Monday, April 30, 2012


Looking To Shut Down Bridges, Tunnels In NYC and San Fran... MORE
Bloomberg vows quick response...



In what looks like a Middle Eastern version of the Bolshevik revolution is unfolding in Egypt where the dual government of the Islamists and the military is about to default to total Islamist rule.

The end result of the "Arab Spring" could be World War III.

Nice going, President Obama!


General Vo Nguyen Giap CBS INTERVIEW

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.


Allegedly from General Giap's memoirs: 'What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!'
General Vo Nguyen Giap.

General Giap was a brilliant, highly respected leader of the North Vietnam military. The following quote is from his memoirs currently found in the Vietnam war memorial in Hanoi:

"What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it.

But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!"

General Giap has published his memoirs and confirmed what most Americans knew. The Vietnam war was not lost in Vietnam -- it was lost at home. The exact same slippery slope, sponsored by the US media, is currently well underway. It exposes the enormous power of a
Biased Media to cut out the heart and will of the American public.

A truism worthy of note: ....

Do not fear the enemy, for they can take only your life. Fear the media far more, for they will destroy your honour.



Sunday, April 29, 2012


It would appear the Communist plan of action is to use "peaceful demonstrators" (a.k.a. Lenin's useful fools) as human shields to open fire on the police. Of course, when the police respond in self defense, the return fire will hit many innocent people and create martyrs for the Red Front. The article below concerns Seattle, but is very likely part of the same Leftist putsch to be used in other major cities. 

The Seattle Mayor’s Office issued a press release Friday warning of potential violence, property damage and intent to disrupt peaceful protest for this Tuesday’s “May Day” marches. The release stated the office had evidence “other people may be coming to Seattle” and cites some websites have been giving instruction for how to conceal weapons and target authorities. At the same time, the mayor is stating that action is being taken to ensure the safety of peaceful protesters and the public at large.



Saturday, April 28, 2012

The Racemongers:Sharpton Sows Seeds of Next L.A. Riot

Posted at the Tunnel Wall:
"Al Sharpton was in Los Angeles on Thursday, attending a church rally marking the two-month anniversary of Trayvon Martin’s death.  Why Los Angeles should be chosen as the venue for such an event may at first seem a mystery, but whatever one may think of him, Sharpton can be counted among the true masters at manipulating the media.  And here in Los Angeles this week, much of the media has been consumed with observing the 20thanniversary of what is often referred to as the Rodney King riots.  The not-so-subtle message Sharpton was here to convey is this: Listen to me, do as I say, or face the consequences."
...."By yoking himself to the memory of the Los Angeles riots, and to the coming trial of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Sharpton is implicitly threatening violence even as he explicitly denounces it."  
 Shame, shame on you, MSNBC for not rejecting this man!

Why does MSNBC compensate a race-baiter like Sharpton?  "He's a fraud, he's a race hustler. To walk the streets and incite prior to judgment--if he can be so sure about that neighborhood watch man [George Zimmerman], why didn't he say that about the man who stabbed Yankel Rosenbaum--an innocent person that was killed by a mob that yelled 'Let's kill the Jew'?"

Read more at The Tunnel Wall




U.S. soldier Nicholas Dickhut from 5-20 infantry Regiment attached to 82nd Airborne points his rifle at a doorway after coming under fire by the Taliban while on patrol in Zharay district in Kandahar province, southern Afghanistan April 26, 2012. REUTERS/Baz Ratner




With the twin spires of the Islamic Center of America in the background, the Rev. Terry Jones praised Christianity and condemned Islam, calling it “of the devil.” 

“Mohammad was a liar, a pedophile and a false prophet,” Jones said. 

“I believe that as a Christian. But as an American who believes in the constitution I believe they have the right to practice their beliefs under the freedom of religion.” 

Jones — who is on his fourth trip to Dearborn to preach about the dangers of Islam and its agenda of imposing Sharia law on America — also called for a worldwide burning of the Koran on April 28 if an imprisoned pastor in Iran isn’t freed from a death sentence after converting from Islam to Christianity. 

“I’m asking the imam of the Islamic Center here in Dearborn to work with me to free Minister Youcef,” said Jones, of Youcef Nadarkhani, currently facing death for preaching Christianity in Iran. 

“If he isn’t freed, I will ask the world to burn the Koran in protest starting at 5 p.m. on April 28th in Gainesville, Fla.” 

At least 30 of Jones’ supporters — some of them openly carrying weapons on their belts as did Jones — shouted an occasional “amen” or “preach it” as Jones spoke. 

The controversial pastor denied accusations that he is a racist. 

