Atlas Shrugs:

Tommy Robinson, EDL Chief: "Any Rogue Elements Within the EDL That Go Against Our Mission Statement will be Removed from the Organization"

Tommy Robinson, leader of the EDL, just issued this statement to SIOA moments ago. I am relieved that they recognize they have a problem and intend to address it. I will carefully watch how events unfold.

Here is Robinson's statement on the conflict within the EDL:

The English Defence League was formed two years ago. One of the fundamental beliefs that this movement was built on was its support for Israel’s right to defend itself. In our first demonstrations, we went to Birmingham, and we flew the flag of Israel, the Star of David. In the first public speech I ever gave, I wore the Star of David in Leeds. The reason for this is because Israel is a shining star of democracy. If Israel falls, we all fall. This is what our movement has been built on for two years.

The English Defence League will not be deterred from its support for Israel and the Jewish people. Recently, in the EDL there have been internal arguments, which are nothing more than that. Every large family has its disagreements, but when push comes to shove, we all stand on the same side.

Meanwhile, some people on the fringes of this movement wish to direct it toward their own agenda. This will never happen. Israel is a beacon of democracy amid repressive Arab states. Recently some people have jumped on the EDL bandwagon and tried to use our platform to express anti-Semitic views. These statements are not in accord with the fundamental beliefs of the English Defence League. These people are not welcome, never have been welcome, and never will be welcome within the EDL. We reject all anti-Semitism. The EDL stands where it always has stood, which is side-by-side with Israel.
We repudiate any individual, group or writing that favors anti-Semitism, neofascism, and any race-based ideology. Any rogue elements within the EDL who go against our mission statement and our beliefs will be removed from the organization; we are determined to remain true to our mission. Anti-Semitism will not ever be tolerated within the EDL.

The EDL stands for freedom. It always has, it always will. We want the Jewish people and all free people to remain free forever, and we all stand together in this fight against Islamic jihad.

EDL Shake-up

I was an early supporter of the EDL. I liked who they were and what they were doing. When the EDL first came on the scene, I noted their strong support of Israel: Israeli flags at their rallies, and forthright expressions of solidarity with the Jewish State in its resistance to the same relentless jihad that is advancing in Britain. Almost immediately there came the inevitable charge from the jihad-loving Left that the group was "neo-Nazi," "neofascist," "white supremacist," and more. So I started investigating. I found that they rejected the British National Party's racial orientation, and that they had members who were Sikhs, Pakistanis, gays and other minorities, and even, eventually, a Jewish division. The idea of pro-Israel neo-Nazis is a myth of the Left, and so the presence of the Jewish division was decisive. I was troubled by the photos of EDL members giving the Nazi salute, but discovered that the EDL was aware of neo-Nazi attempts at infiltration, and had a policy of expelling anyone who expressed any kind of antisemitic or neofascist sentiments. They even refused to allow people to be members of both the EDL and the BNP. So it seemed to me at the time that the EDL was a genuine anti-jihad group, strongly pro-Israel as every legitimate anti-jihad group must be, since Israel is at the front lines of the global jihad, and resolutely rejecting racism and any form of actual neofascism.

However, it has become increasingly clear that the EDL has morphed and diverged from its original course. They now have clearly been infiltrated by the worst kind of influences, something that had successfully staved off for years, and they're no longer staving it off. Roberta Moore, the leader of the Jewish Division, has broken with the EDL. Perhaps the decentralization of the group or the loose grip Tommy Robinson held on its tether is responsible for this terrible shift in the EDL's direction -- I don't know. But whatever the case may be, the EDL has done a Charles Johnson. And they are now unrecognizable to me. I am sure regular Atlas readers have noticed that some time ago I stopped covering their events -- I was waiting to see how things would shake out. I was waiting to see if the forces of good would recapture the heart and soul of the group. Alas, it was not to be.

Now that the person whom I most trusted in the EDL, Roberta Moore, has resigned, as she was increasingly uncomfortable with the neo-fascists that had infiltrated the administration of the group, I too am withdrawing my support from the EDL. I hope that genuine anti-jihadists in Britain will also leave the EDL and work with Roberta on starting a new group that will resist definitively and firmly all attempts to divert it from its mission of fighting against jihad and for human rights.

GOP: I Give You Fair Warning

You had better get your act together and be assertive in the campaign for the White House in 2012. Otherwise, Obama is going to get re-elected.

I base my assertion on an essay I read in the Washington Post:

Obama’s trash-talking presser
By Dana Milbank,
Published: June 29

The best answer President Obama gave at his news conference was to a question nobody asked.

An hour into his unusually feisty performance in the East Room, the president was responding to CNN’s Jessica Yellin, who had pressed him on the deadline for raising the debt limit, when he decided to make a larger point.

“I’ve got to say, I’m very amused when I start hearing comments about, ‘Well, the president needs to show more leadership on this,’” Obama said, referring to the complaint made by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) when he walked out of budget talks. “Well, hey, lemme tell you something,” he said with a smile, chopping the lectern with an open hand.

“This thing,” he said after reciting the instances of his involvement in the talks, “is just not on the level.” To the Republicans, he said, “they need to do their jobs. . . You need to be here. I’ve been here. I’ve been doing Afghanistan and bin Laden and the Greek crisis.”

Obama gave a case-closed shrug. “All right,” he said. “I think you know my feelings about that.”

This was Obama as he ought to be. He often seems passive in public, giving friend and foe alike the impression that his presidency is adrift on matters from Libya to gay marriage to the debt talks. But on Wednesday, in his first full news conference in three months, he was uncharacteristically assertive...

[...]

“Call me naive, but my expectation is that leaders are going to lead,” Obama admonished the opposition. He likened the Republicans to kids who procrastinate on their homework, and to deadbeats: “They took the vacation. They bought the car. And now they’re saying, ‘Maybe we don’t have to pay’ . . . We’re the greatest nation on Earth and we can’t act that way.”

Populism, pugilism and American exceptionalism: From a stoic president, this was a refreshing blend.

Obama wants to play hardball, it seems.

GOP, you had better get into the game with a hardball offensive of your own. Act the wimp, and the Oval Office will again belong to Obama.

Mark my words: the strong man (or woman) will be the victor in November 2012.

Pennsylvania Commonsense Self Defense & Gun Legislation

Back in November the Pennsylvania State legislature passed Castle Doctrine legislation and sent it to Governor Ed Rendell (D) who promptly vetoed it.

Essentially, the law stated you had every right to defend yourself with deadly in your own home, that you did not have to retreat to the wall, without fear of prosecution. That was already accepted but unstated. Legally, retreat to the wall before defending yourself was official. The legislation would have changed all that.

