John O'Neill Tribute - Video

Video uploaded by David Horowitz

A video to commemorate Freedom Center board member John O'neill's service to this country, both at home and abroad. Includes video footage of his showdown on the Dick Cavett show with John Kerry.

 

Education or Indoctrination?

Release of textbook review imminent! 

In about two weeks we will be releasing our textbook analysis report entitled “Education or Indoctrination? The Treatment of Islam in 6^th through 12^th Grade American Textbooks.” This report is the culmination of three and one-half years of planning, research, writing and editing.

Here’s just one example of what our research found.

When dealing with the 9/11 terrorist attack, the textbooks routinely omit any reference to the fact that the terrorists were Muslims or that they were acting in the cause of Islamic jihad. Imagine textbooks in 1951 teaching about the attack on Pearl Harbor and neglecting to mention that the attack was perpetrated by the Japanese Imperial Navy.

When the report is released, you will be able to view and download:

A 32 page Executive Summary. Early next week this will be mailed to over 70,000 school board members nationwide. The full report—nearly 230 pages long, painstakingly researched, with nearly 375 footnotes and 275 bibliography sources. Reports by publisher, in which the books reviewed are sorted by publisher.

These reports will be available on the ACT! for America Education website, www.ACTforAmericaEducation.org.

Stay tuned!

——————————————————————————————-

ACT! for America Education
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
member@americancongressfortruth.org
http://www.actforamericaeducation.com/

Every day, ACT! for America Education a 501c3 non-profit organization is on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of Islamofascism. To maintain and bolster our efforts, we need your continued solidarity, activism and financial support. We are only as strong as our supporters. We thank you for helping us carry on this important work.

Hitler Discovers ATTACKWATCH is a Joke!

Hitler dicovers his new website "ATTACKWATCH" is the joke of the internet after only 24 hrs.

Check out http://www.attackwatch.com to see what everyone's laughing at!

Please buy the movie from which this famous clip has been taken, it really is a very good movie!

PatriotPost's Channel, YouTube

++++++++++++++++
After receiving several complaints from readers about the Hitler video we ran last week (which we did not create), we thought it only fitting that those complaints be forwarded to AttackWatch. In case you missed the offending video, here it is again with a suitably revised caption:

This (hilarious video) unnecessary mockery capitalizes on (a popular meme) Godwin's law to (great effect) a sickening degree, mercilessly (deriding Obama's new AttackWatch website) comparing Hitler to Obama.

Editor's Note: Occasionally, an Obama ad plays before the video, which only takes money away from his campaign. Personally, we mute these and (create our own humorous voice-overs) weep silently.

Oh my, that is bad. What were we thinking?




Hitler Discovers ATTACKWATCH is a Joke!

Come Out, Come Out Wherever You Are - our Nation Needs a Leader

By Carol A. Taber    President – Family Security Matters

Republicans, we’ve got a problem.  Or better said, boy, do we have an opportunity!

All our putative frontrunners (ever narrowing) are either retreads, dull, old, polarizing, odd, not trustworthy, not ready, or not telegenic.  They have excess baggage, brain deficits, name recognition challenges, peculiar wives, policy mistakes, even less experience than Obama had in 2008, and/or shortages of charisma.  Even so, many people — if not all Republicans and the majority of independents — gladly would vote for these candidates over the unpopular Obama any day of the week; yet, despite the fact that this current president is eminently beatable, no new, exciting face has yet stepped forward to claim the crown, or to electrify the crowd.

And why ever not?  Two recent polls show Obama to be nearly dead in the water.  The numbers from these polls, for an incumbent, are devastatingly ominous.  The Hill newspaper’s recent poll shows that nearly half of American voters (46 percent) say they feel worse off than they did a year ago.  And then the Fox News poll revealed that enormous numbers of Republicans (82 percent) and independents (71 percent) think the country is now weaker than it was five years ago.

What opposition candidate would not want to jump into this slam dunk? America is crying out for a candidate to bring true (as my friend Ruth King says)…change and hope.

Republicans are disappointed too.  A pollster said recently that 75% of the GOP base is unhappy with its candidate selection for 2012.  But what should Republicans do?  First, we’ll have to get over our pesky habit of choosing the “next guy in line,” journeymen who masquerade as stars.  Folks like lukewarm Bob Dole in 1996 and lukecold John McCain in 2008, who naturally enough went down to defeat to electoral steamrollers like Bubba the Philanderer and The Stranger With No Background — candidates who, in their own right, would otherwise have been truly lousy choices.  We can’t afford to repeat this senseless pattern.

Continue reading – click here

Shooting Liberal Fish in a Barrel

By Burt Prelutsky

It isn't merely that they're always wrong about everything that makes leftists so damn obnoxious, it's their unshakeable belief that they're always right.

In a world that calls for logic, they have an endless supply of emotion. Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight, these lunkheads bring a crying towel.