“Not true,” he said. “Islam is a religion, not a race. I am not a racist.”
Jones said that not all Muslims are radicals. 

“I believe the majority of the people who attend this mosque behind me believe in the constitution,” Jones said. 

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


A New Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary to ensure that a President, who has led the country to near ruin and who is working to discard the basic principles upon which this Great Country rests, be peaceably removed it is incumbent upon us that we submit the reasons to the people.

Without any in-depth research or vetting about his background, Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States.  There were voices of caution who early on exposed Obama's connections to former terrorist Bill Ayers, anti-American vilifier Reverend Wright, crook Tony Rezko, and anti-Semite Rashid Khalidi, but they were laughed at as the people allowed themselves to be demagogued on hope and change.  Evidence continues to suggest that Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate is, indeed, a forgery.  This would make his presidential eligibility suspect.

Thus, the American people are at a critical watershed moment in our history.  The facts are in; Obama's ideology and core principles are now public and exist for all to see.  We can no longer claim ignorance; we can no longer be na├»ve; we can no longer deny what is patently before us.  The record of this current president is a "history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these United States.  To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

Mr. Obama has "given himself the powers to declare martial law[.]  It is a sweeping power grab that should worry every American."  Thus, "Barack Obama is very dangerous, the apotheosis of an insidious strain of authoritarianism that destroys from within."  In a statement published on December 31, 2011, Mr. Obama states that "[t]oday I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012."  Though he claims that he has "signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists," it was Mr. Obama who "demanded the removal of any and all protections for US citizens and legal residents."

And like King George III, Obama has now established the distinct possibility of placing "[s]tanding armies without the Consent of our legislatures" -- although sadly, in this case, the Senate passed this unwholesome disgrace.  King George III would be pleased.

In fact, Mr. Obama sees fit to bypass the "pesky" Constitution whenever it suits him, thus ignoring limited-government tenets which were at the core of the Founding Fathers' belief system.  Thus, the NDAA detention mandate allows indefinite military detention not just to foreigners; now "U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority."

In fact, should Mr. Obama be re-elected to a second term, "our rights to speech, religion and property, and to privacy in our persons and homes, will be transformed."  Mr. Obama has already "hectored Christianity on matters of conscience."  Through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare, Mr. Obama is forcing Catholic institutions to pay for insurance covering contraceptives.  Why, when "religious liberty was weighed against access to birth control, did freedom lose?" -- a clear intrusion into the first of the five protections of the First Amendment.  Bishop Daniel Jenky has likened President Obama's health care policies to the attacks on the Catholic church by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin of yesteryear.  Dare we go down that totalitarian road again?

The onslaught against free speech has been heightened because of the "cooperation between [Mr. Obama] and the OIC or Organization of Islamic Cooperation."  The "Obama administration stands 'united' with the OIC on speech issues," thus silencing Arab reformers and anyone who makes any allegedly negative remarks about Islam.  The "repressive practices" of the OIC member-nations speak volumes about their restrictions on free speech.  Hence, "the encroachment of de facto blasphemy restrictions in the West threatens free speech and the free exchange of ideas."  That an American president would threaten this most fundamental right is yet another resounding reason why he needs to be removed from office.

In December of 2009, Nat Hentoff, a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, asserted that "[i]f congressional Democrats succeed in passing their health-care 'reform' measure to send to the White House for President Obama's signature, then they and he are determining your health decisions[.]" Thus, "these functionaries making decisions about your treatment and, in some cases, about the extent of your life span, have never met you[.]  Is this America?"  Hentoff concludes his piece with the revelation "I'm scared and I do mean to scare you.  We do not elect the president and Congress to decide how short our lives will be."

Thus, we still hold "these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  And "whenever any Form of Government becomes  destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles ... as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."  We do not declare violent revolution but do demand the secure right to change the government through the ballot box.

But even this fundamental right is being seriously eroded as the Department of Justice openly and arrogantly dismisses genuine cases of voter intimidation with nary a word of concern by Barack Obama.  Although there is visual proof and  evidence of threats to the voting public as well as exhortations of death threats to a man on trial, Attorney General Eric Holder turns a blind eye. 

By his selective indifference, Mr. Obama has created a racially divisive atmosphere in America.  He continues to promote this hateful attitude wherein the civil rights progress made in this country for all its citizens is ignored.  Surely, Mr. Obama has "excited domestic insurrections amongst us" as he engages in racial division, class warfare, and phony gender wars.  If Mr. Obama is, indeed, so interested in the rights of women, then why does he support Islamic sharia law, which demands second-class status for women?  These diversions serve to stir up resentments; unfortunately, they are successful in obfuscating the shameless actions of this 44th president.