But it went much further. It extended Castle Doctrine rights to any place you had a right to legally be with a handgun. You would now have been able to defend yourself without fear of prosecution, or lawsuit from the attackers family or the attacker (if he survived) and had no duty to retreat before doing so if you were able to retreat. Keeping in mind, of course, that you believed you or your loved ones were in imminent physical danger.

This concept is more commonly referred to as Stand Your Ground but the legislature continued to call it Castle Doctrine. Tat isn't really important.

The ramifications of this change in law would have been huge. People like myself who carry a weapon regularly have always had it in the back of their mind that, if they were attacked, there was a good chance WE could be prosecuted for defending ourselves. Even if we were ultimately found innocent, the legal fees to get there would have been crippling and it would not have precluded a wrongful death or injury lawsuit from and award to the perp or his family.

Well, Fast Eddie wouldn't agree to this thinking, that you should be able to defend yourself without being labeled the bad guy.

Then, Tom Corbett was elected. When the new session took office the legislation was immediately reintroduced and it rapidly (well, as rapidly as anything can move through a state legislature) passed through The Pennsylvania House and Senate.

Corbett signed it into law on Tuesday.

NRA-ILA:

Pennsylvania Governor Signs NRA-Backed Castle Doctrine into Law

Tuesday, June 28, 2011


Fairfax, Va. - Governor Tom Corbett has signed Pennsylvania Castle Doctrine legislation into law. This common-sense measure permits law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their home and any place where they have a legal right to be. It also protects individuals from civil lawsuits by an attacker or attacker’s family when force is used.

Pictured left to right, Sen. Rich Alloway, Gov. Tom Corbett, NRA-ILA
Pennsylvania State Liaison, John Hohenwarter and Rep. Scott Perry“Gov. Corbett and Pennsylvania lawmakers know that law-abiding citizens must have the right to protect themselves when criminals attack without fear of being second-guessed by an overzealous prosecutor,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Crime victims don’t have the luxury of time when confronted by a criminal and must be able to count on the law being on their side. This new law accomplishes that by removing any mandate of forcible retreat.”

The NRA has led the nationwide movement to pass Castle Doctrine legislation, beginning with Florida in 2005. Pennsylvania is the 27th state to adopt this important measure with overwhelming bipartisan support. House Bill 40, sponsored by Rep. Scott Perry (R-92), passed by a 164 to 37 margin. Richard Alloway, II (R-33), sponsored the companion bill to HB 40, Senate Bill 273, which passed 43-4.

“I am very gratified that Governor Corbett has signed this legislation into law, correcting the grievous error made by the previous administration in denying these long-sought protections to our citizens,” said Rep. Perry. “There are many people who have worked hard to get this legislation to this point, and I am grateful to my House and Senate colleagues and to the National Rifle Association for their support. The time has finally come to return common sense and good judgment to state government, and this legislation is a step in that direction. A criminal should never have an advantage over a citizen who abides by the rules of decent society, and today, we finally achieved the goal of returning the right of self-defense to the law-abiding.”

"Law-abiding gun owners should not have to fear prosecution for acting to prevent a violent crime," said Sen. Alloway, who introduced Castle Doctrine legislation that was approved by the Senate in March. "I am thankful that the General Assembly has taken action to protect responsible gun owners who respond when facing a serious threat from a criminal. I would also like to thank the NRA for their strong leadership and hard work on this effort as it moved through the legislative process.”

“On behalf of NRA members and all gun owners in Pennsylvania, I would like to thank Rep. Perry; Sen. Alloway; and Gov. Corbett for their leadership in helping make Castle Doctrine a reality for Pennsylvanians,” concluded Cox. “This Castle Doctrine bill places the law on the side of law-abiding gun owners who unfortunately become victims of crime – exactly where the law should be.”

-----

a quick note: a big hat tip to Snowflakes In Hell, and excellent Pennsylvania gun blog, for both this and the story below.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Founders understood what a militia was. So, too, does North Carolina. And now they've made it official..

North Carolina Gun Blog:

NC Governor signs Militia Law

Do you live in North Carolina? Did you know that you are a member of the Militia? The Governor of North Carolina recently signed House Bill 250, which updated the laws that govern the Militia of North Carolina.

In North Carolina, the Militia is composed of several bodies. First, the North Carolina National Guard

"§ 127A‑3. Organized militia; National Guard.

The North Carolina National Guard, both army and air, Army and Air, shall consist of regularly commissioned, warrant and enlisted personnel between such ages as may be within the age limits established by regulations promulgated by the secretary of the appropriate service and shall be organized, governed, armed, equipped and have such the duties and responsibilities as hereinafter provided.provided in this Chapter.

Second, the Naval Militia

"§ 127A‑4. Organized militia; naval militia.

The naval militia shall consist of regularly commissioned, warrant and enlisted personnel between such ages as may be within the age limits established by regulations promulgated by the secretary of the appropriate service and shall be organized, governed, armed, equipped and have such the duties and responsibilities as hereinafter provided.provided in this Chapter.

Third, the “State Defense Militia” which is an organized militia not subject to federal call up.

"§ 127A‑5. Organized militia; State defense militia.

The State defense militia shall consist of commissioned, warrant and enlisted personnel called, ordered, appointed or enlisted therein by the Governor under the provisions of Article 5 of this Chapter and shall be organized, governed, armed, equipped and have such the duties and responsibilities as hereinafter provided.provided in this Chapter.

Fourth, the “Historic Military Commands” which sound interesting, but I don’t know anything about.

"§ 127A‑6. Organized militia; historic military commands.

Historic military commands are those historic groups which remain active by meeting at least once a month and which follow military procedures. Only such groups as may be designated by the Governor shall fall within this branch of the militia. Any maximum age limits prescribed by this Chapter shall not be applicable do not apply to members of historic military commands.

And finally, the Unorganized Militia.

"§ 127A‑7. Composition of unorganized militia.

The unorganized militia shall consist of all other able‑bodied citizens of the State and of the United States and such all other able‑bodied persons who have or shall declare their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be at least 17 years of age, except those who have been convicted of a felony or discharged from any component of the military under other than honorable conditions.

You can see from the quoted paragraph that some changes were made to the law governing the Unorganized Militia. This should tell you that if something else was intended, they could have very easily changed it. Unfortunately for those anti-gun types who dispute that the Militia exists, and that it includes much more than the National Guard, this law confirms that each and every able bodied adult citizens of North Carolina, minus a few exceptions, are members of the Militia. Note carefully that it does not restrict militia membership to men. That means that women are also members of the NC Militia. Yay equality!

The Governor can call the militia if she wants to.

"§ 127A‑88. Manner of ordering out unorganized militia.