They talk incessantly about the need to raise taxes, mainly to provide for the poor. But, one, it's the taxes that are making more and more people poor and, two, they themselves retain an army of accountants and money managers to keep their tax bite to an absolute minimum. Or, better yet, they arrange things so that they receive their money through trusts, tax shelters and offshore accounts. Or, best of all, they simply cheat on their taxes. So it is that in one of those categories you will find George Soros, Tim Geithner, John and Teresa Kerry, Charlie Rangel, Alex Baldwin and all of the Kennedy's except George.

Time and again, man-made global warming has been shown to be a man-made hoax, but the true believers on the Left will continue promoting it, even when someone like Al Gore curiously changes the nomenclature and begins referring to climate change or climate disruption.

Some liberals are so gullible, I have even been tempted to place an ad in the NY Times or the Washington Post, promising to provide people with guaranteed winners at the race track if they'll send me, say, a hundred bucks. If they did, I'd send them this morning's newspaper with yesterday's race results.

If leftists had the slightest ability to reason, wouldn't they question why Obama and those of his cronies who promote the redistribution of wealth aren't standing on the corner redistributing all of theirs? Obama had millions of dollars when he became president, and today he has even more. George Soros had billions of dollars in January, 2009, and today he has even more. Why is that? It can't be that hard to find poor people who will gladly take the money off their hands. Heck, I'd take it, and I'd even give them the names of some winning horses. But the question remains, why is it only my dough and yours that needs to be redistributed?

Also, why is it that liberals are always talking about social justice? What ever became of plain old justice? So far as I can tell, when so-called progressives tack on "social," what they mean is that there should be two kinds of justice, separate and unequal, one for rich people and one for poor, one for white people and another for everybody else.

The problem is that when Eric Holder, for instance, refuses to prosecute New Black Panthers for intimidating white voters, he is in fact practicing social justice. Which is no justice at all. If anything, it should be called injustice.

Worse yet, it is the sort of thing that Sonia Sotomayor pledged to promote, as a wise Latina, on the Supreme Court.

Which reminds me -- as we begin the long, slow slog to the 2012 presidential election, it is essential that Republicans keep their eye on the prize. It will be a rough, even at times dirty, fight for the GOP nomination. Even without Mike Pence in the running, it promises to be a very crowded field. There are some potential candidates I like a lot, some others not so much. But I vow that whoever emerges victorious from the primary wars will have my support, even if I don't agree with him or her on every last issue.

The essential thing for all Republicans to keep in mind, whether they're RINOs or Tea Party patriots, is that Obama has already appointed two justices to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan and Ms. Sotomayor. The only good thing I can say about them is that, aside from their gender, it didn't alter the makeup of the Court because the ladies were replacing those equally liberal dodos, John Paul Stevens and David Souter.

But God forbid that Obama gets an additional four-year term and has the opportunity to replace 75-year-old Antonin Scalia or place a younger version of 78-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the bench.

Keep in mind that long after the Obamas have gone back to Chicago where they can vote for Rahm Emanuel, party with Bill Ayers and pray with Jeremiah Wright, his Supreme Court appointments could continue to hold sway over everything from health care and same-sex marriages to illegal immigrants and late term abortions.

If you think four years of Obama is bad, just try to imagine what 30 or 40 years would be like.

Read
more excellent articles at The Patriot Post
Opinion

Liberals Don't Deserve America

By Burt Prelutsky

Considering the way that Obama shows his contempt for patriotism time and again -- as when he misquotes the Declaration of Independence, neglects to place his hand over his heart at flag ceremonies and denies American exceptionalism at every opportunity -- you'd think he'd learn to leave symbolic gestures to the professionals. Instead, whether the issue is closing Gitmo, providing civilian trials for Islamic terrorists or racial profiling at airports, his sole consideration seems to be whether something will annoy Muslims. Understand, I'm not claiming he is a Muslim. I have no proof of that. I'm claiming he's an arrogant idiot.

As I see it, America has been setting the world a damn good example for over 230 years. Most people have gotten the message long before now. The exceptions have mainly been Islamics and communists, and they're not looking for good examples; they're looking for world conquest. If the president wants to set a good example, he should stop insulting our allies and mollifying our sworn enemies.

Frankly, whenever I hear those knuckleheads in academia and the media praising the likes of Castro and Chavez or lamenting the loss of Mao or Che, I want to rap on their heads just to hear the echo. I mean, is it possible that they are totally unaware that, starting with Stalin, every communist regime has started out by employing intellectuals (aka "useful idiots") to propagandize on their behalf, and, inevitably, ended up by executing the ultimately unnecessary pests.

The reasons that intellectuals are so dangerous is because, one, they reside in a bubble, be it at a university, a paper or a TV newsroom, where they are surrounded by their clones; and, two, they are so certain that they're smarter than everyone else that any two-bit despot who pays them the least bit of attention will have them acting like lapdogs, eager to lick his hand and kiss his patootie.

Intellectuals remind me of Randy and Evi Quaid. They're the couple that escaped to Canada. Psychiatrists have suggested that the Quaids suffer from folie a deux, the madness of two. It's a delusional state shared by two people who bolster each other's twisted take on reality. When more than two people share the same delusions, we refer to it as the Democratic party.