Mr. Obama is not content with taking the country down the path to "European socialism."  His centralized control of the health care industry, his increases in entitlement programs, his redistribution of capital -- in fact, his sweeping regulations that give the government new authority to control the entire financial sector -- are reminiscent of Karl Marx's 10-Point Agenda, and although communism was unknown in 1775, the signatories of the Declaration knew of the absolute power of the monarchy and would see through the oligarchic nature of this "ism."

Amazingly, Mr. Obama has assured Russian leaders (who have gained their power through rigged elections) that American concessions are coming their way, but they [the Russian leaders] must wait because he is seeking re-election and he dare not tell his own people of his true intentions.  What credible reason would a loyal American president have for weakening American and allies' defense systems?  During the open microphone conversation between Obama and Medvedev, a puppet of KGB Putin, the world learned whose interests Obama was truly serving.  Surely, this is "enough to chill friends and allies, democrats and dissidents, all over the world." 

Furthermore, Obama has "obstructed the Administration of Justice[,]" instead pitting one group against the other through "waivers."  If ObamaCare is so laudable, why extend waivers in the first place?  In fact, it is yet another example of how manipulative Mr. Obama is when he tries to make the people "dependent on his Will alone." 

Mr. Obama has ignored the laws of our country to impose an arbitrary and capricious rule of law by outside forces.  He finds it more expedient to pit the federal government against an American state which is trying only to enforce federal immigration law.  To this end, Mr. Obama has seen fit to "subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution[,]" which was so clearly enumerated in the Declaration of Independence as reason to reject King George III.   By issuing a Universal Period Review (UPR), the first of its kind, Mr. Obama has given the United Nations the right to dictate to Arizona.  Thus, the "stakes for our national sovereignty have just been raised."  Despotic countries of the United Nations have now been empowered to dictate how Americans should conduct themselves.  Is this not reminiscent of King George III "waging war against us"?

Moreover, the Obama State Department ordered the "suspension of routine border inspection procedures in order to whisk (Muslim Brotherhood) Islamists into our country.  Thus, Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party did not have to go through the normal procedures of inspection.  Recall that the Muslim Brotherhood's mission statement is "Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law, Jihad is our way, and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!"  Negotiating with the Muslim Brotherhood is akin to negotiating with the dictator Hitler.  It is appeasement all the way.  Why does the Obama administration cavort with such people?  Does this not make him unfit to defend the interests of America?

Echoing the despot of old, Mr. Obama has "called together legislative bodies" in such manner that makes the action less transparent for the "sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures."  So while he calls for creating easy-to-read, shorter bills, Mr. Obama creates monstrosities of several thousand pages.  He is famous for his Friday-night document dumps, pushing the legislation through late on Friday evening when Congress has retired.

Before ObamaCare was passed, Mr. Obama promised C-SPAN complete transparency and public coverage so that the American public could study the law.  That never happened.  The equally guilty Congress allowed itself to be bullied and bribed so that many of our so-called representatives did not even read the bill.  Although some of them now claim buyer's remorse, it is too little, too late.

Like King George III, Mr. Obama "has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."  This Judicial Watch Special Report "analyzes the proliferation of 'czars' in the Obama administration.  Thus, [m]any of these 45+ czars are unconfirmed by the Senate and are largely unaccountable to Congress.  Furthermore, their activities are often outside the reach of the Freedom of Information Act, creating a veil of secrecy about their precise role in the administration." Such an "arrangement threatens to increase the power of the President (who appoints these czars) beyond what is constitutionally mandated."

Furthermore, although there should be no connection between the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and one's health care, Mr. Obama "is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president's healthcare law."  Indeed, all these covert actions will "eat out [at our] substance."

The Founding Fathers decried the king for making "judges dependent on his Will alone."  How, then, does Mr. Obama ignore the flagrant conflict of interest whereby his appointee Supreme Court Judge Elena Kagan can still be permitted to vote on the constitutionality of ObamaCare despite her "substantial participation in the administration's legal defense of that law" when she was solicitor general?  According to Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, justices must disqualify themselves in cases where they have "served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy."

The original Declaration accused King George III for "plundering our seas."  Yet Executive Order #13547, signed by President Obama in July of 2010, "[f]urther extends federal power, embraces global governance, diminishes the rights and privileges of individuals and brings the United States into compliance with Agenda 21."  In essence, "the treaty would give the [U.N.] power to regulate activity within our territorial seas; it would give the U.N. the power to levy taxes in the form of applications fees and royalties; and it provides no benefits that the United States does not already enjoy."  While Obama's predecessor tried to have it ratified, the Senate rejected it in 2004.  But Mr. Obama found a way around the Senate vote, since it was never approved by the two-thirds vote of the Senate as required by law.  Thus, Mr. Obama circumvented Congress, one more illustration of his dangerous abuses as president.  It is another expansion of global governance of which Mr. Obama is so fond.