The Governor shall, when ordering out the unorganized militia, designate the number. He The Governor may order them out either by calling for volunteers or by draft. He The Governor may attach them to the several organizations of the North Carolina National Guard, the State defense militia or naval militia, as may be best for the service.

"§ 127A‑89. Draft of unorganized militia.

If the unorganized militia is ordered out by draft, the Governor shall designate the persons in each county to make the draft, and prescribe rules and regulations for conducting the same.it.

"§ 127A‑90. Punishment for failure to appear.

Every member of the militia ordered out for duty, or who shall volunteer or be drafted, who does not appear at the time and place ordered, shall be liable to such punishment as a court‑martial may determine.determined by a court‑martial.

So if the word goes out and you don’t show up as ordered, you get a Court Martial. The Governor doesn’t need to worry about me. If the State is in such a bad bind that I would be considered more of a help than a hindrance, I’ll show up.

There’s even a section where the State will promote marksmanship.

"§ 127A‑91. Promotion of marksmanship.

The Adjutant General is authorized to detail a commissioned officer of the North Carolina National Guard or member of the State defense militia to promote rifle marksmanship among the State defense militia and the unorganized militia of the State. Such The officer or member so detailed shall serve without pay and it shall be his dutythe duty of the officer or member to organize and supervise rifle clubs in schools, colleges, universities, clubs and other groups, under such rules and regulations as prescribed by the Adjutant General shall prescribe and in such a manner to that will make them, when duly organized, acceptable for membership in the National Rifle Association. Provided, that such these duties and efforts shall in nowise interfere or conflict with clubs of schools or units operating in R.O.T.C.Reserve Officers' Training Corps or similar schools under the supervision of armed forces instructors.instructors of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Oh, dear. Does that mean that the State is supposed to offer organized marksmanship training in regular schools throughout the State? And worse, these training clubs should be organized in a way acceptable to the evil NRA?!?! I wonder if they will be promoting Appleseed shoots? Do you think I can convince them to loan me a proper rifle for my training class?

Well, that puts paid to the ignorant concept that the “Militia” referred to in the Second Amendment refers solely to the National Guard. Don’t let the gun grabbers know. With all the other things going on, they’d probably not take it well.

This Week on The Gathering Storm

Listen to The Gathering Storm Radio Show, hosted by WC and Always On Watch. The show broadcasts live every Friday beginning at noon, Pacific Time, for 30 minutes.

The call-in number is 646-915-9870.

Callers welcome!

Our scheduled guest this week is The Beak.

Listen to the June 24, 2011 edition of The Gathering Storm Radio Show, live or later, by CLICKING HERE.

UPCOMING SHOWS

The Koran Contains More Jew-Hatred Than Mein Kampf

“Approximately 51% of the Medinan Koran text is about jihad and verbal threats directed against Jews, non-Muslims and hypocrites (half-hearted Muslims). The Koran of Medina is 10.8% Jew hatred in nature. By comparison, only 6.8% of the text (measured by paragraphs) of Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kamph is anti-Jewish.”

via Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI)

Jihadist site was obliterated

A jihadist website was wiped out:

WASHINGTON (AP) - A popular jihadist Internet forum has been knocked off the Internet, and counterterrorism experts say it appears it was hacked.

Cybersecurity analysts say the al-Shamukh forum appears to have been taken down by a fairly sophisticated cyberattack that hit not only the website, but the server - which is the main computer that enables people to access the site over the Internet.

Evan Kohlmann, a counterterrorism expert who tracks jihadist websites as a senior partner with Flashpoint Partners consultancy in New York, described the site as a key al-Qaida propaganda forum.

He said it bounces around between Internet hosts every few months, but has seemingly been allowed to exist as an open secret, possibly allowing a Western government to use it as an intelligence resource.

"These sites can be like spy satellites, they're great ways of gathering information about your adversaries," he said in an interview late Wednesday. "Bringing them down is like shooting at your own spy satellites. But there are others who don't agree with that."

He said there's been a "struggle behind the scenes" in the U.S. government about whether to allow the site to stay up.

Other cyber experts agreed that the site is a popular jihadist forum.

"The al-Shamukh website had become the most trusted and exclusive haunt for e-jihadists," said Jarret Brachman, a terrorism expert who has spent a decade monitoring al-Qaida's media operations and advises the U.S. government. "If it doesn't come back up soon, the forum's registered members will start migrating to the half a dozen other main forums, all of whom are probably chomping at the bit to replace Shamukh as the pre-eminent al-Qaida forum."

The Defense Department said late Wednesday that it was aware of reports that al-Qaida's Internet operations had been disrupted, but could not comment on the specific incident.

Kohlmann raised the possibility that a government could be behind the website's problems.

If true, this would not be the first time that government officials have sabotaged an al-Qaida website.

U.S. and British officials have acknowledged that British intelligence authorities launched a cyberattack against al-Qaida's English-language Internet magazine, Inspire, taking down directions for bomb-making and replacing them with cupcake recipes.

U.S. authorities had considered knocking the magazine off the Internet but realized it would just go down for a few days, then reappear, according to one U.S. official. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the U.S. believed it was more productive to keep an eye on the site and glean intelligence from it.

Kohlmann said chatter from another message board known to be frequented by al-Qaida members confirmed that there was a technical problem with the al-Shamukh forum website and that the outage wasn't intentional, such as performing site maintenance.

The fact that the forum wasn't knocked out sooner is revealing. Forcing a website offline can be a relatively easy matter. A so-called denial-of-service attack, which floods a website's servers with enormous amounts of webpage requests is a popular hacking activity. But it apparently wasn't used in this instance. Instead, cyber experts said it was a more complex attack.

Keynote Systems Inc., a San Mateo, Calif.-based company that specializes in measuring Internet and cellphone network response times, confirmed that the site was completely down from 14 cities around the world.

Based on the kind of error the site was giving people who tried to view the site, it is likely that someone stole the domain name and caused traffic to go to the wrong server, or that someone got access to the system and directed it to not return content, said Dan Berkowitz, spokesman for Keynote.

Kohlmann said it appears that the people who control the website were diligent about backing up the content, so it could be back online soon.

NBC News first reported the site was hacked Wednesday.

If the al Qaeda terrorists who were running the site are ready to load it again, that's why all concerned must be ready to stop them again.

Durbin: An Illegal Alien Could Become President One Day

The MSM and the Left will attack any Conservative who (seemingly) flubs a little bit of history here and there.

But let one of their own not know the law he is expected to uphold. . .

Wait! Maybe he's just another politician making another false promise to gain votes!



If you need any more proof that this administration has no intention of upholding the laws and defending America just look at this video. All those people are here illegally, Nappy was there in the room, and none of them feared arrest.

