGULSKI: What kind of money?WOMAN #1: Obama money.

ROGULSKI: Where’s it coming from?

WOMAN #1: Obama.

ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?WOMAN #1: I don’t know, his stash. I don’t know. (laughter) I don’t know where he got it from, but he givin’ it to us, to help us.

WOMAN #2: And we love him.

WOMAN #1: We love him. That’s why we voted for him!

WOMEN: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)

RUSH: It’s really a sad, sad day. Thousands of people were lined up for vouchers for something that was not available in any sort of plentiful supply. Most of these people ended up getting nothing, but they thought they were there to get money from Obama. From Obama’s stash. See, I’d be embarrassed if I were president and this kind of stuff happened. But the point is: Do you think these people even know that Mitt Romney spoke to a bunch of fundraisers and talked about the 47%? Do you think they even know this? And that’s being cited as the reason why Romney lost the election and the polls have plunged. It’s all over.

So Rogulski kept talking to these people in Detroit hoping to get some money for from Obama’s stimulus. It’s October 2009.

ROGULSKI: Did you get an application to fill out yet?

WOMAN: I sure did. And I filled it out, and I am waiting to see what the results are going to be.

ROGULSKI: Will you know today how much money you’re getting?

WOMAN: No, I won’t, but I’m waiting for a phone call.

ROGULSKI: Where’s the money coming from?

WOMAN: I believe it’s coming from the City of Detroit or the state.

ROGULSKI: Where did they get it from?

WOMAN: Some funds that was forgiven (sic) by Obama.

ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get the funds?

WOMAN: Obama getting the funds from… Ummm, I have no idea, to tell you the truth. He’s the president.

ROGULSKI: In downtown Detroit, Ken Rogulski, WJR News.

RUSH: And, now, ladies and gentlemen, we move to Cleveland, Ohio. Yesterday in Bedford (I think it’s near Cleveland) outside a Romney campaign event, an unidentified reporter and a woman have this little exchange about why she’s protesting Romney and supporting Obama.

WOMAN: Obama!REPORTER: You got an Obama phone?WOMAN: (screaming) Yes! Everybody in Cleveland, low minorities, got Obama phone. Keep Obama in president, you know? He gave us a phone!REPORTER: He gave you a phone?WOMAN: He gonna do more!

REPORTER: How did he give you a phone?

WOMAN: You sign up. If you’re… If you on food stamps, you on Social Security, you got low income, you disability…

REPORTER: Okay, what’s wrong with Romney, again?

WOMAN: Romney, he sucks! Bad!

RUSH: So these are the people that don’t like Romney because of what he said about the 47%? No, these are the 47%! (laughing) Yeah, I’ll play it again. These are the 47%. Notice this guy…? Is it a guy? It’s a woman. (It’s my hearing. I’m sorry.) She knows. She knows how to get this free Obama phone. She knows everything about it. She may not know who George Washington is or Abraham Lincoln, but she knows how to get an Obama phone, and she knows that Romney sucks, and she ends up at a Romney rally.

How did she get there?

Here it is again…

(replaying of sound bite)

RUSH: You want to hear it one more time? Okay. Here’s one more time…

(replaying of sound bite)

RUSH: You know, folks…

(playing of parody song: You Just Need Reeducation)

RUSH: We wonder why we’re losing the country, maybe, and why we ask that question. (song continues) The EIB Network. El Rushbo on the radio. (song continues)

(replaying of sound bite)

RUSH: And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.

Oh, by the way, Obama himself was in Bowling Green, Ohio, yesterday at Bowling Green University for a campaign event. Listen to this from President Bump in the Road.

OBAMA: I don’t believe we can get very far, uh, with leaders who write off half the nation as a bunch of victims who never take responsibility for their own lives.

FOLLOWERS: (smattering of applause)

OBAMA: And I’ve gotta tell you, as I travel around Ohio and as I look out on this crowd, I don’t see a lot of victims. I see hardworkin’ Ohioans. That’s what I see.

RUSH: How in the hell are you missing the idiots?

He’s traveling around Ohio. How in the world are you missing the idiots? You see, Obama thinks he’s got a great campaign issue, folks. He running around and he’s saying that 47% of the people are not victims. He’s putting words in Romney’s mouth. He’s misrepresenting what Romney was saying. He’s taking out of context. Romney never talked about them being victims.

But, but it’s good to know that there are no victims in this country, because that means Obama has reversed course completely. If Obama believes there are no victims, then I assume he’ll shut down all the civil rights offices throughout the federal government, starting with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. If there are no victims, all affirmative action laws will immediately be repealed. Same thing for equity in pay.

If there are no victims, then there no need to redistribute wealth. Right? So that needs to be repealed. If there are no victims, there’s no need to confer legal status on 1.2 million illegal immigrants. If there are no victims, then the entire justification for liberalism ceases to exist. This is how far he’s willing to go. Nobody else but me is gonna think of this, but he’s undercutting his own philosophical beliefs in order to put words in Romney’s mouth.


WOMAN: Obama!

REPORTER: You got an Obama phone?

WOMAN: (screaming) Yes! Everybody in Cleveland, low minorities, got Obama phone. Keep Obama in president, you know? He gave us a phone!

REPORTER: He gave you a phone?

WOMAN: He gonna do more!