Moreover, Mr. Obama has reduced American access to outer space, thereby curtailing American research and discovery while claiming that NASA should now reach out to the Muslim world "and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."  By diminishing American space exploration, Mr. Obama has made America vulnerable.  Space now belongs to Russia and China, and the ingenuity and courage of American space explorers has been seriously eroded under this president.

In addition, Mr. Obama is deliberately "cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world" as he ignores the now-revealed U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report that "the United States has 26% of the world's recoverable conventional oil resources," and not Mr. Obama's "intentionally misleading claim that the United States only has two percent of the world's oil reserves."  Thus, Mr. Obama's "war on fossil fuels" is affecting American energy security, delaying the development of new jobs, not helping to pay down U.S. debt, and impeding investment in the next generation energy technologies. 

Almost every schoolchild in America recalls the phrase "taxation without representation," and here Mr. Obama has far surpassed any previous president.  If Mr. Obama is re-elected, "the tax increase he and a Democratic Congress would impose on middle-and-upper-middle income Americans would be disastrous."  Thus, "for imposing Taxes on us without our Consent[,]" Mr. Obama should not be permitted to have a second term.  In fact, "it's now official.  Barack Obama has become the first American president to see the federal government's debt increase by more than $5 trillion during his time in office[.]"

With complete insouciance, Mr. Obama has burdened the next generation of Americans with an insurmountable financial bondage.  How dare he deny the chance of a good life to these young people, who have had no voice in these financial burdens that will adversely affect their "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"?  The federal debt is now close to $17 trillion.  Clearly, "a change of course in federal spending is inevitable.  The question is whether it will be orderly, beneficial change brought by design or disorderly, harmful change brought by disaster."

Unfortunately named the Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009, it is neither affordable nor a choice.  Purposely misrepresented, the law will bankrupt the country.  In fact, "rather than liberating the American health care system from bureaucracy and waste, it blankets it with more of both, suffocating innovation and destroying freedom."

Thus, "when asked on ABC News if he would favor a tax rate hike even if it meant less tax revenue, Mr. Obama replied that he would - 'for purposes of fairness.'  So it is with Obamacare, affordability was never the goal.  But then neither was 'fairness.' Consolidation of power and control in the central government was the ... goal all along-and at any price."

Although the people have spoken out against the metastasizing encroachment against our rights, Mr. Obama pays no heed.  He engages in demeaning his opponents; his arrogance knows no end.  His lies have become public.  He redefines words and uses distortions of language to obscure the truth. 

Henceforth, "for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence," we mutually pledge to each other our profound commitment to voting Barack Hussein Obama out of office in order to save the republic. 

Eileen can be reached at

Friday, April 27, 2012


On the other hand, via the internet whites now know of the racial attacks, and grow quietly very sick of them. There is among many white men an undercurrent of “Bring it on.” This is not confined merely to cops, soldiers, conservatives, Southerners, westerners, the rural and the blue-collar. You can find it, carefully hidden, in federal offices and even among men in newsrooms. The extent of this sentiment is easy to underestimate. Those who share it don’t dare express it, and most journalists live in ideological bubbles. 


This has been on the table for a long while now—"no justice, no peace" as they put it, meaning social justice, the name injustice goes by, and there's been no backing down on their end. This, unwisely, is doubling down. It's always the same: short term clever, long term stupid. Mr. Frazier hasn't thought this through. Martin King was a violent man personally but he got it right when he told his more militant followers to keep the meaning of the word minority in mind. Being 13% of the population is not good odds should the check Mr. Frazier has written be cashed. Does the race industry understand white people don't actually believe in zombies but, oddly, are arming themselves at a record rateart-link-symbol-tiny-grey-arrow-only.gif? Does Mr. Frazier understand he may be leaning on an open door? The page of history always turns and no man can know what will be written next. A word of caution here. As military people say, no plan of battle survives contact with the enemy. He has revealed himself willing to put aside all other avenues and pull us into a 'hot racial war'. But how willing is he to be surprised?




Mein Kampf is making a comeback in Germany (it is the number one bestseller in Turkey and the Middle East). I betcha it will be a huge hit with those same followers of ........ peace.




Commentary by Robert Tracinski

The Great Recession started out as a crisis of private debt, but it was quickly revealed that the real crisis is government debt. The recession has exposed the basic financial unsustainability of the welfare state. 