Guess they were worried they were now on the target list, what with "recent revelations" about the ISI and the bad guys (but I repeat myself)

Financial Times:

Pakistan shuts US out of drone base
By Farhan Bokhari in Islamabad, James Lamont in New Delhi and Daniel Dombey in Washington
Pakistan has called a stop to US drone flights from a base that has launched strikes against Taliban and al-Qaeda militants on its border with Afghanistan.

In the latest sign of US-Pakistan tensions, Chaudhary Ahmed Mukhtar, defence minister, said on Wednesday that Islamabad had ended US operations at the Shamsi airbase in Baluchistan. The move comes after a surge of anti-American feeling in the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden last month in a US raid on Abbottabad, a Pakistani hill station.

The Shamsi base, about 300km from Quetta and close to the Afghan border, has been used to launch drone strikes on militants – part of a campaign the US says has wiped out about half of al-Qaeda’s leadership.

“No US flights are taking place from Shamsi any longer. If there have to be flights from this base, it will only be Pakistani flights,” Mr Mukhtar told the Financial Times. “We have ended all US flights from the base.”

the rest here

Obama Opens Contact With the Muslim Brotherhood - He Should Also Open Contact With The Aryan Nations

After all, they are both virulent Hate Groups.

From Politico:

One senior U.S. official said the Brotherhood’s rise in political prominence after the forced departure of former President Hosni Mubarak earlier this year makes the American contact necessary.

“The political landscape in Egypt has changed, and is changing… It is in our interests to engage with all of the parties that are competing for parliament or the presidency,” said the official, who confirmed the news to Reuters on condition of anonymity.

The Muslim Brotherhood - founded in 1928 to promote a conservative version of Islam in politics, culture and society – has previously had some communication with the U.S. through Brotherhood Members of Parliament who had been technically elected as independents. U.S. diplomats had been instructed only to deal with Brotherhood members in their role as Members of Parliament.

Politico repeatedly attempts to make this controversy all about the Jews, stating:

The U.S. has decided to formally resume contact with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood group - which does not recognize Israel – in a move that could further alienate some Jewish voters already skeptical of President Barack Obama, it was reported. 

The decision to resume contact with the Muslim Brotherhood group may worry members of the Jewish community and Israeli officials, Reuters reported.

POLITICO’s Ben Smith wrote yesterday about the increasing anxiety of center-left Jewish Democrats who are losing faith in Obama, most recently because of the speech in which he called for the country’s 1967 borders to be the basis for peace talks, with “land swaps.”

But Israel has nothing to do with it. The problem is, the Muslim Brotherhood has made it very clear their goal is the destruction of the United States, and the subjugation of the entire world under the law of Islam:

For those of you curious to the Muslim Brotherhood project here in America and in the West, read this document that was entered into evidence during the largest Hamas funding trial, the Holy Land trial, in US history. In it, all of the usual suspects are named, CAIR, ISNA, MAS, MSA et al,were named as un-indicted co-conspirators. Their stated goal is "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within."

The Muslim Brotherhood -- in its own words
PMW translation of
"Jihad is the way" by Mustafa Mashhur
Leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, 1996-2002

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

One of the results of the turmoil in Egypt is the rise in influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. In order to understand the implications, Palestinian Media Watch has translated the book Jihad is the way by Mustafa Mashhur, who was the official leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt 1996-2002. The book is the fifth volume of his full work called The Laws of Da'wa (Islamic missionary activity).

In his book, Jihad is the way, Mashhur explains the fundamental concepts of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology. Mashhur's teachings encompass subjects such as the Muslim Brotherhood's goal of establishing an Islamic state, world domination under Islam, the public and personal religious duty of military Jihad, and the warning not to rush to Jihad until it is prepared and timed for maximum benefit. Click to view full translation in PDF

PMW has selected the following quotes from Jihad is the way to illustrate central ideas of Muslim Brotherhood ideology. PMW's translation of the book follows below.

National goal: Islamic world domination

- "...the Islamic Ummah [nation]... can regain its power and be liberated and assume its rightful position which was intended by Allah, as the most exalted nation among men , as the leaders of humanity..."
- "...know your status, and believe firmly that you are the masters of the world, even if your enemies desire your degradation..."
- "It should be known that Jihad and preparation towards Jihad are not only for the purpose of fending-off assaults and attacks of Allah's enemies from Muslims, but are also for the purpose of realizing the great task of establishing an Islamic state and strengthening the religion and spreading it around the world..."
- "...Jihad for Allah is not limited to the specific region of the Islamic countries, since the Muslim homeland is one and is not divided, and the banner of Jihad has already been raised in some of its parts, and it shall continue to be raised, with the help of Allah, until every inch of the land of Islam will be liberated, the State of Islam will be established,..."

Means: Jihad - a mandatory religious duty

-"Then comes the power of arms and weapons,... and this is the role of Jihad."
- "Jihad is a religious public duty... incumbent upon the Islamic nation, and is a personal duty to fend off the infidels' attack on the nation..."
- "And the youth should know that the problems of the Islamic world, such as Palestine, Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea, or the Philippines, are not issues of territories and nations, but of faith and religion. They are problems of Islam and all Muslims, and their resolution cannot be negotiated and bargained by recognizing the enemy's right to the Islamic land he stole, therefore, there is no other option but Jihad for Allah, and this is why Jihad is the way."
- "The symbol of the [Muslim] Brotherhood is the book of Allah [the Quran] between two swords. The swords symbolize Jihad and the force that protects the truth represented in Allah's book."
- "...that is, go out to battle, oh believers, young and old, by foot or with animal, under all circumstances and conditions..."

Timing: Don't rush, prepare carefully for Jihad

- "... despite this, the [Muslim] Brotherhood is not rushed by youth's enthusiasm into immature and unplanned action which will not alter the bad reality and may even harm the Islamic activity, and will benefit the people of falsehood..."
- "... one should know that it is not necessary that the Muslims will repel every attack or damage caused by the enemies of Allah immediately, but [only] when ability and the circumstances are fit to it."
- "Prepare yourself and train in the art of warfare, and embrace the causes of power. You must learn the ways and manners and laws of war. You must learn them and embrace them and adhere to them, so that your Jihad will be the one accepted by Allah."
- "... there exists an unavoidable personal duty for every Muslim to equip himself and prepare and gear-up towards Jihad..."

Personal goal: Aspire to Shahada - Death for Allah

- "Allah is our goal, the Prophet is our leader, the Quran is our constitution, the Jihad is our way, and the Death for Allah is our most exalted wish."
- "The Jihad is our way and death for Allah is our most lofty wish", this is the call which we have always called,... Many of our beloved ones have already achieved this wish,... We ask Allah to accept all of them,... and may He join us with them, ..."