In the case of the Quaids, they believe there's a secret cabal in America that has been responsible for murdering Michael Jackson and Heath Ledger. The Quaids believe those mysterious assassins they refer to as the Star Whackers are now after them. Of course, any sane person would realize how ridiculous that is. We're talking about Randy Quaid, for crying out loud. He really shouldn't start worrying until he gets word that he's been targeted by the Has-been Whackers.

Finally, getting back to Obama and foreign policy, the man is convinced that we can actually undermine and destroy Iran through economic pressure. That might be described as folie a un. Still, I can see where he might have gotten the idea. After all, it's worked like a charm for him here in America.

Read more excellent articles at The Patriot Post

Voters Speak: No To Soak-The-Rich Schemes

By Michelle Malkin

Do Americans share President Obama’s desire to impose redistributive social justice on the well off? In liberal Washington State, of all places, voters gave a definitive answer this Tuesday: No! The resounding rejection of a punitive “Robin Hood” initiative shows that it’s not just red-state Republicans who oppose extreme tax hikes on the nation’s wealth generators.

As Capitol Hill resumes debate on whether to extend the so-called “Bush tax cuts,” the White House should pay special heed to the fate of little-noticed Initiative 1098. Its defeat by a whopping 65-35 margin doesn’t bode well for Team Obama’s class warriors still clinging bitterly to their soak-the-rich schemes. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner insisted this summer that saddling higher earners with higher taxes was “the responsible thing to do.” Given the chance to weigh in at the ballot box, a diverse majority of voters in the other Washington determined otherwise.

The Evergreen State is just one of seven states in the nation without a personal income tax. The ballot measure, which would have enacted a state income tax on the wealthiest 1 percent of Washington residents to raise $2 billion for bankrupt public schools, was sponsored by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and his left-wing corporate lawyer father. Top donors? The Service Employees International Union, whose state and national chapters threw in a combined $2.5 million of its members’ hard-earned dues money, and the National Education Association, which pitched in nearly $760,000.

Hiding behind kiddie human shields, the I-1098 campaign assailed the wealthy for “not paying their fair share” and plastered their campaign literature with sad-faced students and toddlers. Big Labor has been pushing a punish-the-wealthy movement for months. According to Forbes magazine, “six of the 10 states with the highest income tax rates — Oregon, California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey and North Carolina — raised their levies on high earners, at least temporarily” last year.

But business owners large and small, representing companies from Bartell Drugs to Amazon.com, successfully fought back against the job-killing measure in Washington State. Disavowing the Gateses, Microsoft honcho Steve Ballmer also joined the opposition. The software company’s senior executives expressed grave concern “about the impact I-1098 will have on the state’s ability to attract top tech talent in the future.” Liberal newspaper editorial boards including the Seattle Times and Tacoma News Tribune added their objections, citing I-1098′s reckless targeting of wealth-creation in the middle of a recession and the inevitable extension and increase of income taxes to the middle class. And economists at the independent, nonpartisan Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University found that I-1098′s tax burdens would lengthen and deepen the current economic downturn by destroying private sector jobs, reducing residents’ disposable income and prolonging the state’s high unemployment rate.

Amber Gunn of the free-market Evergreen Freedom Foundation in Olympia, Wash., gave the bottom line on I-1098′s unreality-based advocates: “Initiative proponents like to operate in a Keynesian world where higher tax rates and their effects on human behavior and competitiveness among states don’t matter. But those effects are present in the real world and must be accounted for.”

I-1098′s promoters tried to disguise their wealth-suppression vehicle as tax “relief” by tossing in a few stray targeted cuts. But they were called out by a judge and slapped with a court order to make the income tax burden explicit in the ballot title.

If only the taxmen in Washington, D.C., were required to do the same. Obama’s budget proposal is a soak-the-rich scheme adorned with a few business tax breaks that would — for starters — impose nearly $1 trillion in higher taxes on couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000. Some “relief.”

On Thursday afternoon, still smarting from the nationwide “shellacking” the Democrats received on Election Day, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs signaled that Obama would be willing to “entertain” temporary — not permanent — tax relief for the nation’s highest earners. But a time-limited reprieve in prolonged economic hard times is expedient politics and bad policy. Tax relief should be all or none. The new House majority should force the Democrats to choose.

Republicans must stop allowing the White House to demonize America’s entrepreneurs and producers. By continuing to refer to them as beneficiaries of the “Bush tax cuts” instead of as the besieged victims of Obama tax increases, the GOP cedes the moral high ground. It’s time to make the White House own its noxious war on wealth.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Michelle Malkin is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies (Regnery 2009).

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

Last Week, Juan Williams; This Week, Andrew Breitbart

Project 21 / The National Center for Public Policy Research – Press Release

For Immediate Release
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or (703) 568-4727 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org
Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or jkent@nationalcenter.org

Free Speech "Schizophrenia": Left Claims to Support Freedom and Openness, Yet Up in Arms that Andrew Breitbart Might Express an Opinion on ABC News

The Censorship Continues: Last Week, Juan Williams; This Week, Andrew Breitbart - Who's Next?