This is true in America, but it has become even more obvious in Europe, particularly in the European nations that relatively recently adopted "universal," open-ended welfare states and rapidly expanded them during the boom times of the previous decade. 

Bloomberg just published four articles that chronicle the collapse of the European welfare-state ideal. The first, by a Brussels think-tank analyst, lays out the problem.
Take the four countries at the epicenter of the euro-area crisis: Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain.... [G]overnment spending in those nations grew at remarkably high rates. In Greece and Spain, nominal spending by the state increased 50 percent to 55 percent in the five years before the crisis started, according to my calculations based on government data. In Portugal, public expenditure rose 35 percent; in Ireland, almost 75 percent....

Europe's crisis economies will now have to radically reduce their welfare states. State spending in Spain will have to shrink by at least a quarter; Greece should count itself lucky if the cut is less than a half of the pre-crisis expenditure level.

The worse news is that this is likely to be only the first round of welfare-state corrections. The next decade will usher Europe into the age of aging, when inevitably the cost of pensions will rise and providing health care for the elderly will be an even bigger cost driver....

Many Danes had to pinch themselves a month ago when their new prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, who heads a coalition of leftist parties, launched a strategy document called Denmark 2032. This addressed frankly the need for Denmark to define some tough spending priorities. Its underlying presumption was that the universal welfare state with its generous entitlements would not be able to survive in its current form.
Another article by a defender of the European welfare state discusses the mostly minor adjustments made so far in an attempt to make the welfare state more "flexible" and put off the day of reckoning. 

I was gratified, however, to see in this article that "intrusive rules that govern employment relationships" was listed as a major component of the welfare state, along with the more obvious government handouts like old-age pensions and socialized medicine. 

An article by a Spanish conservative describes how that country's labor laws have led to massive youth unemployment and notes the irony that it is the left that insisted on keeping labor laws established under the fascist dictator Francisco Franco. But of course, the "national socialists" were fellow socialists. 

The current conservative government in Spain is attempting a new round of reforms. In France, by contrast, it looks like they are just about to elect a Socialist to protect the welfare state, replacing Nicolas Sarkozy, a "conservative" (by French standards) who was largely ineffectual at reforming the system.
But the big exception to the European crisis has been Germany. Well, there's also Poland, the one country in Europe where the economy didn't contract during the crisis. But it is Germany that the rest of the continent is turning to for bailouts. We Americans still associate Germany with the generous welfare state that it pioneered, but a pro-free-market German newspaper editor explains how Germany has emerged as the strongest European nation by reforming its welfare state.

What are the Germans doing right?

The short answer is "Agenda 2010," a package of reforms laid out by the government of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. In the decade before these changes took effect, 5 million people were out of work (compared with fewer than 3 million now). Germany trailed everybody else in growth. It kept breaching the 3 percent deficit limit prescribed by the Stability and Growth Pact. The social-security system handed out more than it took in. So on 14 March, 2003, Schroeder went Churchill, delivering his own "blood, sweat, and tears" speech to the Bundestag. "We will have to cut benefits," he said. "We shall promote individual responsibility. And our guiding principle will be that we can only redistribute what we have earned."

The lavish welfare state, he meant to say, was yesterday. Patients would now have to make co-payments for medical services. The old crafts system, a medieval legacy that protected insiders, would have to yield. Labor unions would have to climb down from rigid nationwide collective bargaining and accept more modest shop-floor agreements geared to a company's profitability. The growth of pension benefits would have to slow. Capital-gains taxes and the top marginal rate of income tax were cut.

The core of "Agenda 2010" was a welfare reform that took a page from Bill Clinton's "workfare" legislation. Unemployment benefits were limited to 12 months. After that, the able-bodied would have to make do with a bare minimum. The basic idea was to get people off unemployment benefits by making them look for work.
"We can only redistribute what we have earned." Thus, by economic necessity, the Europeans are headed in the same direction as the US: toward a limited welfare state in which benefits are controlled so as not to outstrip the ability of the private economy to generate the wealth necessary to pay for them.


Thursday, April 26, 2012


CAIR Demands US Morgues Allow Conjugal Visits.

User avatar
Egypt plans 'farewell intercourse law' so husbands can have sex with DEAD wives
Read more:
Excuse me but Mohammed requires a conjugal visit.

conjugal visit.jpg

son of a pig.jpg



...And I'll tell you all about it, but first I have to shoot you dead!