Jihad against Israel:

- "Honorable brothers have achieved Shahada (Martyrdom) on the soil of beloved Palestine, during the years 47' and 48', [while] in their Jihad against the criminal, thieving, gangs of Zion. The Imam and Shahid (Martyr) Hassan Al-Banna is considered as a Shahid (Martyr) of Palestine, even if he was not killed on its soil."

“John Lennon was a closet Republican”

John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star’s last personal assistant.

Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon’s death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self.

In new documentary Beatles Stories, Seaman tells filmmaker Seth Swirsky Lennon wasn’t the peace-loving militant fans thought he was while he was his assistant.

He says, “John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter could have turned anyone into a Reagan voter. HE DID IT FOR ME, someone who worked for George McGovern, as Carter displayed the ultimate outcome of naive foreign affairs, and how it played back into day to lay domestic life.

And today, J CARTER ON CRACK.

Related articles

• Aide: Lennon Was Closet Republican (newser.com)

The truth, and this is favorite rant of mine, is that you would be hardpressed indeed to find ANY history teacher in America teaching true American history. It has all been politicized and politically corrected and whitewashed (gasp! you racist bastard you!). How can we expect American kids to old someone like Thomas Jefferson as a hero (well, this kid does) when he was HORRORS! a slave owner, boinking one of them and having a kid with her.

Or Benjamin Franklin (Another of this kid's) that lecherous old beer drinking womanizing satanist.

So the Desperate Housewives at the Jersey Shore Bachelor crowd need to learn a few things before they start tossing their sticks and stones trying to break political bones.

Because as Palin and Bachmann and Glenn Beck And WC and Epaminondas and Always On Watch and Pastorius and myself will tell you the raw unvarnished TRUE story of America is far more fascinating, warts and all, than any sanitized corrected for the times version you'll hear in school.

Or from George Staphylococcus

The Blaze:

Was Michele Bachmann Unfairly Maligned Over Her ‘Founding Fathers’ Comments?

Rep. Michele Bachmann’s “Founding Fathers dilemma” started back in January when she claimed that the nation’s first leaders had “worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.” In response, ABC News wrote the following:

Many of the founders, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, were, in fact, slave owners. And as every middle school history teacher will tell you, the founding fathers virtually ignored the issue of slavery. It was not until the mid 1800s that slavery became a contentious issue in American politics.

Interestingly, numerous sources cite some of the Founders, indeed, speaking out against slavery (as every middle school history teacher should be able to tell you). In a letter written to Robert Evans on June 8, 1819, John Adams wrote, ”Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States … I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in … abhorrence.”

Even George Washington, the nation’s first president, stood firmly planted against the institution of slavery. PBS has more:

In 1786, Washington wrote to two Americans expressing his desire to see the lawful end to slavery. In a letter to Robert Morris he wrote, “I hope it will not be conceived from these observations, that it is my wish to hold the unhappy people, who are the subject of this letter, in slavery. I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it; but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that is by Legislative authority…”

To John Francis Mercer he wrote that it was among his “…first wishes to see some plan adopted, by the legislature by which slavery in this country may be abolished by slow, sure, and imperceptible degrees.”

And these are only two examples. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and others also made their views clear on the issue. So with this in mind, one wonders: Was Bachmann absolutely incorrect in her assertions? Many liberals would say “yes,” but reality paints a much more complicated picture. Yesterday, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos took the presidential candidate to task over her statement about the Founding Fathers. He said:

“…earlier this year you said that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence worked tirelessly to end slavery. Now with respect Congresswoman, that’s just not true.”

Bachmann’s response is intriguing. She stands by her previous statement and claims that Founding Father John Quincy Adams worked throughout his life to free the slaves. Stephanopoulos, somewhat flabbergasted, flatly rejects the notion that Adams was a Founder. Bachmann’s complete response is condensed below:

“Well if you look at one of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, that’s absolutely true. He was a very young boy when he was with his father serving essentially as his father’s secretary. He tirelessly worked throughout his life to make sure that we did in fact one day eradicate slavery….Well, John Quincy Adams most certainly was a part of the Revolutionary War era. He was a young boy but he was actively involved.”

Here, Bachmann is very clear in describing who she is referring to. John Quincy Adams, being John Adams’ (a founding father) son, was indeed alive during the nation’s founding. In her statements, Bachmann did not confuse the historical characters, nor did she insinuate that the latter Adams was an adult at the time.

Her use of the words “Founding Fathers” is likely a more general reference to all of those individuals who were a part of the nation’s founding. Perhaps one could accuse her of exaggerating the boy’s role, but calling her “stupid, “insane” and “misinformed” is a bit of a stretch.

Throughout John Quincy Adams’ life he was a staunch opponent of slavery. His views, no doubt, were shaped in part by his father who, as is quoted above, hoped for the “total extirpation of slavery.”

You can watch the dialogue between Stephanopoulos and Bachmann below:

Business Insider‘s Henry Blodget also decided to explore whether Bachmann’s statements had some validity. He writes:

Based on this article in Encyclopedia Brittanica, it seems fair to say that some of the founding fathers opposed slavery, and that some of them worked to limit it on the state level. But as a group they certainly didn’t work tirelessly to end it…

The commitment to the status quo (legalized slavery) among the “southern founders” was particularly strong, and the “northern founders” didn’t challenge this. Slavery remained legal in the northern states, even though few people owned slaves. And only one of the slave-owning “southern founders” actually freed his slaves after the nation was founded.

So did Michele Bachmann completely revise history when she said the founders worked tirelessly to end slavery? No.

But was Michele Bachmann correct? No.

Blodget is right that the Founders did not “work tirelessly” to end slavery, but it is possible that the elder Adams’ views inspired his sons. As historical documentation shows, these leaders may not have put their words into action, but many of them did, indeed, have serious qualms about slavery.

In the end, historical evidence seems to corroborate a basis for what Bachmann was saying. Embellishing is one thing and being flat out wrong is another. In this instance, the congressman barely scratches the surface of the former and certainly is nowhere near the latter.

Below, watch Jimmy Kimmel’s “Michele Bachmann’s Story of America,” in which she is, once again (though it is admittedly comical), maligned:

"We've Crossed Some Strange Boundary Here. The World Has Taken A Turn For The Surreal "

Weekly Standard:

North Korea to Head U.N. Conference on Disarmament

On Tuesday, the United Nations again made itself an international laughing stock – except perhaps to the American taxpayers who continue to foot 22 percent of the bill – by appointing North Korea chair of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. That would be the same North Korea that, according to an article this week by Senator John Kerry, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has “twice tested nuclear weapons…is developing missiles to carry them…has built facilities capable of producing highly enriched uranium for more nuclear weapons” and has defied a U.N. arms embargo by exporting weapons and sensitive technologies to rogue regimes.