Washington, D.C. - Members of the Project 21 black leadership network are expressing disgust over the left's lack of real respect for the First Amendment in light of the uproar among professional liberals that ABC News invited conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart to contribute opinions on election night.

"Silencing speech is the consistent theme used by progressives," said Project 21 full-time Fellow Deneen Borelli. "Not too long ago, NPR threw Juan Williams under the bus because he expressed his feelings, and now ABC News is experiencing the wrath of the left for inviting Andrew Breitbart to appear as a commentator on election night. Progressives will conveniently play the race card or launch smear campaigns in their desperate attempt to control conservative thought."

Breitbart is scheduled to take part in an online election night town hall meeting at Arizona State University to be moderated by ABC News anchor David Muir and Randi Zuckerberg of Facebook. The far-left Media Matters for America, a long-time Breitbart critic, claims the network "puts its credibility on the line" by associating with Breitbart.

Media Matters also published the opinion of Rose Sanders, the attorney for Shirley Sherrod, the former U.S. Department of Agriculture official fired by the Obama White House after a video of part of a speech she gave to a local NAACP event was posted online by Breitbart, and sought, but failed to obtain, the opinion of Sherrod herself. Sanders recklessly compared inviting Breitbart to participate in a media event was like "giving a Klansman an award for burning a cross on Shirley Sherrod's house."

"Shirley Sherrod's lawyer personifies the liberal schizophrenia on the subject of free speech," noted Project 21 member Jerome Hudson. "The Left cannot on one hand be champions of decency and openness and then attempt to suppress Andrew Breitbart's views on the other."

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives since 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org

Read more informative articles at The National Center for Public Policy Research

‘Dogs Don’t Bark at Parked Cars!’

By Ken Blackwell

That’s some of the wisdom my Dad taught me. I thought of that saying when I read the attacks on Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. There’s a concerted effort to marginalize those who think marriage is important. In doing so, the left wants to shut out millions of Americans at the grassroots. But Mr. Perkins never runs from a fight. He’s out in front, leading. And all the dogs are barking at him.

Recently, Mr. Perkins was attacked as a big government backer. Apparently, if you try to defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman, that is supposed to make you an advocate of big government.

Perkins has been fighting for tax cuts and less spending for twenty years. He wants the federal government to stop interfering with the family, stop intruding into small businesses, and stop usurping state and local authority. How does that make him an advocate for big Government?

Some critics think that when you stand up for marriage, that makes you an ally of big government. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The wedding march began through the states in Hawaii. The Aloha State was America’s first majority non-white, majority non-Christian state, and Hawaii voters strongly backed a referendum that prevented the state’s Supreme Court from overturning marriage.

Conservative leaders have teamed up with the people against liberal powers in state after state. All too often, the top dogs of both parties opposed these people’s initiatives, or else hung back.

These state and local groups have rack up popular victories for marriage in 31 states. Wherever the marriage issue appears on the ballot, the people say it loud, say it proud: Marriage is between one man and one woman.

There are no marriage questions on the state ballots this year. Liberal journos are trying to say the movement has lost steam. What? Is that why liberals are afraid to let the issue come to a vote in Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York?

Judges of the Iowa Supreme Court are hanging onto their hats and their seats, facing voter wrath because they decided to overturn marriage – and the people’s voice be silenced.

Thirty-eight million Americans have voted to protect marriage. Marriage is more popular than any other issue on the conservative agenda. Marriage wins in liberal states, like Hawaii and Wisconsin, in conservative states like Kansas and Utah, and in middle-of-the-road states like Virginia and Ohio.

Marriage is no “wedge” issue. Some jounalists like to call it that, as if it’s not important. But Marriage is a bridge issue. Marriage wins among blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and whites.

Marriage appeals to non-college educated as well as to blue collar workers. It’s a way of bringing those elusive Reagan Democrats back into the fold.

In California this year, we may see a Republican win the state house and another go to the Senate. But it’s been more than twenty years since Republicans carried the Golden State for President. While John McCain was going down to a crushing defeat in California in 2008, Proposition 8, the Marriage Protection Amendment, was cruising to victory.

We have heard a lot about compassionate conservatism. And we’ve heard accusations that conservatives are “downright mean.” Well, defending marriage is the most compassionate thing conservatives can do.

Even some liberals recognize this. Bill Galston once worked for Bill Clinton. He says if a young couple will just finish high school, avoid having children out of wedlock, and marry, the chances are only 4% they will ever live in poverty.

Big government feeds on the breakdown of marriage. Our prisons are filling up with fatherless young men. What Bill Bennett wisely called the Broken Hearth fuels demands for more money for extra helpers in schools, for food stamps, for expanded medical coverage – all these needs are exacerbated by the breakdown of marriage.

Today, tragically, nearly 40% of our children are born out-of-wedlock. And big government consumes nearly 40% of our Gross Domestic Product.

I don’t believe the 40/40 link is imaginary?

If you want smaller government, lower taxes, and a return to constitutional principles, the fastest way to do that is to defend marriage, empower the family, and show Americans  real compassion.