REPORTER: How did he give you a phone?

WOMAN: You sign up. If you’re… If you on food stamps, you on Social Security, you got low income, you disability…

REPORTER: Okay, what’s wrong with Romney, again?

WOMAN: Romney, he sucks! Bad!

RUSH:  That’s not Saturday Night Live.  That is a real Obama voter.  That’s not a comedy skit.  That happened.  That happened yesterday in Bedford, Ohio.  Your average Obama voter.  Folks, I can’t win pointing this out.  It’s the truth.  That’s the group of people Obama believes are a majority of voters.  If you add these people to the professors, academia, and the Hollywood types, entertainment crowd, these bastions of elite liberals, the media, and the morons, that’s the coalition he’s putting together.  He’s counting on that.

Now, it wasn’t until this past summer that I knew that this was actually true.  There is a website called  We had a caller call here and I thought I was being set up.  It was absurd that the president of the United States was giving away cell phones.  People called, “No, no, no, it’s really true.”  So we looked it up.  June 22nd, there’s a radio transcript from my award-winning program.  Here are the details.  There’s a website,  “The Obama Phone Program. What exactly is the free Obama phone? The free Obama phone is a program that is meant to help the financially unstable who cannot afford access to a cell phone.”  And here’s some frequently asked questions from the Obama phone website.

How do I get an Obama phone?
What is the Obama phone?
Who qualifies for an Obama phone?
Who pays for the Obama phone?
Is the Obama phone real?

There’s a website that tells these people, and this woman that you just heard has figured it out.  You low income, you Social Security, you food stamps: you get an Obama phone.  And the website’s called  So that’s the constituency.


RUSH: Just to update you on the phone situation.  We explained all of this this past summer when I first learned of the program.  There are 12-1/2 million Americans that have free cell phones, 12-1/2 million Americans with Obama phones, and they get free cell usage of 250 minutes a month.  That’s not all.  You get more free minutes as a bonus if you sign somebody else up.  Somebody else for free.  If you alert the government to some other victim that needs a free cell phone and the person qualifies, and it’s obviously not hard to do, then you get bonus minutes in addition to your 250.

So if you recruit more dependent people, if you have an Obama phone and you sign up additional people to get an Obama phone, in other words, if you find more dependent people, more victims, that Obama claims he doesn’t believe in, you get additional minutes.  This government will bonus you for finding more people that they can give telephones to.  Twelve and a half million Americans have free cell phones, free Obama phones, and get free cell usage of 250 minutes a month.  I don’t know what kind of phones. I don’t know with what provider or any of that.  I imagine you get to pick your phone.  Heck if I know.


The Truth Will Make Obama a One-Term President

September 27, 2012

Listen to it Button


RUSH:  I just want to warn everybody, this may not be a good day.  My cigar’s falling apart here, and that always ticks me off.  It means I gotta go get a new one here in ten minutes.  It just happened.  The wrapper’s coming off.  Even though we keep the humidor wet in there these things are dry as hell.  Something’s sucking the moist air out.  The second thing is they settled the NFLref strike, and that ticks me off.  I was actually starting to enjoy football again with the replacement refs, and now it’s gonna get back to this sterile, totally predictable… ah.  But we have to deal with it, folks. We have to deal with adversity.

I’m not sure, but I think we were the first, or among the first, of all major media figures to begin to in-depth examine the makeup of samples in polls, the party breakdown. And now everybody’s doing it.  In my audio sound bite roster here there must be 10 to 12 sound bites of me being discussed on television yesterday afternoon and last night and what I think about the polls.  It’s great, folks.  In fact, everybody’s looking at this stuff now. Everybody’s focused on them in the way we want them focused on.  Not what they actually say, but how they are put together.

It has been confirmed, we were on this one yesterday, too, but it’s been confirmed now that Obama lied about the cause of the attacks on our embassy in Benghazi.  Now, this is not news.  We’ve known this.  We here, and thus you, have known it for a while, but it’s been confirmed over and over, while Obama continues to cite this video.  It’s been confirmed, Obama lied about the cause of the attacks on our embassies.  We’ve been chronicling this in our Morning Updates all week long.  Maybe now Obama can explain why CNN found the ambassador’s diary and our government didn’t.  CNN went over there after it was declared a crime scene, after Obama said nobody can answer any questions about this because the FBI’s gonna go over and look at it.  That makes it a crime scene so nobody can answer questions because of the usual ongoing investigation pap.

Well, CNN just trolls in there and finds the guy’s diary and they start reporting what’s in the ambassador’s diary.  He indicated there was a security risk. He thought something was up.  And so the regime called CNN, (imitation) “How dare you publish the guy’s diary. Shut up. You shouldn’t tell anybody.”  CNN, “The hell with you, where were you finding the diary?  We got the diary.”  I think they’re gonna put it back together.  They’ll be back in bed by tonight, the regime and CNN.  But I mean the bottom line here is that Obama knew the attacks on our embassies on the anniversary of 9/11 were planned and it had nothing to do with the video, and he knew that within 24 hours, if not sooner, of the attack at Benghazi and upon the death of the ambassador.

So let’s boil that down.  What was the theme of yesterday’s program?  Obama knowingly lied to the American people.  Oh.  And the architect, Karl Rove in his column today is all about how Obama lies.  Lying about the deficit. But Rove has a piece, it’s somewhat of a mirror of what we did yesterday.  It’s all shaking out.