Alas, Senator Kerry is also one of the lead champion of the United Nations in the Senate. According to the U.N., "The Conference is funded from the UN regular budget, reports to the General Assembly and receives guidance from it."

North Korea assumes the Conference chairmanship by being the next state in the alphabetical rotation of the 65 members, which include five nuclear weapons states and 60 other countries such as Iran and Syria. North Korea will preside over the Conference for a four working-week period.

North Korea’s representative, So Se Pyong, was enthusiastic about his new job. He announced that he was “very much committed to the Conference” and that during his presidency he “welcomes any sort of constructive proposals that strengthened the work and credibility of the Conference on Disarmament.” He also said that “he would do everything in his capacity to move the Conference on Disarmament forward.”

That might make sense, if by “forward” he means toward a nuclear winter, or by “constructive,” he means steering clear of anything that might impede North Korea. The official mandate of the Conference looks a bit different and includes “all multilateral arms control and disarmament problems” with the following “main areas of interest”: “cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament; prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters.”

North Korea’s chairmanship was heralded by other U.N. aficionados, including the Iranian delegate to the Conference. Iran’s Mohammad Hassan Daryaei told the Conference meeting: “I would like to congratulate the distinguished ambassador of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for the assumption of the presidency and assuring him of my delegation’s full support and cooperation.”

Iran’s support is telling. Just yesterday Iran's Revolutionary Guards tested 14 long-range missiles that could carry a nuclear weapon, with the express purpose of hitting U.S. interests and Israel, according to the head of their aerospace division.

Congratulations also poured in from such upstanding world citizens and U.N. fans as China. China’s Wang Qun “welcomed the presidency of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.”

It was left to the Canadian delegate to speak plainly. Canada’s Marius Grinius said: “[I]n the last 13 years the Conference has failed to move forward on its core disarmament responsibilities, including the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty…[T]he Conference on Disarmament is on life support because it no longer is the sole multilateral negotiating forum for disarmament. Indeed, it is not negotiating anything and has not been for a very long time.”

Why not just put it out of its misery and pull the plug?

"We've Crossed Some Strange Boundary Here. The World Has Taken A Turn For The Surreal" Hey, I Just Sa. . .

CNSNews:

U.S. Designates Israel as Country That Tends ‘To Promote, Produce, or Protect’ Terrorists; Also Calls Israel Anti-Terror Partner
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
By Edwin Mora

(CNSNews.com) - In an implicit admission that Israel is so threatened by terrorism that it is not only surrounded by countries and territories that produce terrorists but also unwillingly harbors terrorists within its own territory in a way that most other nations in the world do not, the Obama administration is currently listing Israel among 36 “specially designated countries” it believes “have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.”

Also included on the list--separately from Israel--are the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza, as well as Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, the four nations bordering Israel.

All but five of the nations included on the administration’s “specially designated country” list have majority Muslim populations (see the list below).

The five countries on the list that do not have majority Muslim populations--Kazakhstan (47 percent Muslim), Eritrea (36.5 percent Muslim), Israel (16.9 percent Muslim), the Philippines (5 percent Muslim) and Thailand (4.6 percent)--have had internal problems with radical Muslim terrorists, as reported by the State Department. The State Department has designated Eritrea as a country that is “not cooperating fully” with U.S. anti-terrorism efforts.

The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General published the list of "specially designated countries" as an appendix to an unclassified May 11 report--"Supervision of Aliens Commensurate With Risk"--that was publicly posted on the Internet. (The appendix is on page 18 of the document.)

As a matter of policy, according to the inspector general’s report, citizens of Israel and other “specially designated countries” are subjected to a special security screening called a “Third Agency Check” (TAC) when they are actually detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the division of the Department of Homeland Security responsible for enforcing the immigration laws.

ICE officers are supposed to check all aliens they take into custody against the Terrorist Watchlist, which includes the identities of individuals the U.S. government knows or reasonably suspects to be terrorists. When ICE holds a citizen from a “specially designated country” in its own detention facilities, according to the agency’s standing policy, the individual is also supposed to be run through a TAC.

“In addition to the Terrorist Watchlist screening, ICE uses a Third Agency Check (TAC) to screen aliens from specially designated countries (SDCs) that have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members,” says the inspector general’s report.

“The purpose of the additional screening is to determine whether other agencies have an interest in the alien,” says the report. “ICE’s policy requires officers to conduct TAC screenings only for aliens from SDCs if the aliens are in ICE custody. As a result, ICE does not perform a TAC for the majority of its population of aliens, which includes those incarcerated or released under supervision.”

The inspector general recommended in the report that ICE change its screening policy “to require officers to conduct TAC screenings for all aliens from SDCs, not just those held in ICE detention facilities.”

“ICE’s current TAC policy is ineffective because ICE does not perform a TAC for 99% of the population of aliens from SDCs,” said the inspector general’s report. “According to ICE, TACs have resulted in high-profile prosecutions of suspected terrorists.”

In its official response to the report, ICE objected to this recommendation by the inspector general because the agency says it does not have sufficient resources to do TACs on all aliens from the specially designated countries.

Even though the adminisration includes Israel among “specially designated countries” that it believes "have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members,” ICE Spokeswoman Gillian Christensen told CNSNews.com that the U.S. also considers Israel, as well as some other countries on the “specially designated countries” list, as partners in the struggle against terrorism.

“The U.S. does not and never has considered Israel to have links to terrorism, but rather they are a partner in our efforts to combat global terrorism,” Christensen said in a written statement. “Countries may have been included on the list because of the backgrounds of arrestees, not because of the country’s government itself.”

“The United States maintains close intelligence-sharing relationships with many of these countries in order to address security issues within their own borders and in our mutual pursuit of safety and security around the globe,” said Christensen.

ICE declined to say who put Israel on the list or when Israel was put there. However, in her written statement, ICE spokeswoman Christensen said the “specially designated country” list had been created "at least" seven years ago--which would have been during the presidency of George W. Bush--and that ICE was not responsible for creating it.

“This list of countries has been in existence for at least seven years,” said Christensen. “Further, ICE does not issue such designations. As the OIG report notes, the purpose of the additional screening is to determine whether other agencies have an interest in the alien ICE has in custody.”

However, on Mar. 4, 2008, the McClatchy Newspapers published a report--“Law enforcement officials secretly profiling immigrants”--that cited a memo from Ted Stark, a supervisory special agent with ICE’s Office of Intelligence, that proposed creating a single federal list of “special interest” countries (plus the West Bank and Gaza) to aid federal agencies in screening aliens.