Read more informative articles at The Patriot Post

Reid Stuffs Defense Bill

WASHINGTON DC (SR) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he will add the DREAM Act, a highly unpopular and controversial immigration measure offering citizenship to some illegal immigrants, to an upcoming defense policy bill.

DREAM is an acronym for Don't Remove Ethnic Alien Morons.

Reid, who is fighting for his political life, called the DREAM Act "really important, especially for those illegal aliens of voting age living in Nevada."

Reid made the announcement at a Washington DC lowrider convention. 

My comments: This is the kind of stuff we're not going to miss much when you're out of office, you miserable self-serving pinhead!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (front, 2nd from right)

Read
more Insane Satire with off-the-wall Comments at

Scooter's Report

More News Less Facts

Administration Goes Around Congress AGAIN!

From an email:

Who the hell is running this dammed country?!!

Obviously it is not you!

Congressman Rohrabacher!

Just what part of the information “About Congress” below is unclear to you?

“Conducts investigations to oversee the executive branch”

Excuse me Mr. Congressman… When the hell do youo you intend to get off your butt and do your job?

I already told you we did not elect you to just be “present!”  You are
supposed to be protecting our interests as well. intend to get off your
butt and do your job?

I already told you we did not elect you to just be “present!”  You are supposed to be protecting our interests as well.

This is dereliction of duty!Violation of your oathMisprision of Felony

Leaked DHS memo details amnesty without Congress involvement

• September 17th, 2010 12:16 pm PT

A newly leaked amnesty-memo inside
Department of Homeland Security reveals a way to grant amnesty without
Congress debating comprehensive immigration reform or casting a vote.

This is the third inside memo to
be leaked to the media regarding the Obama Administration’s intent to
legalize 20 million illegal aliens currently residing in Ao you intend
to get off your butt and do your job?

I already told you we did not elect you to just be “present!”  You are
supposed to be protecting our interests as well.merica unlawfully. The
first memos came out of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agencies- both put
together likely tools that could be used to make an amnesty end run
around lawmakers.

The American Spectator recovered
the latest document from DHS and reports some dubious plans that
insiders say went all the way up to the DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.

“If going forward with a larger registration program is not possible,”
the memo reads, “we could propose a narrowly-tailored registration
program for individuals eligible for relief under the DREAM Act, AgJOBS,
or other specifically designed subcategories.”

For those who don’t believe the
Obama Administration’s intensions about back-door amnesty language
contained in the DREAM Act asks for targeted amnesty for children under
the age of 35 who attend college or join the armed services. The kicker
with the DREAM Act is the Democratic leadership is placing this
legislation inside a defense spending bill set to hit the Senate floor
next week.

Included in the DHS memo are
details about political ramifications of a backdoor amnesty push. The
memo outlines a beginning phase that would legalize illegal immigrants
through DHS without comprehensive immigration legislation. The DHS memo
also reads that by “using administrative measures to sidestep the
current state of Congressional gridlock and inertia,” would move the new
policy forward by documenting those here illegally.

Measures DHS would implement
include registering, fingerprinting, and screening the illegal immigrant
population-excluding those illegal aliens who have committed a felony-
but DHS envisions handing out eligible illegal immigrants work permits, a
process that would lead to their legal status.

However, the memo acknowledges
that sometime down the road Congress would have to pass legislation to
extend permanent legal residence.

This newly recovered memo is
consistent with inside memos from the USCIS and ICE, a key difference is
the concern about Congress’ reaction to being circumvented. “The
Secretary would face criticism that she is abdicating her charge to
enforce the immigration laws. Internal complaints of this type from
career DHS officers are likely and may also be used in the press to
bolster the criticism.”

In fact the USCIS has been looking
for ways to grant amnesty without Congress for sometime and their memo
outlined the method of skirting lawmakers. According to USCIS some
illegal aliens would be granted resident status by simply handing them
“green cards.”

“In the absence of Comprehensive
Immigration Reform, CIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many
individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations,” the
memo read, two of the four who wrote the controversial memo were
President Obama appointees including the head of USCIS Alejandro N.
Mayorkas.

For more stories;http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/kimberly-dvorak

A Diverse Opinion About Diversity

By Burt Prelutsky

Recently, I heard from a guy who claimed that squirrel tasted just like chicken. Some days, I swear, I get the idea that everything's supposed to taste like chicken. But it brought home the fact that what we eat, as well as what we think, is often more a matter of geography than of anything else. Frankly, I wouldn't care if it tasted like chocolate ice cream, I've never had squirrel on my plate and I aim to keep it that way. As with frogs and snakes, there are some things I regard as food and some things I'd prefer not to think about at all. And that's how I want to keep it.

So it will probably come as no surprise that I am not a champion of diversity even though I am aware that the word, itself, has taken on sacred qualities in certain quarters, along with such words as liberal, progressive and Obama. Leftists mainly enjoy using the word as a club with which to bash conservatives over the head. Suggest that you believe that America's traditional values and culture trump those of other countries, and you can expect to get whacked.