EXCLUSIVE: New Secret Service scandal centers on strippers, prostitutes in El Salvador

U.S. Secret Service agents brag they routinely use third-world prostitutes while conducting out-of-country security detail for Presidential visits



SAN DIEGO — Rep. Bob Filner has called on the Navy to name a ship after slain gay rights pioneer Harvey Milk, who served as a Navy officer in the early 1950s.

In a letter to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Filner said naming a ship after Milk “would be a great tribute to Milk’s support for equality and in keeping with effort(s) to promote equality in our military after the recent repeal of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.”

Milk served as a diving officer aboard a submarine rescue ship and later as a diving instructor stationed in San Diego.
Filner, a candidate for mayor of San Diego, said, “I will continue to work with the GLBT (gay-lesbian-bisexual-transsexual) Historic Task Force of San Diego County to promote the legacy of our nation’s first openly gay elected official, Harvey Milk.”


You won’t hear it anywhere else but here – insiders have told us WTVJ reporter Jeff Burnside was fired last Friday for allegedly editing the Trayvon Martin 911 tape, the same tape NBC aired on ‘Today’ in early April. Allegedly, his firing wasn’t announced internally and so far there is no information whether NBC made a conclusion if the edit was misleading on purpose or if it was an oversight.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Commentary by Robert Tracinski

Well, you have to give the left credit for laying it all out on the table. They have just proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would nullify the whole document and effectively cancel out all fundamental protections for individual liberty. 

The People's Rights Amendment declares that the rights protected in the Constitution are the rights of "natural persons" and do not extend to "corporate entities," which "are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable." 

The final clause of the amendment declares that it does not "limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion." But this is a fig leaf, because as Eugene Volokh points out, must such activities are performed by people when they join together as corporations.
So just as Congress could therefore ban the speech of nonmedia business corporations, it could ban publications by corporate-run newspapers and magazines—which I think includes nearly all such newspapers and magazines in the country (and for good reason, since organizing a major publication as a partnership or sole proprietorship would make it much harder for it to get investors and to operate).... Congress could also ban the speech and religious practice of most churches, which are generally organized as corporations. It could ban the speech of nonprofit organizations that are organized as corporations.
I have a further question. Isn't a political campaign, such as "Citizens for Mitt Romney" or whatever it is called, a corporate entity? Would it be deprived of the right to freedom of speech? And then how would we have free elections?

So there you have the full theory of the left. You have the rights guaranteed to you in the Constitution—so long as you don't join together with anyone else to exercise those rights in any kind of large-scale enterprise. Just last week, I wrote that the left's ideal is "a society in which the state is big and all-powerful and the individual is small and dependent, looking to the state for support and guidance." That is what this amendment is meant to achieve. It is meant to make the individual small by declaring that he abandons all rights whenever he joins together with others in a "corporate entity." The only "corporate entity" that will be permitted is the state.
The motive for this amendment is as a counterstrike against the court's revival of judicial review in the economic realm. With the Supreme Court potentially about to strike down Obamacare, setting a precedent for the revival of economic liberty in the courts, the left is desperate to re-assert the anti-capitalist jurisprudence that has held sway since the 1930s. That's the significance of the language about how corporations are subject to any regulation the people deem to be "reasonable," a very low standard which basically means that the courts should shut up and defer to the legislature.

But this anti-constitutional amendment actually began as an attempt to overturn an earlier decision, in the Citizen's United case, when the Supreme Court struck down controls on political speech on the grounds that the First Amendment protects the speech of corporations. You may recall that the turning point in that case came during oral arguments, when a lawyer for the government was forced to admit that campaign finance controls would permit the state to ban books. So this amendment is basically designed to allow the government to ban books.

The doctrine that a corporation is an "individual" for legal purposes, with all of the rights of an individual, is one of the great achievements of American law. It is the crucial nexus between political and economic freedom, and it demonstrates how neither can survive without the other.

Fortunately, this amendment is not likely to succeed. But it is certainly informative. It shows us exactly how hostile the left is to liberty and how fully they would gut the Constitution if they got the chance. And it helps illuminate the stakes for the presidential election, because President Obama has made it clear that he also wants to reverse Citizens United and that he also believes individuals have no rights when they form corporations.

In that vein, Slate's incompetent Supreme Court correspondent Dahlia Lithwick, who has been in one giant snit-fit since the oral hearings on Obamacare, snipes at a bracing pro-liberty decision written by federal judge Janice Rogers Brown and panics at the idea that someone like Judge Brown could be a prospect for appointment to the Supreme Court.

Janice Rogers Brown is probably too radical to make it through the Supreme Court nomination process, and another article goes through a list of more likely Romney picks. But the point is that we are now presented with a stark choice: the revival of constitutional protections for economic liberty—or an attack on economic liberty that endangers all other Constitutional protections for our rights.