Rush, you need to get out there. You need to take your show on the road.

No, I don’t.

You need to go do a speech.

No.  No, I don’t.  I can do it all from right here.  Past couple days have proven that.  I’m not saying I’m not gonna go out and do speeches; I’m just saying, I can handle it from right here.  The last two days are indicating that.  I don’t have to write books. I don’t have to go on TV. I can handle it from right here.  You know how that ticks ’em off too?  People write books, go on TV and all that, and then hope they get noticed.  I come here and exhale and it gets reported.  Anyway, enough about me.  Obama sends his surrogates out to lie about the cause and the nature of the attacks.  Now, let’s boil this down.  Obama created a conspiracy theory and coordinated a campaign of deceit to distract from the truth that affects our national security.

This is not an insignificant thing that the president of the United States did. Oh, speaking of that. It’s Thursday, by the way. It’s Jobs Revisions Day. Folks, it’s so funny to watch the Drive-Bys report the economic news today. It’s not all that good, but there are “hopeful signs.” (laughing) What is it? It’s September the 27th. It ain’t that good but there are hopeful signs? The real number out there is GDP growth of 1.3%. Folks, that’s a gnat’s eyelash above a recession: 1.3% GDP, economic growth.

There’s nothing to sing about here.


Nothing whatsoever.

So Obama and his conspiracy theory, coordinating a campaign of deceit to distract from the truth that affects our national security. And, by the way, this was a truth that revealed reckless incompetence in planning for the security and safety the people that work for him. The State Department — you know this — five days before put a notice up on one of their websites that there was no credible information of any threat. Yeah, 9/11’s coming up, but they don’t have any credible information.

That has now been scrubbed. The Gateway Pundit is reporting that that warning… Well, it was not a warning. That little memo from the State Department to employees that work there has been scrubbed from their site. You can’t go find the posting on the State Department website that told everybody over there that there was no problem. They’ve taken it down. The most transparent regime in history, they promised? So this campaign of deceit was deployed, was put out there because Obama has a reelection campaign.

The truth would make him a one-term president, so we can’t have the truth. We can’t have the truth about anything. We can’t have the truth about the failure of his economic policies. We can’t have the truth about the failure of his foreign policy. We can’t have the truth about his overall failure as a president at anything. So we have to focus on what a reprobate Romney is. We have to focus on Romney. Oh, guess what the Drive-Bys are saying is the reason that Romney’s lost the election.

Did you know that? The election is over. Romney’s lost, by the way, if you haven’t been paying attention. Well, the election isn’t for 49 days or so, but it’s already over. In fact, National Review is reporting there’s a poll out today that Obama’s 76%, Romney 23%, with 1% undecided. (laughing) It’s a satire piece. They went and talked to the Obama camp and they said, “Well, wait a minute. No, we don’t think Romney’s that bad. He might be at 30.” But it’s over. It’s literally over.

Oh, and do you know why? You know what caused Romney to plunge? It’s that “47% video.” Now, I’ve got some audio coming up. We’re gonna go back to the archives for some Detroit, Michigan, audio from early in the regime’s tenure. Plus, we have some audio from yesterday. I’ll ask you, after you hear it, if you think any significant number of Obama supporters has any idea what’s going on in this country or cares. Obama’s going for the Moron Vote. For you people in the Drive-Bys to tell us that Romney is plummeting because of the “47% video”?

And that has prompted, by the way, Obama to go out there and say (impression), “I don’t see any victims out there. Romney, 47%?” Mr. President, if you don’t see any victims, then there’s no reason for liberalism! If you don’t see any victims, there’s no reason for socialism. If you don’t see any victims, there’s no reason for big government. If you don’t see any victims out there, there’s no reason for you. You remember the Detroit audio. If you don’t, I’m not gonna remind you. You’ll hear it.

We have a new chapter, a new phase, a new addition to it coming right up.


Click here to find out more!

Click here to find out more!

September 28, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment



Deafening silence about the Camp Bastion attack

By Michelle Malkin  •  September 28, 2012 12:01 PM

Photo credit: DVIDS, Cpl. Mark Garcia

Marines kneel beside the battlefield cross to pay their final respects to Sgt. Bradley Atwell during a memorial ceremony, Sept. 20. During the ceremony, Marines paid tribute to Atwell, an aircraft electrical, instrument and flight control systems technician with Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 16, from Kokomo, Ind. Atwell was killed in action while engaging insurgents during an attack on Camp Bastion, Sept. 14.

Three days after the bloody siege on our consulate in Benghazi, the Taliban waged an intricately coordinated, brutal attack on Camp Bastion in Afghanistan. The Taliban animals released video earlier this week showing their jihadi training prep.

Two hero U.S. Marines were killed in the battle. Their names — Lt. Col. Christopher Raible and Sgt. Bradley Atwell — have not been uttered publicly by the commander-in-chief. Their arrival back in the U.S. was not broadcast on network TV. But their brothers-in-arms did not and will not forget.

And neither must we.

They are not anonymous “bumps in the road:”

Hundreds of Marines gathered to honor the lives of two fallen comrades killed during the attack on Camp Bastion, Sept. 14.