For a couple of hundred years, foreigners have been flocking to the shores of this most welcoming of nations. They would bring along their art and music along with their cuisine, but they adapted their ways in order that their children and their children's children would acclimate and be full-fledged Americans. There was a reason, after all, that America was nicknamed the Great Melting Pot.

But somewhere along the way, there was a sea change. Now we have that oddest of strange creatures known as the dual citizen and we have millions of people living here who apparently have no particular loyalty to this country and are being encouraged to retain their own language and their old ways. "Press one for Spanish, two for English" has become commonplace. Teenagers who have never even set foot in Mexico, Salvador and Guatemala, demonstrate in our streets while carrying foreign flags, and we're all supposed to respect them or be labeled as bigots and xenophobes.

American citizens who are being taxed to death to support illegal aliens are called racists if they object to footing the bill for health care and education for millions of freeloading ingrates who insist they're only reclaiming land that is rightfully theirs.

On top of all that, our kids are being brainwashed in their schools into accepting that the only truly evil society on the face of the earth isn't North Korea, Iran, China or Syria, but their own. They're taught to accept that Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, aren't gangs of butchers and terrorists, but simply freedom fighters. They are carefully taught that Christian and Jewish symbols and traditions are oppressive, but that they mustn't be judgmental when it comes to burkas, beheadings and female mutilation.

By their lights, tolerance is the greatest of all virtues, but only so long as it's not tolerance of anything American.

I accept that our ways wouldn't suit everyone in the world. In some places, after all, cock fights and bullfights are the norm, just as the execution of homosexuals in Iran, the sublimation of women in Saudi Arabia and the eating of dogs in parts of Southeast Asia are apparently part of their disgusting cultures. So while I may not approve of these loathsome activities, I figure they can do what they like, so long as they stay where they are. In fact, staying where they are strikes me as being one hell of an idea.

Read more excellent articles at The Patriot Post.US

Dem Candidates Masquerading As Republicans

SCOOTER'S REPORT EXCLUSIVE - Amid a growing number of reports that Democrat candidates are attempting to hide their party affiliation from voters, we contacted the campaign offices of two candidates involved in high profile races to see for ourselves:

Ohio Rep. Steve Driehaus

Driehaus campaign office (DCO): Driehaus for Congress, may I help You?

SR: Hello. Is Rep. Driehaus a Democrat?

DCO: Do you like Democrats?

SR: Of course not, they suck.

DCO: Well then, I can tell you that you'd like Rep. Driehaus, he's very conservative...

SR: Did he vote for healthcare?

DCO: (Hang up)

Virginia Rep. Glenn Nye

Nye campagn office (NCO): It's a Nye day for America, how may I help you?

SR: Hello. I just want to know if Rep. Nye is a Democrat.

NCO: Rep. Nye doesn't believe in labels...

SR: Look sister, is he a Democrat or not?

NCO: Sort of not...

SR: So then he's a Republican?

NCO: I'd say more like a Republicrat...

SR: There is no such thing.

NCO: (Hang up)

While our investigation was inconclusive, the fact most Democrat candidates are campaigning under an altered version of the traditional party symbol may indicate a possible attempt to mask their affiliation. More on this as it develops.

September 11, 2001: Nine Years On

 By Frank Salvato

The subject of the attacks of September 11, 2001, seems to validate the notion that the American public has an attention span issue. How else can we explain the “tolerance” argument being foisted upon the citizenry by proponents of the Islamic Center and mosque slated for construction just 500 feet from the epicenter of Ground Zero? How else can we explain the abundance of Wahabbist literature in Saudi funded mosques all over the United States? And how else can we explain the fact that a grotesquely overwhelming number of violent acts are committed, daily, in the name of Islam?

 

Can anyone possibly believe these issues would have been embraced with apathy and conciliation on September 12, 2001; just one day after Americans watched their countrymen leaping from jet-fuel infused infernos only to partially disintegrate as they impacted with the ground below?

 

Can anyone imagine any family member of anyone killed by the bloodthirsty and barbaric Islamist ideologues on that fateful day rationalizing the construction of an Islamic center and mosque on what is literally the graveyard for 2,977 souls; souls dispatched in the name of Allah and Muhammad?

 

And what of the encroachment of Sharia into the Western culture, into the American culture? Would anyone who still remembered how they felt when they saw the first tower of the World Trade Center collapse be inclined to debate whether Muslim communities should be permitted to establish Sharia councils to mitigate issues within their communities here in America; councils that operate outside the constitutionally constrained legal system? Does anyone in their right mind believe that the barbaric Islamic traditions of honor killing and genital mutilation have a place in the 21st Century?

 

In the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, Americans from all political corners joined hands, minds and hearts in a firm determination to finally say that the scourge of radical Islamist violence needed to be confronted; needed to be vanquished; needed to be erased from the face of the Earth. On September 12, 2001, each and every American knew that to walk away from this battle – a battle foisted upon us not by our own choosing but by fundamentalist and violent Islamists – was to invite an even more catastrophic event to our shores, one that, perhaps and God forbid, could test the strength of the American will in the face of a massive bio-chemical or even nuclear attack.