Wednesday, April 25, 2012



In my fictional novel, the U.S. Secret Service (SS) is run by a clever psychopath with the ambition to become dictator of the USA.

This picture of intelligent Big Evil at work to destroy the Republic is certainly not the case with Mark Sullivan, a mental midget with zero leadership ability in love with Obama black racist socialism (fascism) to staff his agency.

It is only a question of time until "The chickens come home to roost" and another president is murdered in cold blood before the shocked eyes of the world due to the non-action of stupid and physically unfit SS agents.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Gingrich campaign hints he may drop from race this week...
Hitches himself to marriage NC referendum...


Letter from a former high school classmate and "foxhole buddy".

 Posted over at the Tunnel Wall
At first I planned to attach this to a related post, but this letter seemed too good to me not to just use it as a standalone post. Ron has been, well, a "foxhole buddy" as we stood together in a number of printed debates with those of the left. Let's hope you appreciate Ron's words as much as I. "Just words?" I think not. TD

I am firmly convinced that this is the most important election of our lifetime and that we need to do all we can to stir thoughts in the minds of likely voters.  I don't give a hoot about those who sound off, but will not vote and I don't care about those who are silent and believe that their vote doesn't count anyway.

President Obama and his cabinet have trampled on the Constitution and it is time to get them out.  The audacity of our President, lecturing the Supreme Court about how far their authority goes and cautioning them to not overstep their bounds was infuriating to me.  If the SCOTUS does not strike down at least the individual mandate of Obamacare, I will be shocked beyond belief. 

Read the full post at the Tunnel Wall






MOBILE, Alabama -- Mobile police need your help to catch a mob that beat Matthew Owens so badly that he's in critical condition. According to police, Owens fussed at some kids playing basketball in the middle of Delmar Drive about 8:30 Saturday night. They say the kids left and a group of adults returned, armed with everything but the kitchen sink. Police tell News 5 the suspects used chairs, pipes and paint cans to beat Owens. Owens' sister, Ashley Parker, saw the attack. "It was the scariest thing I have ever witnessed." Parker says 20 people, all African American, attacked her brother on the front porch of his home, using "brass buckles, paint cans and anything they could get their hands on." Police will only say "multiple people" are involved. What Parker says happened next could make the fallout from the brutal beating even worse. As the attackers walked away, leaving Owen bleeding on the ground, Parker says one of them said "Now that's justice for Trayvon." Police canvassed the area, but did not find any suspects. They're asking anyone with information to call them at 251-208-7211, Crime Stoppers at 251-208-7000, or text a tip to 274637 and include the keyword CRIME 411.

Monday, April 23, 2012


Mark Levin: “Obama, it would seem, wants to deny to others what he will not deny to himself. He wants to deny to the children of others what he will not deny to his own children. He wants to amass riches, but he doesn’t want you to amass wealth. He doesn’t mind private school for his own children, but he minds it for your children. He doesn’t mind eating whatever he wants to eat, but he minds what you eat. He doesn’t mind taking that 747 one frivolous trip after another, one self-serving fundraising after another, but he minds what you drive and how much fuel you use. And we can go on and on.”

Marx’s Communist “utopia” is only one evolutionary stage away from reality.

During his Thursday morning radio broadcast, Glenn Beck asked if America, on its current trajectory, is headed toward the values and principles of the Constitution, or rather, those of the Communist Manifesto.

To glean greater insight, The Blaze expanded on each of the Manifesto’s 10 planks and juxtaposed them with modern day American society. The picture revealed, while perhaps not shocking, is unsettling to say the least.

The Communist Manifesto

10 Tenets of The Communist Manifesto Manifested in American Life

Considered the playbook, the framework, the founding document of Communism, it is argued that no other political volume has altered the course of history more than Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel’s tiny yet effective blueprint for the proletariat.

Commissioned by the Communist League, Marx and Engels laid out their analysis of capitalism and class struggle while supposedly offering economic and socio-political “solutions” rooted in what they called science. While every instance of Communism attempted around the globe has since failed abysmally and without exception, proponents still cry that Marx’s inviolable political and economic theories were simply “improperly executed” and thus, if true to the Manifesto, Marxism is, in itself, “perfect.” A little known fact, however, is that these champions’ premise is based on a flawed narrative, as Karl Marx in fact falsified much of the data he used to support his untenable political and economic system. Of Marx’s flagrant disregard for the facts, British philosopher Anthony Flew wrote:

…the first and only volume of Das Kapital to be published in the lifetime of Marx was, in his own words, to demonstrate that “In proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer must grow worse. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation at the opposite pole.” But by 1867, when that volume was first published, Marx had known for 15 or more years that this thesis was false.