During the two separate memorial ceremonies, which were held Sept. 19 and 20, Marines paid tribute to Lt. Col. Christopher Raible and Sgt. Bradley Atwell. Both were killed in action while engaging the enemy.

Raible was the commanding officer of Marine Attack Squadron 211, from Huntingdon, Pa., and Atwell was an aircraft electrical, instrument and flight control systems technician with Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 16, from Kokomo, Ind.

Before each of the ceremonies had begun, Marines constructed a traditional battlefield cross providing them the opportunity to pay their final respects. The memorial consisted of a helmet with identification tags to signify the Marines will never be forgotten, a rifle with bayonet inverted signifying a time of prayer and a break in action to pay tribute, and a pair of boots signifying this was the Marines last march. During the ceremonies, commanders and friends spoke of Raible and Atwell, describing their character as men and Marines, and recalling what they would remember most about them.

Gen. John Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Force, offered words of encouragement to the Marines during Raible’s memorial ceremony.

“It really is an honor for me to stand among you this afternoon, for this solemn occasion, this solemn ceremony today we remember and we pay tribute to a great Marine,” Allen said. “He was committed until the very last with engaging the enemy in the defense of his Marines and his squadron. Without hesitation in a moment of great uncertainty and danger, he ran to the sound of guns. He organized his Marines, and they fought like Marines have always fought. He was a Marine who embodied the courage and the bravery of this storied squadron. He was your skipper, he was your friend and he was like family to so many of you.”

The fallen Marines were stationed in Yuma, AZ.

More on their heroism:

Citing multiple Marine sources in theater, the Post’s Ernesto Londoño reports that Lt. Col. Christopher Raible — the commanding officer of Marine Attack Squadron 211 who was killed along with Sgt. Bradley Atwell after 15 insurgents dressed as U.S. soldiers infiltrated the base and torched six AV-8B Harriers — died heroically while leading several other Marines in an aggressive counter attack as mayhem unfolded around them.

From Londoño’s report:

When it became clear Bastion was under attack, Raible threw on body armor and jumped in a vehicle with [one of his deputies, Maj. Greer] Chambless. Because his rifle was not nearby, the commander charged into the combat zone armed only with a handgun. The two men exchanged nary a word during the short drive as they scanned the landscape for insurgents. When they got to the flightline, Raible dashed into a maintenance room and began barking out orders to the Marines who would soon push the assailants back.

Backed by a handful of men, he ran toward another building to check whether the troops there were safe. Along the way, Raible and his men were attacked. He and Sgt. Bradley W. Atwell, 27, of Kokomo, Ind., died of wounds from an explosion, Lt. Col. Stewart Upton, a military spokesman, said. Chambless was devastated but not particularly surprised. “It was very fitting that he was killed leading his men from the front,” the major said.

As Marine Corps Times’ Dan Lamothe reported earlier this week, the harshest fighting took place within the first hour after insurgents gained access to Bastion. The attack drew a response from nearly everyone working on the flight line at the time.

“Had they not done what they did, it could have been a lot of worse,” Maj. Gen. Gregg Sturdevant, the two-star officer overseeing Marine air ops downrange, told Marine Corps Times on Monday. “Obviously on the wing, we focus on fixing aircraft and flying those aircraft in support of ground forces. But, when forced to, we can quickly transition to offense on the ground, and that’s exactly what happened Friday night.”

In addition to six destroyed Harrier jets, three fueling stations were destroyed; two more Harrier jets were damaged; and six aircraft hangars were damaged.

Latest news: Two of the Harriers are operable and flying over Helmand.

Kim Zigfeld at The American Thinker condemns the media/punditry blackout on the devastating attack:

Under the leadership of Barack H. Obama, though hardly noticed by the pro-Obama mainstream media, the U.S. Marine Corps has suffered its worst air squadron catastrophe since Vietnam, and its prized VMA-211 squadron has taken its worst hit since its defense of Wake Island in World War II.

It happened on September 14, 2012, northwest of the city of Lashkar Gah in southern Afghanistan. A team of fewer than two dozen Taliban fighters attacked the USMC’s massive Camp Bastion base there, killing VMA-211 squadron commander Lt. Col. Christopher Raible and destroying or permanently disabling eight of the ten top-of-the-line harrier AV-8B attack aircraft stationed under him. Out of production for more than a decade, these aircraft can never be replaced.

By the time the smoke cleared, roughly 7% of the total harrier fleet operated by the USMC had been wiped out on a single day by a small force of ground combatants whose most potent weapon was the suicide vest, one of which was used to breach the camp’s perimeter fence.

…The upcoming presidential debates will give Mitt Romney the opportunity to hold Obama’s feet to the fires burning because of his reckless and failed foreign policy. Obama’s record abroad is just as disastrous as his economic record at home, but so far Romney has not done enough to make Americans confront Obama’s record. He ought to ask Americans whether they are prepared to tolerate more disasters like the one in Lashkar Gah, to watch American power fade and American values be trampled along with our flag under the feet of those who wish us ill.

Well, since the debates are going to “moderated” by lib lapdog journo-tools for Obama, it’ll be up to Romney and Romney alone to seize the narrative.

Get. It. Done.


EXIT QUESTION: Wouldn’t it be nice if the media and White House showed as much public outrage against the bloodthirsty Taliban murderers who slayed our Marines as they do against Marines who piss on dead Taliban corpses?