 

Yet today, nine years later, we have elected as our leaders sympathizers and appeasers who are using the Iraqi and Afghan battle theaters as pawns in an ideological political game; who call the war against aggressive, radical and violent Islam an “overseas contingency plan”; and who do practically everything in their power to undercut the West’s most valuable ally in the Middle East – Israel – short of attacking her themselves.

 

Today, nine years after Muslim radicals, in an aggressive and offensive act of terrorism, dispatched 2, 977 human beings from the Earth, cries from beyond the grave beg for us to protect those still living from a similar fate; cries that ride on every wind that navigates the urban canyons of Manhattan, every ring of the Pentagon and through the fields of Shanksville.

 

But, increasingly, the American public cannot hear the cries. We are listening to agenda-driven news outlets that spotlight our elected leaders telling us we are to blame, that America is bad. We are commanded by the Progressive-Liberals to listen to CAIR and the “bridge-builder” Feisal Abdul Rauf explain to us that we are at fault, that our government made Osama bin Laden and the murderous cretins of September 11, 2001, who flew planes into buildings screaming, “Allahu Akbar!” We are too busy arguing politics to hear the pleas from beyond that warn us all – each and every one of us – to take this confrontation seriously. We are too busy.

 

A cursory examination of the Islamic culture (of which, admittedly, I am not a fan) reveals that the warriors and war designers of the Islamic world view confrontation and conquest in the measurement of centuries not decades or years. By contrast, the United States of America (only 234 years old, give or take the formative years prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence) and more importantly, the American culture, has been trained by the ideologically opportunistic to employ a sitcom attention span to all of the issues it faces; everything must be reconciled in thirty minutes, minus commercial breaks, titles and credits. Where Muslims of conquest are planning for a global Islamic Caliphate ruled by Sharia law, Americans are planning for the weekend.

 

And still the lost souls of September 11, 2001, continue to scream, to implore, to plead to anyone who will listen.

 

While we should be asking why the Islamic culture facilitates an overwhelming number of terrorist acts around the world, doing so in the name of Allah, Muhammad and Islam, many in the West – mostly Progressives, Liberals and one-worlders – insist that Islam is a “religion of peace.” Why? The facts do not lead to that conclusion. Truth be told, the facts lead to the exact opposite.

 

Since September 11, 2001, there have been approximately 16,000 acts of Islamist terrorism. That breaks down to approximately 4.8 acts of violence, 4.8 acts of Islamist terrorism, each and every day. Does this qualify Islam to claim the moniker “religion of peace?”

 

As with every other religious text, there are contradictions in the Quran. But, unlike other religions, the Quran mandates reconciliation for these contradictions. It is explained in the Quran that if two passages contradict each other the passage written later supersedes the one written earlier. Given that the “peaceful” and “tolerant” passages of the Quran were written in the early years and the violent conquest and supremacist oriented passages in the later years, the violent tenets of Islam – per the Quran – abrogate the peaceful tenets. Why haven’t we taken the time to understand this absolute fact about this ideology? Why haven’t the so-called “moderate Muslims” shared this fact with other cultures? Why do we allow appeasers and sympathizers to Islam mislead us on what the Quran actually mandates?

 

And what of the Wahabbist tenet of al taqiyya? Al taqiyya is defined, literally as,

 

“Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger – whether now or later in time – to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.”

 

In essence, al taqiyya can be generally defined as the legitimization of deception. Yet Progressives, liberals and one-worlders insist on the peaceful purity of Islam, as they seek to negotiate, to extend an “unclenched fist,” to Islamists like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad; to enter into peace talks with the Taliban and Mullah Omar. Would we be so quick to accept the “sincerity” of fundamentalist and radical Islamists were we not ignorant of the deception employed through al taqiyya?

 

What else don’t we understand about Islam? About jihadists? About the Quran? Why are Progressives, Liberals and one-worlders entered into such a dysfunctional relationship with Islam? Why are they playing the roles of “useful idiots” to Islam’s thirst for conquest?

 

If we do anything to honor the 2,977 souls lost on September 11, 2001, we should weigh heavily on the facts surrounding Islam, its history, its philosophy, its ideology and the intentions of those who follow the Quranic edicts of Muhammad blindly. If we do nothing else to appease the restless souls of those slaughtered by the Islamists of 9/11 we must quest for the truth so that we might act to secure our future.

 

We, Americans, have forgotten the pain of the fire that burned us on September 11, 2001. We have allowed the pain to subside, the scar to heal; we have done our best to “move on.” Sadly, in a confrontation of cultures, such as this is – ideological, violent, totalitarian, deceptive and oppressive – moving on leaves our society and the culture of the Western World open to conquest. We “move on,” we forget, at our own peril.

 

God bless the lost souls of September 11, 2001, comfort their families and friends and give us the strength to survive, as individuals and as a nation.

 

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative.

Federal Zoning, Anyone? How About Nationalization of Energy w/o Congressional Approval?

Project 21 / The National Center for Public Policy Research – Press Release

Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or (703) 568-4727
     or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or jkent@nationalcenter.org

Federal Zoning, Anyone? How About the Nationalization of Our Energy Industry Without Congressional Approval?