“So many federal agencies have created different lists that U.S. officials contemplated adopting a single one to streamline the process, Stark wrote,” said the McClatchey report. “The proposed list, which officials said had yet to be adopted, includes 35 countries, most with significant Muslim or Arab populations.”

“The group of agencies--which included ICE, the National Security Agency and U.S. Customs and Border Protection--not only recommended one list but also suggested an interagency definition of ‘special interest alien,’” said the McClatchey report. “Under the proposal, a special interest alien would be an immigrant with terrorist ties or an immigrant who by nationality, ‘ethnicity or other factors may have ties or sympathies’ with the listed country.”

The 35 countries plus the West Bank and Gaza that were on the proposed list discussed in the ICE memo uncovered by McClatchey in March 2008 almost exactly matches the “specially designated countries” on the list published by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General on May 11, 2011. There are only two differences: North Korea was on the list proposed in 2008; it is not on the May 2011 list. Israel was not on the list proposed in 2008; it is on the May 2011 list.

The State Department currently lists only four countries as “state sponsors of terrorism,” meaning they “have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.” These state sponsors of terror are Iran, Sudan, Syria, and Cuba. Iran, Sudan and Syria are all listed along with Israel on the “specially designated countries” list published by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General on May 11. Iran, Sudan and Syria are also all majority Muslim countries.

Cuba, the one state sponsor of terror that does not share a place with Israel on the administration’s “specially designated countries” list, was 85 percent Roman Catholic when the Castro regime took power, according to the CIA World Factbook. It also had Protestant, Jewish, Jehovah Witness and Santeria populations, says the CIA. According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, however, Cuba currently has only a very small Muslim population that equals only one-tenth of one percent of the total Cuban population.

North Korea, which was on the proposed list reported by McClatchey in 2008 but is not included on the list of “specially designated countries” that the DHS inspector general published in May, has a Muslim population that is less than one-tenth of one percent of its total population, according to Pew.

CNSNews.com contacted the offices of Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, both of whom served as secretary of Homeland Security during the Bush administration, to ask if the department had listed Israel among “specially designated countries” during their tenures. Neither Ridge nor Chertoff responded.

SPECIALLY DESIGNATED COUNTRIES

Here are the countries and territories on the “specially designated country” list published on May 10, 2011 by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General. Except for Somalia and Yemen, the CIA’s World Factbook is the source for each country’s Muslim population percentage. For Somalia and Yemen, the source is the Pew Research Center’s 2009 report, “Mapping the Global Muslim Population.”

Country or Territory Muslim Population

Mauritania 100 percent

Saudi 100

Turkey 99.8

Gaza Strip 99.3

Yemen 99.1

Afghanistan 99

Algeria 99

Morocco 98.7

Somalia 98.5

Tunisia 98

Iran 98

Iraq 97

Libya 97

United Arabs Emirates 96

Uzbekistan 96

Djibouti 94

Pakistan 95

Jordan 92

Tajikistan 90

Egypt 90

Bangladesh 89.5

Turkmenistan 89

Indonesia 86.1

Kuwait 85

Bahrain 81.2

Qatar 77.5

West Bank 75

Oman 75

Syria 74

Sudan 70

Malaysia 60.4

Lebanon 59.7

Kazakhstan 47

Eritrea 36.5

Israel 16.9

Philippines 5

Thailand 4.6

Humpday Blues

Ana Popovic
Sittin' On Top of the World

Walter Russell Mead Takes On Al Gore, and Scores a Devastating Knockout!

From PJM:

Can anyone doubt that Walter Russell Mead is now our country’s most authoritative and brilliant essayist? In a series of three lengthy columns — two of which are now out — Mead takes on and destroys any pretentions to credibility that Al Gore may still have had. They appear on Mead’s blog at The American Interest. You can read part I here, and part deux, as he calls it, here.

Let me whet your appetite by reproducing the best paragraph from his first entry. In part one, Mead takes up the issue of Gore’s well noted hypocrisy. He writes:

But you cannot be a leading environmentalist who hopes to lead the general public into a long and difficult struggle for sacrifice and fundamental change if your own conduct is so flagrantly inconsistent with the green gospel you profess. If the heart of your message is that the peril of climate change is so imminent and so overwhelming that the entire political and social system of the world must change, now, you cannot fly on private jets. You cannot own multiple mansions. You cannot even become enormously rich investing in companies that will profit if the policies you advocate are put into place.

Later he adds:

But grave as that danger is, Al Gore can consume more carbon than whole villages in the developing world. He can consume more electricity than most African schools, incur more carbon debt with one trip in a private plane than most of the earth’s toiling billions will pile up in a lifetime — and he doesn’t worry. A father of four, he can lecture the world on the perils of overpopulation. Surely, skeptics reason, if the peril were as great as he says and he cares about it as much as he claims, Gore’s sense of civic duty would call him to set an example of conspicuous non-consumption. This general sleeps in a mansion, and lectures the soldiers because they want tents.

In his second installment, Mead takes up the question of why Gore’s star has fallen so fast, and why very few people at present take him seriously — even his own previous followers. The answer, Mead reveals, is the complete failure of the green movement’s own political agenda. Mead explains:

Gore’s failures are not just about leadership. The strategic vision he crafted for the global green movement has comprehensively failed. That is no accident; the entire green policy vision was so poorly conceived, so carelessly constructed, so unbalanced and so rife with contradictions that it could only thrive among activists and enthusiasts. Once the political power of the climate movement, aided by an indulgent and largely unquestioning press, had pushed the climate agenda into the realm of serious politics, failure was inevitable. The only question was whether the comprehensive green meltdown would occur before or after the movement achieved its core political goal of a comprehensive and binding global agreement on greenhouse gasses.

That question has now been answered; the movement failed before it got its treaty, and while the media and the establishment have still generally failed to analyze these developments and draw the consequences, the global climate movement has become the kind of embarrassment intellectuals like to ignore.

Page 1 of 2  Next ->

When I was a kid we had a bully at school. Everyone does. He was also a blowhard and loudmouth, as most bullies are.

I was a target but not his only one.

Then one day he got in my face and started trashing my best friend's younger sister to me.

An instant later he was on the macadam looking up at me with a bewildered where-did-that-come-from expression.

Off to the principal we were sent. Who told us not to fight anymore and dismissed us.

The bully never bothered me or my friends again.

Ann Coulter:

Glenn Beck Vs. The Mob
by Ann Coulter

Of all the details surrounding the liberal mob attack on Glenn Beck and his family in New York's Bryant Park last Monday night, one element stands out. "No, it won't be like that, Dad," his daughter said when Beck questioned the wisdom of attending a free, outdoor movie showing in a New York park.