September 28, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Attack at Camp Bastion … Obama and Media Silent

September 28, 2012

A few days ago I posted Attack on Camp Bastion: The Destruction of VMA-211 … A “Bump in the road” for Barack Obama. I find it odd that not one person commented on it.  I understand that liberals such as Ed or John would not bother. Ed’s lack of honesty but abundant delusion about his own intellect and John’s desire for things like free cell phones and other hand outs keep them from being opinionated about important things.  Anyway, I have to give credit to Michelle Malkin who dug into the story to find out the details and make them known to us. She makes the perfect point that Barack Obama hasn’t even uttered the names of the two Marines killed when the attack happened. In my humble opinion Barack Obama is a trashy, low-class enemy of the United States and it rejoices his heart to hear about the deaths of U.S. servicemen and women.

Two hero U.S. Marines were killed in the battle. Their names — Lt. Col. Christopher Raible and Sgt.Bradley Atwell

Photo credit: DVIDS, Cpl. Mark Garcia

Marines kneel beside the battlefield cross to pay their final respects to Sgt. Bradley Atwell during a memorial ceremony, Sept. 20. During the ceremony, Marines paid tribute to Atwell, an aircraft electrical, instrument and flight control systems technician with Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 16, from Kokomo, Ind. Atwell was killed in action while engaging insurgents during an attack on Camp Bastion, Sept. 14.


Please take a few minutes to read about two genuine American heroes.


Citing multiple Marine sources in theater, the Post’s Ernesto Londoño reports that Lt. Col. Christopher Raible — the commanding officer of Marine Attack Squadron 211 who was killed along with Sgt. Bradley Atwell after 15 insurgents dressed as U.S. soldiers infiltrated the base and torched six AV-8B Harriers — died heroically while leading several other Marines in an aggressive counter attack as mayhem unfolded around them.

From Londoño’s report:

When it became clear Bastion was under attack, Raible threw on body armor and jumped in a vehicle with [one of his deputies, Maj. Greer] Chambless. Because his rifle was not nearby, the commander charged into the combat zone armed only with a handgun. The two men exchanged nary a word during the short drive as they scanned the landscape for insurgents. When they got to the flightline, Raible dashed into a maintenance room and began barking out orders to the Marines who would soon push the assailants back.

Backed by a handful of men, he ran toward another building to check whether the troops there were safe. Along the way, Raible and his men were attacked. He and Sgt. Bradley W. Atwell, 27, of Kokomo, Ind., died of wounds from an explosion, Lt. Col. Stewart Upton, a military spokesman, said. Chambless was devastated but not particularly surprised. “It was very fitting that he was killed leading his men from the front,” the major said.

As Marine Corps Times’ Dan Lamothe reported earlier this week, the harshest fighting took place within the first hour after insurgents gained access to Bastion. The attack drew a response from nearly everyone working on the flight line at the time.

“Had they not done what they did, it could have been a lot of worse,” Maj. Gen. Gregg Sturdevant, the two-star officer overseeing Marine air ops downrange, told Marine Corps Times on Monday. “Obviously on the wing, we focus on fixing aircraft and flying those aircraft in support of ground forces. But, when forced to, we can quickly transition to offense on the ground, and that’s exactly what happened Friday night.”


No Barack. Those guys are much more than “bumps in the road”

September 28, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


English: Jay Carney, American journalist

English: Jay Carney, American journalist (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

U.S. responded to Benghazi attack as terrorism on ‘Day One’: Source

                                                                                                                       (LIAR-LIAR-CARNEY’S PANTS ARE ON FIRE!  JM)

By | The Ticket – 18 hrs ago

When gunmen struck the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 of this year, the response from American officials was almost simultaneous: They immediately set about collecting information about the attackers, some of whom were quickly identified as foreigners, and tracing links from them to known extremist groups, a knowledgeable source has told Yahoo News.

The source’s description came as fresh news accounts cast doubt on the White House’s insistence that it has been forthright all along about what it knew about the attack. (I tweeted on Sept. 21 that this same source informed Yahoo News that the administration privately labeled the attack as terrorism on “Day One.”)

“Friendly Libyans were saying almost immediately that the organized attackers (not the protesters) seemed to be mostly foreigners. By the 13th, people were beginning to be identified and rolled up,” the source, who has been critical of the administration in the past, told Yahoo News. One early asset: Social media, where videos and photos of the attack gave intelligence officials early clues to what really happened.

“In this case, the intel has been spot-on from the beginning,” the source said. American intelligence reached the conclusion that the assault on the consulate was terrorism “on Day One” and “the Brits, the French, Italians all said the same thing … within 48 hours.” The source agreed to detail the American response to the tragedy on condition of anonymity.

The day after the attack, President Barack Obama used his first public remarks on the tragedy to declare that “no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” That contradicts Republican charges that the president has refused to label the attack as “terrorism.”

The issue is not merely an inside-the-Beltway word game. A formal finding of terrorism enabled the U.S. government to respond with more military and intelligence assets than if the attack had been judged to be merely a criminal act.