President Obama Has Just Used an Executive Order to Do Both, New Analysis Says

Washington, D.C. -  Secretly and behind closed doors, the Obama Administration has cooked up a new scheme to subject all of America's waterways -- oceans, rivers, bays, estuaries, and the Great Lakes -- to federal zoning.

So says a new policy paper by Bonner Cohen, Ph.D., a preview of which has been published this afternoon in the Daily Caller.

The new policy, imposed July 19 in the form of a presidential Executive Order, so far has received scarcely any attention from the press, Congress or policy community.

"The scope of what the administration is putting together is no less ambitious than its health care and cap-and-trade initiatives," says Bonner Cohen, Ph.D., author of the analysis and Senior Fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research. "Industries -- from agriculture, timber, and shipping to fishing, mining, and oil and gas -- stand to be affected. The inclusion of the Great Lakes in the plan signals the reach of the new policy. Indeed, the Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio River Valleys will be targeted every bit as much as coastal North Carolina or Alaska."

The initiative is so broad in scope, Dr. Cohen says, it could lead to the nationalization of our energy industry even if Congress declines to adopt controversial cap-and-trade legislation.

Under Obama's Executive Order, Dr. Cohen says, "The EPA -- far and away the nation's most powerful regulatory agency -- could, for example, determine that emissions from power plants are harming the oceans. And if Congress fails to pass a cap-and-trade bill, the EPA could use the pretext of protecting the oceans to clamp down on greenhouse gas emissions as another extra-legislative way to pursue the administration's global-warming agenda."

Despite its low profile and immense impact, Cohen says, a White House-directed interagency task for spent over a year on the project. No Congressional approval or meaningful Congressional input was sought.

The Daily Caller preview of Dr. Cohen's study is available at http://tw0.us/Pyv.

For interviews with Dr. Cohen, please contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or (703) 568-4727 or Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan conservative, free-market think-tank established in 1982.  It receives less than one percent of its revenue from corporations.  It can be visited online at www.nationalcenter.org

National Center for Public Policy Research
501 Capitol Court, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 543-4110
Fax (202) 543-5975
E-Mail: info@nationalcenter.org
Web: www.nationalcenter.org

A (Consistently) Dishonest Broker?

By David Isaac

On September 2nd, direct talks began between Arabs and Israelis. During the August 20 press conference announcing the talks, Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell was asked by a reporter whether President Obama would be seen as an “honest broker” by the two sides. In the case of Israel, the answer, to put it bluntly, is no.

There are, of course, the obvious concerns about our current president: His acceptance of the Palestinian-Arab narrative, revealed during his Cairo speech when he rejected “the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” his attempt to make political hay out of Israel’s announcement of new home construction in Jerusalem, and his obnoxious behavior towards Israel’s prime minister during their March meeting. The pieces create a whole that would disturb any Israeli negotiator’s night’s sleep.

But the fact of the matter is, regardless of whether a U.S. president is more or less favorably disposed to the Jewish state – and in this case, certainly less – the United States has consistently pursued a policy that is inimical to Israel and accepting of the Arab position. This policy entails Israel’s return to the strategically indefensible 1949 Armistice lines – what Abba Eban called a “death trap.”

Since 1967, every administration has put forth plans that pushed for Israel’s surrender of the territories it captured in the Six Day War. Policy-makers ignore the fact that areas like Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”) never belonged to the Arabs. Legally, they remained part of the British Mandate for Palestine. They were seized illegally by Jordan in a war of aggression. They were then wrested from Jordan by Israel in a war of defense. The idea that these are ‘illegally occupied lands’ is the language of anti-Israel Arab propaganda, a figment of a fictional history.

Yet, it’s on this fabrication that the U.S. bases its policy, arguing for Israeli withdrawal. What happens when Israel does surrender territory is clear from the case of Gaza – now a Hamas launching pad for missiles into Israeli population centers. Gaza’s decline has not shaken the belief of American policy-makers that Israel must continue to cede captured territory.

Largely to blame is the State Department, which has a well-documented antagonism to Zionism dating from the First World War. Its motives are two-fold: A desire not to antagonize the Arabs and a fear of risking the flow of oil. For each incoming president, it trots out the same old policy dressed up in new clothes. Unless a U.S. president has strong views to the contrary and the will to impose them, the State Department’s policy will emerge triumphant.

From the start, America has shown itself to be an untrustworthy ally. In 1948, only three years after the Holocaust, when five well-armed Arab states with the support of the British attempted to annihilate the newly formed Jewish state, the U.S. incongruously declared an arms embargo on both sides. In 1967, America attempted to restrain Israel even as Arab forces gathered on its border.

In the Yom Kippur War, it was the U.S. that turned Israeli victory to defeat by pressuring Israel to refrain from destroying the Egyptian Third Army. Nor let us forget how Israel was restrained by the first Bush administration from retaliating when Iraqi Scud missiles rained down on it.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor David Isaac is a former executive director of Americans for A Safe Israel and currently serves as editor of the Web site ShmuelKatz.com.