Inventing Muhammad?

By Robert Spencer

Why would it matter if Muhammad never existed? Certainly the accepted story of Islam's origins is taken for granted as historically accurate; while many don't accept Muhammad's claim to have been a prophet, few doubt that there was a man named Muhammad who in the early seventh century began to claim that he was receiving messages from Allah through the angel Gabriel. Many who hear about my new book Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam's Obscure Origins ask why it would matter whether or not Muhammad existed -- after all, a billion Muslims believe he did, and they are not going to stop doing so because of some historical investigations. Yet the numerous indications that the standard account of Muhammad's life is more legend than fact actually have considerable implications for the contemporary political scene.

These are just a few of the weaknesses in the traditional account of Muhammad's life and the early days of Islam:

No record of Muhammad's reported death in 632 appears until more than a century after that date.
The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur'an. They call the conquerors "Ishmaelites," "Saracens," "Muhajirun," and "Hagarians," but never "Muslims."
The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don't mention Islam or the Qur'an for the first six decades of their conquests. Mentions of "Muhammad" are non-specific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross. The word can be used not only as a proper name, but also as an honorific.
The Qur'an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650s. Casting into serious doubt that standard account is the fact that neither the Arabians nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention its existence until the early eighth century.
We don't begin to hear about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and about Islam itself until the 690s, during the reign of the caliph Abd al-Malik. Coins and inscriptions reflecting Islamic beliefs begin to appear at this time also.
In the middle of the eighth century, the Abbasid dynasty supplanted the Umayyad line of Abd al-Malik. In the Abbasid period, biographical material about Muhammad began to proliferate. The first complete biography of the prophet of Islam finally appeared during this era-at least 125 years after the traditional date of his death.

The lack of confirming detail in the historical record, the late development of biographical material about the Islamic prophet, the atmosphere of political and religious factionalism in which that material developed, and much more, suggest that the Muhammad of Islamic tradition did not exist, or if he did, he was substantially different from how that tradition portrays him.

How to make sense of all this? If the Arab forces that conquered so much territory beginning in the 630s were not energized by the teachings of a new prophet and the divine word he delivered, how did the Islamic character of their empire arise at all? If Muhammad did not exist, why was it ever considered necessary to invent him?

Every empire of the day had a civic religion. The Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire was Christian. Its rival Persia, meanwhile, was Zoroastrian. The Arab Empire quickly controlled and needed to unify huge expanses of territory where different religions predominated. The empire was growing quickly, soon rivaling the Byzantine and Persian Empires in size and power. But at first, it did not have a compelling political theology to compete with those it supplanted and to solidify its conquests. It needed a common religion -- a political theology that would provide the foundation for the empire's unity and secure allegiance to the state.

Toward the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the eighth, the leaders of the Muslim world began to speak specifically about Islam, its prophet, and eventually its book. Stories about Muhammad began to circulate. A warrior-prophet would justify the new empire's aggressive expansionism. To give those conquests a theological justification -- as Muhammad's teachings and example do -- would place them beyond criticism.

This is why Islam developed as such a profoundly political religion. Islam is a political faith: the divine kingdom is very much of this world, with God's wrath and judgment to be expected not only in the next life, but also in this one, to be delivered by believers. Allah says in the Qur'an: "As for those disbelieving infidels, I will punish them with a terrible agony in this world and the next. They have no one to help or save them" (3:56). Allah also exhorts Muslims to wage war against those infidels, apostates, and polytheists (2:191, 4:89, 9:5, 9:29).

There is compelling reason to conclude that Muhammad, the messenger of Allah came into existence only after the Arab Empire was firmly entrenched and casting about for a political theology to anchor and unify it. Muhammad and the Qur'an cemented the power of the Umayyad caliphate and then that of the Abbasid caliphate.

This is not just academic speculation. The non-Muslim world can be aided significantly in its understanding of the global jihad threat -- an understanding that has been notably lacking even at the highest levels since September 11, 2001 -- by a careful, unbiased examination of the origins of Islam. There is a great deal of debate today in the United States and Western Europe about the nature of Islamic law; anti-sharia measures have been proposed in at least twenty states, and one state -- Oklahoma -- voted to ban sharia in November 2010, although that law was quickly overturned as an infringement upon Muslims' religious freedom. Others have been successfully resisted on the same grounds.

If it is understood that the political aspect of Islam preceded the religious aspect, that might change. But that will happen only if a sufficient number of people are willing to go wherever the truth my take them.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Did Muhammad Exist?, is now available.