But top aides, including Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, and Susan Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, argued in the days after the attack that the violence was linked to an Internet video that ridicules Islam. That film has sparked angry demonstrations across the Muslim world. Carney eventually said it was “self-evident” that it was terrorism—a day after National Counterterrorism Center Director Matt Olsen told senators that it was, while insisting there was no evidence of “significant … planning.” Olsen also said the administration was looking at “connections” between the attackers and al-Qaida, including a regional offshoot, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb.

Rice told NBC News on Sept. 16, five days after the attack, that “putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is thatwhat happened in Benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo; almost a copycat of — of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.”

“What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding,” Rice said.

Obama himself told “The View” this week that the sophistication of the attack showed it “wasn’t just a mob action.”

Administration officials have underlined that there is an FBI investigation into the attack, and said they will not offer definitive conclusions into what happened in Benghazi until that probe wraps up. They have also accused Republicans, led by Mitt Romney, of trying to score political points with the death of Chris Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya, who died as a result of the attack.

“Let’s be clear about this: Every step of the way, the information that we have provided to you and the general public about the attack in Benghazi has been based on the best intelligence we’ve had and the assessments of our intelligence community,” Carney told reporters Thursday.

“During her appearances on the Sunday talk shows September 16, 2012, Ambassador Rice’s comments were prefaced at every turn with a clear statement that an FBI investigation was underway that would provide the definitive accounting of the events that took place in Benghazi,” said a spokeswoman for Rice, Erin Pelton. “At every turn Ambassador Rice provided — and said she was providing — the best information and the best assessment that the Administration had at the time, based on what was provided to Ambassador Rice and other senior U.S. officials by the U.S. intelligence community.”

But the anonymous source pointed to the relative silence from Obama’s national security adviser, Tom Donilon, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

“They knew the real story from the beginning and were not paraded around to make statements,” the source told Yahoo News. “Understand that the first bits of information from something like this are usually not reliable, but at the end of 24 hours, folks should have a pretty good idea of what happened … or they are not doing their job.”

Asked about the evolving administration line, the anonymous source said that “confusion and misinformation always helps an operational response.”

“How much is subjective, but it is always good not to let your opponent have insight into what you know and don’t know,” the source said. “However, as you can tell, this was a clumsy, some would characterize (it as) very sophomoric, response by the administration” at the communications level.

September 28, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Cap Says It All–Found on


September 28, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | 1 Comment


(Take a look at this!!!  No tax increase–Obama lied!  JM)

Full List of Obama Tax Hikes

President Barack Obama has signed into law twenty-one new or higher taxes on the American people. The full list is below:

1. A 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco: On February 4, 2009, just sixteen days into his Administration, Obama signed into law a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco, a hike of 61 cents per pack. The median income of smokers is just over $36,000 per year.

2. Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (takes effect in Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance – as defined by Obama-appointed HHS bureaucrats — must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following:


  1 Adult 2 Adults 3+ Adults
2014 1% AGI/$95 1% AGI/$190 1% AGI/$285
2015 2% AGI/$325 2% AGI/$650 2% AGI/$975
2016 + 2.5% AGI/$695 2.5% AGI/$1390 2.5% AGI/$2085

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that six million American families will be liable for the tax, and as Americans for Tax Reform has pointed out, 100 percent of Americans filing a tax return (140 million filers) will be forced to submit paperwork to the IRS showing they had “qualifying” health insurance for every month of the tax year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337)

3. Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax (takes effect Jan. 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

4. Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income (Tax hike of $123 billion/takes effect Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93


  Capital Gains Dividends Other*
2011-2012 15% 15% 35%
2013+ (current law) 23.8% 43.4% 43.4%
2013+ (Obama budget) 23.8% 23.8% 43.4%

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.

5. Obamacare Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Tax hike of $32 bil/takes effect Jan. 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

6. Obamacare Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Tax hike of $86.8 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Current law and changes:


  First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
All Remaining Wages
Current Law 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
3.8% self-employed

Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93

7. Obamacare Medicine Cabinet Tax (Tax hike of $5 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): Americans are no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

8. Obamacare HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Tax hike of $1.4 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

9. Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Tax hike of $13 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (currently unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

10. Obamacare Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Tax hike of $20 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers 409,000 people in 12,000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3 percent excise tax on total sales, even if the respective company does not earn a profit. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

11. Obamacare “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Tax hike of $15.2 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

12. Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Tax hike of $2.7 billion/took effect July 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Making matters worse: According to a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report, the Obama IRS didn’t bother to issue compliance guidelines until three quarterly filing deadlines had passed: “By the time [IRS] notices were issued, tanning excise tax returns had been due for three quarters.” Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

13. Obamacare elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Tax hike of $4.5 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

14. Obamacare Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Tax hike of $0.4 bil/took effect Jan. 1 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

15. Obamacare Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/took effect immediately): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new “community health assessment needs,” “financial assistance,” and “billing and collection” rules set by Obama-appointed HHS bureaucrats. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

16. Obamacare Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Tax hike of $22.2 bil/took effect Jan. 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

17. Obamacare Tax on Health Insurers (Tax hike of $60.1 bil/takes effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

18. Obamacare $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Tax hike of $0.6 bil/takes effect Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

19. Obamacare Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 ($min/takes effect Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957

20. Obamacare “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion/took effect immediately). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

21. Obamacare Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion/took effect immediately). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

PDF Version of Document

See also:

Full List of Obamacare Taxes Listed by Size of Tax Hike

Full list of Obamacare Taxes Listed by Effective Date

Posted by Ryan Ellis and John Kartch on Thursday, September 27, 2012 12:07 PM EDT
Read more:

September 27, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , | 2 Comments


The King Has No Clothes

Posted on September 14, 2012 by Conservative Byte

Read more:

September 27, 2012 Posted by | Home | , , | Leave a comment



An issue of German lesbian periodical Die Freu...