People who have never been set upon by a mob of liberals have absolutely no idea what it's like to be a publicly recognizable conservative. Even your friends will constantly be telling you: "Oh, it will be fine. Don't worry. Nothing will happen. This place isn't like that."

Liberals are not like most Americans. They are the biggest pussies on Earth, city-bred weaklings who didn't play a sport and have never been in a fight in their entire lives. Their mothers made excuses for them when they threw tantrums and spent way too much time praising them during toilet training.

I could draw a mug shot of every one of Beck's tormentors, and I wasn't there.

Beck and his family would have been fine at an outdoor rap concert. They would have been fine at a sporting event. They would have been fine at any paid event, mostly because people who work for the government and live in rent-controlled apartments would be too cheap to attend.

Only a sad leftist with a crappy job could be so brimming with self-righteousness to harangue a complete stranger in public.

A liberal's idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to a conservative public figure who can't afford to strike back. Getting in a stranger's face and hurling insults at him, knowing full well he has too much at risk to deck you, is like baiting a bear chained to a wall.

They are not only exploiting our lawsuit-mad culture, they are exploiting other people's manners. I know I'll be safe because this person has better manners than I do.

These brave-hearts know exactly what they can get away with. They assault a conservative only when it's a sucker-punch, they outnumber him, or he can't fight back for reasons of law or decorum.

Liberals don't get that when you're outnumbering the enemy 100-1, you're not brave.

But they're not even embarrassed. To the contrary, being part of the majority makes liberals feel great! Honey, wasn't I amazing? I stood in a crowd of liberals and called that conservative a c**t. Wasn't I awesome?

This is a liberal's idea of raw physical courage.

When someone does fight back, liberals transform from aggressor to victim in an instant, collapsing on the ground and screaming bloody murder. I've seen it happen in a nearly empty auditorium when there was quite obviously no other human within 5 feet of the gutless invertebrate.

People incapable of conforming to the demands of civilized society are frightening precisely because you never know what else such individuals are capable of. Sometimes -- a lot more often than you've heard about -- liberals do engage in physical violence against conservatives ... and then bravely run away.

That's why not one person stepped up to aid Beck and his family as they were being catcalled and having wine dumped on them at a nice outdoor gathering.

No one ever steps in. Never, not once, not ever. (Except at the University of Arizona, where college Republicans chased my assailant and broke his collarbone, God bless them.)

Most people are shocked into paralysis at the sight of sociopathic liberal behavior. The only ones who aren't are the conservative's bodyguards -- and they can't do anything without risking a lawsuit or an arrest.

My hero Tim Profitt is now facing charges for stopping a physical assault on Senate candidate Rand Paul by a crazed woman disguised in a wig.

But the disturbed liberal whose assault Profitt stopped faces no charges -- she instigated the entire confrontation and then instantly claimed victim status. In a better America, the cop would say, "Well, you provoked him."

Kentucky prosecutors must be very proud of how they so dutifully hew to the letter of the law (except in the case of Paul's assailant).

Maybe they wouldn't be such good little rules-followers if they ever, just once, had to face the liberal mob themselves. But if Beck's own daughter can't imagine the liberal mob, I suppose prosecutors can't be expected to, either.

Michael Moore and James Carville can stroll anywhere in America without risking the sort of behavior the Beck family experienced. But all recognizable conservatives are eternally trapped in David Dinkins' New York: Simply by virtue of leaving their homes, they assume a 20 percent chance of being assaulted.

Bullying is on the rise everywhere in America -- and not just because Obama decided to address it. It's because no one hits back. The message in our entire culture over the last two decades has been: DON'T FIGHT!

There were a lot fewer public confrontations when bullies got their faces smashed.

Maybe it's time for Beck to pony up some of those millions of dollars he's earned and hire people to rough up the liberal mob, or, at a minimum, to provide a legal defense to those like Profitt who do.

These liberal pukes have never taken a punch in their lives. A sock to the yap would be an eye-opening experience, and I believe it would do wonders.

They need to have their behavior corrected. It's a shame this job wasn't done by their parents. It won't be done by the police.

As long as liberals can't be normal and prosecutors can't be reasonable, how about a one-punch rule against anyone bothering a stranger in public? Then we'll see how brave these lactose-intolerant mama's boys are.

Believe me, liberal mobbings will stop very quickly after the first toilet-training champion takes his inaugural punch.

Palin, the Flotilla, and the L.A. Times Khalidi/Obama Tape

From Roger Simon at PJM:

Over fourteen months ago, I wrote the following on Pajamas Media:

Given the extraordinary sudden turnabout in US policy toward Israel under the Obama Administration, I have become obsessed by the repressed 2003 videotape of Rashid Khalidi and Barack Obama. That tape — or so we are told — is ensconced in a safe at the Los Angeles Times building. In the current situation, its release by the paper is more important and newsworthy than ever.

The Khalidi tape could be of tremendous significance in revealing the provenance of Obama’s views on the Middle East and the degree to which the public was misled on those views during the presidential campaign….

Rashid Khalidi — a Palestinian-American historian known for his strong pro-Palestinian opinions — is currently the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia and director of that university’s Middle East Institute. After Khalidi received this Columbia appointment in 2003, a farewell dinner party was held in his honor in Chicago. A videotape was made of that party where many good things were said about the Palestinian cause and many bad things about Israel. Then Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama was in attendance, as were, some say, William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

Since then my obsession with this hidden tape has, if anything, grown, inspired by Obama’s continuing ambivalence, veering toward contempt, for the state of Israel. Others have recently chimed in on the subject, like Jim Hoft noticing a certain irony in LAT’s behavior spurred by recent events (“L.A. Times Won’t Release Obama-Khalidi Tape But Posts 24,000 Sarah Palin Emails“). And then Stanley Kurtz amplified Hoft with “Release the Redacted Transcript!” Making note that the Times claims to have promised not to release the video itself, Kurtz wrote: “I doubt the L.A. Times will ever release the actual video tape, but I do think there’s a scenario in which a transcript might be produced.”

Perhaps because I live in L.A. and know the LAT well, have written for it on occasion, I am far less optimistic than Stanley that such a revelation would occur. Though better written than the lefty blog, the L.A. Times is barely three degrees to the right of the Daily Kos and many times more stodgy. The Times admits mistakes less often than Markos Moulitsas. And I suspect their editorial board would rather see the return of the McNamara Brothers, who dynamited the Times building in 1910, than do anything that might possibly harm the reelection of Barack Obama.

Page 1 of 2  Next ->