An issue of German lesbian periodical Die Freundin, May 1928. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Kids to drink ‘gay’ Kool-Aid

Exclusive: Scott Lively outlines pederastic roots of celebrated LGBT history

Published: 2 days ago

author-image by Scott LivelyEmail | Archive

Dr. Scott Lively is the founder and president of Defend the Family International and has been since 1997.  An attorney, pastor and human-rights consultant, he has promoted and defended the biblical view of marriage and family in more than 30 countries. He is the author of five books, including “The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party.”More ↓

rss feed Subscribe to author feed

In many elementary and secondary schools across America, October will be designated as LGBT History Month. It is certain to feature prominently in California where promotion of homosexuality to all school children is now mandated by law. And it is likely to be observed in all of the classrooms controlled by the nationwide Gay Lesbian Straight Teachers Network (GLSEN), whose founder, Kevin Jennings, was appointed “safe schools” czar by President Obama. This week WND linked to a news story about a Broward County, Fla., school that will teach “gay” history to kindergartners, but most GLSEN teachers will conduct these indoctrination sessions with no meaningful outside scrutiny.

LGBT History Month is not yet universally adopted by public schools. Nevertheless, throughout October tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent school children will be subjected to the most despicable brainwashing ever conducted in American classrooms. They will be taught, through carefully constructed lesson plans, to view homosexuals as a superior class of human beings whose influence on society has been wholly benign, but whose contributions to society have been limited due to irrational prejudice and bigotry. They will learn the importance of protecting homosexuals from societal “homophobia,” perhaps even emanating from their own parents, and that homosexuality is a perfectly normal and healthy (and unchangeable) form of sexual identity. In other words, they will be indoctrinated in provably false and thoroughly biased pro-”gay” propaganda.

In the interest of balance, I’d like to offer a few facts that are not likely to make it into the curriculum.

Let’s start at the very beginnings of the modern homosexual movement to highlight its very earliest pioneer. And for our source lets avoid even the slightest hint of anti-homosexual bias and turn to the pre-eminent scholarly journal of the LGBT community, the Journal of Homosexuality, and one of its most respect contributors, Gert Heckma, Ph.D., of the Gay Studies Department of the University of Amsterdam. In his 1989 article, titled “Sodomites, Platonic Lovers, Contrary Lovers: The Backgrounds of the Modern Homosexual” (Vol. 16, No 1. 1989) Heckma writes:

“The most important exception to the philosophies’ ambivalent politics of the body was D.A.F. Marquis de Sade, who based his political philosophy precisely on sodomy. … Sade used sodomy as a particularly good example of what seemed to be unnatural, unreasonable and purposeless, but which could in no way be proven to be against nature or reason. Sade’s ‘Philosophy in the Boudoir’ (1795) was a clear apology for the decriminalization of pederasty [man/boy sex] and sodomy. … Sade emphasized that there were no rational arguments against any form of social behavior, be it prostitution, lust murder, or sodomy, and he strongly opposed the suggestion that theft, prostitution, sodomy, or lust murder were against nature. …

“In 1772, Sade was sentenced to death for sodomizing his manservant and for poisoning prostitutes. … Nothing is known about his homosexual proclivities except for the sodomy of his manservant and his writings. But his most scrupulous biographer, Gilbert Lely, has asserted that he was a homosexual with no remorse. … It was against … family politics … and the church and its institutions that Sade rebelled – albeit without much success – thus beginning a political struggle for the rights of pederasts.”

But that was long ago and far away. What about the modern homosexual movement here in America? Let us turn to another unimpeachably pro-”gay” source, the book “Gay American History” (1976) by Jonathan Katz, winner in 2003 of the Brudner Prize of Yale University, celebrating his “lifetime accomplishment and scholarly contributions.” From this source we learn that the very first “gay rights” organization in the United States was the American chapter of the German-based Society for Human Rights (SHR), formed in Chicago by a man named Henry Gerber on Dec. 10, 1924 (p.388).

Gerber had served with the U.S. occupation forces in Germany from 1920 to 1923 and had been involved with the German SHR. Gerber legally chartered the group without revealing its purpose and began publishing a pro-homosexual journal called Friendship and Freedom (p.389), patterned after the German chapter’s publication of the same name (p. 632). In 1925, however, the organization collapsed when Gerber, Vice President Al Menninger and another member were arrested on charges of sexual abuse of a boy, all three having been turned in by Menninger’s wife. The Chicago Examiner ran a story titled “Strange Sex Cult Exposed,” and spoke of “strange doings” in Menninger’s apartment (p.390-392).

Another inconvenient fact unlikely to be cited by GLSEN brainwashers is that the German SHR, the world’s first organization to define homosexuality as a struggle for “human rights,” was formed in 1919 by Nazi-aligned German nationalists (shortly before the formation of the Nazi Party), and that it’s most prominent member was Ernst Roehm, later to become supreme leader of the dreaded Nazi SA or Storm Troopers. Roehm was also, incidentally, a pederast, meaning that, like Gerber, he was an adult homosexual male who seduced teenaged boys.

This pederastic theme at the core of the “gay” movement did not end with Gerber. His eventual successor, Harry Hay, founder of the Mattachine Society in 1950, was an outspoken defender of NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association. Hay’s Mattachine Society was the first openly homosexual organization to survive, and Hay himself is rightly remembered today as the “founder of the modern gay movement.” In “The Trouble With Harry Hay,” sympathetic biographer Stuart Timmons wrote that when NAMBLA was denied a role in the 1986 Los Angeles “Gay Pride Parade,” marcher Harry Hay donned a sweatshirt printed with the legend, “NAMBLA Walks With Me.” Timmons writes that Hay, “could not contain his outrage” that NAMBLA was excluded (p.296).

Hay was a featured speaker at NAMBLA’s annual membership conference, June 24-25, 1994: “[He] gave an inspiring talk about reclaiming for the 1990s the spirit of homoerotic sharing and love from various ancient Greek traditions of pederasty. A remarkably balanced and sensitive account of the conference appeared in the Aug. 23 Advocate from a writer who was invited to attend (NAMBLA Bulletin, September, 1994:3).”

NAMBLA was in turn founded by leading “gay” activists including David Thorstad (who also founded the Gay Activist Alliance) and Thomas Reeves who wrote this choice tidbit about another icon of “gay” history, the Stonewall Riot.

“Almost every one of the early openly homosexual writers was a pederast. Pederasty was a constant theme of early gay literature, art and pornography. The Stonewall riots were precipitated by an incident involving an underage drag queen, yet that detail was not viewed as significant. Curtis Price, a 14-year-old, self-described ‘radical hustler,’ formed the first gay liberation organization in Baltimore. Many of the leaders of early gay liberation and the founders of the major gay groups in the U.S. were boy-lovers (Reeves in Pascal, Marc (ed), Varieties of Man Boy Love :47).”

Incidentally, Harry Hay was Kevin Jennings’s inspiration for founding GLSEN, which might explain why Jennings himself had ties to NAMBLA and actively condoned pederasty.

I could go on and on, but it only gets worse. The point is that the “gay rights” movement is not benign. Its history is a poisoned stream whose headwaters begin in the swamp of Sadean perversion and whose direction was set by the same people who created the Nazi Party. In America its course has run mostly through underground sewers until the past few decades when control of the movement fell into the hands of modern marketing experts who have hidden the truth under a white-washed facade of their own shrewd design. And it is this sugar-sweetened poison that is about to be spoon-fed to America’s public school students. It is a “gay” Kool-Aid of dangerous lies and it is to our great shame that this once-Christian nation will allow these innocent children to consume it without so much as a whimper of protest.


Please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying and jump to the conclusion that I am homophobic.  That couldn’t be further from the truth.  And the truth is that the horrendous and appalling conditions in which I was raised, left me without biases and with an acceptance that there are “differences,” which may, or may not, be acceptable for eyes and ears of children.  I know that homosexuality is innate and therefore homosexuals must be accepted and treated as any others would want to be treated.  The difficulty is that religion and the practice of homosexuality often reach deadlock during discussions.

There are some areas of life that have no place inside classrooms for children.  The fact of the existence of homosexuality is not relevant to elementary school age, kids.  However, its introduction into the lives of minors may be appropriate, at middle-school age and above.  But, and it’s a big but, parents must be allowed control of content, participation, and the option of being present with the child during that class if permission has been given.  Otherwise, I give a big fat NO WAY!

The fact that this controversy is in our faces is due to the demands of the LGBT.  As is all ‘fired up and ready to go’ attempts at social change, this particular push is outrageously egocentric!  For instance, I haven’t seen any studies that show children are left unaffected and unharmed by too much and too soon regarding such information.  Forcing what might be inappropriate material on children is equal to abuse.  Has LGBT done studies?  Has the Board of Education or the Department of Education?

Radicals are behind this brash movement, and when radicals move, it is without thought for possible fallout and harmful effects on others.  The information they want routinely taught in schools is not actually about teaching anything as much as it is about indoctrination.  It’s about brain washing the youth of America to accept everything and everyone while at the same time giving up their personal identities with respect to morality, family values, and honor.  It’s about replacing those belief systems with nothing—no beliefs, no moral consensus, and no individual thoughts or preferences!  It’s easy to break down a child’s center and destroy what parents have taught them when it starts early enough and when you don’t care about those you are breaking down.

Just Me

Personal Photo from visit to Harry Hay in Sept...

Personal Photo from visit to Harry Hay in Sept 2000 as part of the Circle of Loving Companions. Photo taken in Harry Hays Kitchen at the 14th Street House, San Francisco, CA. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

September 27, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Political Vel Craft

Veil Of Politics

Political Film Blog

money, power, injustice, sex, violence, propaganda, anti-fascism...


Fighting Against Government Harassment

Constitutional Clayton

Politics surrounding the Constitution


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

John Groves Art Stuff

Art from johngrovesart


Swiss Defence League

the seaton post

A little bit of this and a little bit of that

Jericho777's Blog

Correcting Misinformation!

%d bloggers like this: