Iran, perceiving threat from West, willing to attack on U.S. soil, U.S. intelligence report finds
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Newt Battles Mush From the Wimps
By Jeffrey Lord on 1.31.12 @ 6:08AM
Palin targets Establishment GOP "cannibals" terrified of party's conservative base.
"Ford Declares Reagan Can't Win"-- Headline in The New York Times, March 1, 1980
Yet still more mush from the wimps.
To borrow a famous Reagan phrase: "Well, there they go again."
Somewhere an exasperated Gipper is doubtless shaking his head.
The war between conservatives and the Republican Establishment -- and make no mistake, this is a war -- is on once more.
The people who brought the GOP losing candidates from Dewey to Dole are at it again.
Last week's assault on Newt Gingrich -- with various Romney supporters seriously and deceptively trying to tell unwitting voters that Gingrich was never really a real Reagan ally-- in reality has nothing to do with Newt Gingrich at all.
The attack on Gingrich's Reagan credentials, by the way, which I discussed here, backfired badly on the Romney forces. They were quickly dropped when:
• Reagan's White House political director and campaign manager Ed Rollins crisply dismissed them, Rollins saying that Gingrich in the Reagan-era was "one of the most important players and most loyal to Ronald Reagan."
• Another video surfaced of Nancy Reagan saying, "Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt"
• Last but certainly not least, Michael Reagan spoke up, pointedly ending the entire idiotic line of attack. Said Ronald Reagan's son:
I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.
Recently I endorsed Newt Gingrich for president because I believe that Newt is the only Republican candidate who has both consistently backed the conservative policies that my father championed and the only Republican that will continue to implement his vision.
Game. Set. Match.
But the real question here is: Why? Why do this kind of politically senseless, totally tone-deaf thing?
There is an answer. An answer directly related to that headline above quoting former President Gerald Ford as insisting Reagan couldn't win the general election in 1980. The same charge, by the way, that Ford made against Reagan in 1976 when the two tangled over that year's presidential nomination.
Sarah Palin knows the answer. Governor Palin gets it.
And the former Alaska Governor, with characteristic courage, was not shy about taking the conservative fight directly to the GOP Establishment with this statementon Facebook titled "Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left." Starting off this way, Palin said:
The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today….
Palin continued in this vein, adding:
But this whole thing isn't really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties' operatives with a complicit media egging it on.
Sarah Palin is dead-on right.
If Newt Gingrich disappeared from the planet today and in his place stood only Rick Santorum -- or Sarah Palin herself or some other conservative -- you can be certain the Establishment GOP would have their sights trained on that conservative, running some version of precisely the same multi-gazillion dollar campaign they are running against Newt Gingrich right now. As a matter of fact, they did exactly this to Governor Palin from the very moment she stepped on the national stage in 2008. If by chance Rick Santorum emerges as the sole conservative left in this race -- look out Rick.
Why is this?
The hard fact of the political matter, to give the short version, is that with the advent of the American progressive movement at the beginning of the 20th century, there were many in the Republican Party who in their own fashion went over the side, abandoning the good ship of conservative principles. It's not that they necessarily left the GOP -- although some, most prominently Theodore Roosevelt -- did so. No, what happened is that they simply folded like a cheap suit, caving to what they were certain would be the eternal popularity of the progressive movement. Becoming what was eventually known as the "me-too" Republican. Or, in the tart summation of Barry Goldwater, supporters of "the dime store New Deal." Today, the name is RINO -- Republican in Name Only.
Our Elective Despotism
By Lawrence Sellin
There are many things obvious to ordinary Americans that cannot be mentioned publicly in the polite political company of the Republican and Democratic establishments or among their press agents in the mainstream media, who obligingly pirouette around the truth.
For example, both the Republican and Democratic establishments are composed of hopelessly corrupt, procrastinating control freaks, who seek fame and fortune through over-spending money they didn't earn and enthusiastically crushing any spontaneous outbreaks of democracy among U.S. citizens, for example, the Tea Party.
Thomas Jefferson warned us of the danger of "elective despotism:"
"They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price. Human nature is the same on every side of the Atlantic, and will be alike influenced by the same causes. The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered."
Unfortunately, the wolf is already in the fold.
Taking the rhetoric up a notch from Jefferson, Israeli historian J. L. Talmon coined the term "totalitarian democracy," a political system in which lawfully elected representatives rule a nation state whose citizens, although granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of government.
If you do not think the United States has become an elective despotism, think again.
One of the most honest and courageous members of Congress in decades, Rep. Allen West (R-FL), is about to become a sacrificial lamb of the collusion between the Republican and Democratic establishments in the state of Florida.
And what is West's crime? He is an independent thinker and a rising star of the Tea Party movement.
The Republican establishment hates the Tea Party because it has the audacity to suggest that American citizens should have a voice in their government.
Led by Mitt Romney's spokesman, Representative Will Weatherford, the Republican legislature in Florida is about to push through a re-districting plan, which would redraw the boundaries of Allen West's 22nd Congressional District to include far more registered Democrats and put West at an even larger disadvantage than he was previously.
Under elective despotism, the government is transformed from one based on traditional values, articles of faith and the support of individual liberty into one in which social utility and political expediency take absolute precedence.
Having no allegiance to the principles upon which America was founded, Barack Obama, aided and abetted by the political establishments and the mainstream media, is in the process of dismantling our Constitution and fulfilling his promise to radically transform the country.
In his State of the Union address, President Obama did not present a plan for restoring America, he left a suicide note. Obama, the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media are in the final stages of a self-destruct sequence, while the Republican establishment passively sits by America's deathbed watching President Kevorkian deliver the poison.
Mitt Romney, the chosen one intended to bring balance to the Republican Force, touts his business experience as a credential for the presidency. Unfortunately, political, not business decisions are made in Washington, D.C., and those decisions are no longer constrained by the Constitution and the rule of law.
It is corruption of our political system, not just financial corruption that is the single, most important issue of the 2012 election.
The arrogance of political establishment has only gotten more brazen since 1993, when Lewis H. Lapham ("A Wish for Kings") wrote:
"The politicians dress up the deals in the language of law or policy, but they're in the business of brokering the tax revenue, and what keeps them in office is not their talent for oratory but their skill at redistributing the national income in a way that rewards their clients, patrons, friends and campaign contributors."
Examples of the corrupt status quo:
- More than 50 percent of the members of the U.S. Congress are millionaires.
- The median wealth of a U.S. Senator in 2009 was 2.38 million dollars.
- Insider trading is legal for members of the U.S. Congress -- and they refuse to pass a law that would change that.
- The percentage of millionaires in Congress is more than 50 times higher than the percentage of millionaires in the general population.
Regarding the crisis of our current national debt, put simply, unconstrained spending by the government is the product of unconstrained corruption in the government.
Here is another political heresy: the emperor has no college records.
Yes, I have the temerity to believe that Barack Hussein Obama should be thoroughly vetted before the 2012 election.
We know far more details about Gingrich's marriages, Romney's mutual funds, Paul's prehistoric newsletters and the voting block made up of Santorum's children than a bare minimum of facts that we need to know about the current Occupier of the Oval Office.
The time has come for the American people to commit political blasphemy by showing a healthy irreverence towards the political establishment and the status quo.
"Cowardice asks the question 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but because conscience tells one it is right."-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Latest Congressional Budget Outlook For 2012-2022 Released, Says Real Unemployment Rate Is 10%
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/31/2012
What do the NAR, Consumer Confidence and CBO forecasts have in common? If you said, "they are all completely worthless" you are absolutely correct. Alas, the market needs to "trade" off numbers, which is why the just released CBO numbers apparently are important... And the fact that the CBO predicted negative $2.5 trillion in net debt by 2011 back in 2011 is largely ignored. Anyway, here are some of the highlights.
- 2012 Deficit: $1.1 trillion; 2013 Deficit: $0.6 - yes, we are cackling like mad too...
- Unemployment to remain above 8% in 2012 and 2013; will be around 7% by end of 2015; to drop to 5.25% by end of 2022.
- This forecast is utterly idiotic and is completely unattainable unless the US workforce drops to all time lows and the US economy generates 300,000 jobs a month for 10 years
- Needless to say, CBO assumes the best of all worlds in this meaningless forecast
- But here is the kicker: "Had that portion of the decline in the labor force participation rate since 2007 that is attributable to neither the aging of the baby boomers nor the downturn in the business cycle (on the basis of the experience in previous downturns) not occurred, the unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of 2011 would have been about 1¼ percentage points higher than the actual rate of 8.7 percent" translation: CBO just admitted that the BLS numbers are bogus and real unemployment is 10%. Thank you
Here is the CBO's alternative forecast which is a little closer to reality:
CBO has developed budget projections under an “alternative fiscal scenario,” assuming—instead of current law—that certain tax provisions that have recently expired or are set to expire (including most of the provisions in the 2010 tax act but excluding the Social Security payroll tax reduction) are instead extended, that the AMT is indexed for inflation after 2011 (starting from the 2011 exemption amount), that Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’ services are held constant, and that the automatic enforcement procedures of the Budget Control Act do not take effect. Under this scenario, deficits from 2013 through 2022 would average 5.4 percent of GDP, compared with the 1.5 percent in the baseline.
Some view on SSN and Medicare:
- At $1.6 trillion in 2012, federal outlays for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care programs will make up more than 70 percent of mandatory spending (or 10.4 percent of GDP). Spending for those programs will rise by $1.5 trillion from 2012 to 2022— accounting for nearly all of the growth in mandatory spending over that period. By 2022, spending for those programs will represent more than 80 percent of mandatory spending and 12.8 percent of GDP.
- CBO estimates that, under current law, outlays for Social Security will total $770 billion in 2012, or 5.0 percent of GDP. Over the next decade, spending for Social Security benefits will climb steadily (by an average of about 6 percent per year) as the nation’s elderly population grows and as average benefits rise. By 2022, CBO estimates, Social Security outlays will total $1.3 trillion, or about 5.5 percent of GDP.
- At $856 billion, gross outlays for Medicare, Medicaid, and other mandatory federal programs related to health care accounted for just under 40 percent of mandatory spending (not including offsetting receipts) in 2011.6 CBO estimates that outlays for those programs will dip to$847 billion in 2012, or 5.5 percent of GDP, reflecting a decline in Medicaid spending. In CBO’s baseline projections, spending for health programs more than doubles between 2012 and 2022, rising by an average of nearly 8 percent per year and reaching $1.8 trillion in 2022. That spending is expected to represent 7.3 percent of GDP in 2022, an increase of nearly 2 percentage points from its share this year.
And some thoughts from the excel goal seek geniuses in DC on the collapse of the US welfare state:
Because of the aging of the population and rising costs for health care, the set of budget policies that were in effect in the past cannot be maintained in the future. In CBO’s projections for 2022 under the alternative fiscal scenario, gross outlays for all federal programs apart from Social Security, the major health care programs, and net interest are projected to be 7.8 percent of GDP, lower than in any year during the past 40 years and well below the 11.4 percent of GDP that such outlays have averaged over that period. Yet the budget deficit in 2022 under that scenario is projected to be 6.1 percent of GDP. Therefore, to keep deficits and debt from causing substantial harm to the economy, policymakers will need to allow federal revenues to increase to a much higher percentage of GDP than the average over the past 40 years, make major changes to Social Security and federal health care programs, or pursue some combination of the two approaches.
So, if everything that is set to happen, happens, there will be "substantial harm" to the economy, and the CBO just happily assumes all these things will be fixed just in time? Brilliant.
But probably the most imporant part is the CBO's discussion on the labor force participation, and the general unemployment rate:
Participation in the Labor Force. The unemployment rate would be even higher than it is now had participation in the labor force not declined as much as it has over the past few years. The rate of participation in the labor force fell from 66 percent in 2007 to an average of 64 percent in the second half of 2011, an unusually large decline over so short a time. About a third of that decline reflects factors other than the downturn, such as the aging of the baby-boom generation. But even with those factors removed, the estimated decline in that rate during the past four years is larger than has been typical of past downturns, even after accounting for the greater severity of this downturn. Had that portion of the decline in the labor force participation rate since 2007 that is attributable to neither the aging of the baby boomers nor the downturn in the business cycle (on the basis of the experience in previous downturns) not occurred, the unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of 2011 would have been about 1¼ percentage points higher than the actual rate of 8.7 percent. By CBO’s estimates, the rate of labor force participation will fall to slightly above 63 percent by 2017. The dampening effects of the increase in tax rates in 2013 scheduled under current law and additional retirements by baby boomers are projected to more than offset the strengthening effects of growing demand for labor as the economy recovers further.
Don't waste time reading this: none of what is predicted will actually happen. But at 165 pages it makes a good paperweight.
CBO Outlook 2012
Obama Works to Save Jobs, 1 at a Time
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is trying to rebuild the American economy, one job at a time — literally.
The president asked an online town hall questioner Monday to send him her husband's resume, insisting he wanted to look into why the man remained out of work despite his background as a semiconductor engineer.
"I meant what I said, if you send me your husband's resume, I'd be interested in finding out exactly what's happening right there," Obama told the questioner, Jennifer Wedel of Fort Worth, Texas.
He told Wedel that according to what he was hearing from industry, such high-tech fields are in great demand and her husband "should be able to find something right away."
Wedel told Obama that despite what he said, her husband had been out of work for three years. She wanted to know why foreign workers were getting visas for high-skilled work.
The exchange came as Obama appeared in a live video chat room known as a "Hangout," part of online search giant Google's social networking site Google Plus. He was answering questions submitted via the Google Inc.-owned video site YouTube, as well as interacting live with Wedel and four others in the Hangout.
The post-State of the Union session was part of the White House focus on social media. In past such events — with Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and earlier YouTube sessions following previous State of the Union addresses — Obama answered questions that had been submitted via online networks. But Monday's event allowed him to interact with a selection of his questioners, leading to more substantive exchanges as they pushed him on his stances.
Wedel's insistence that the president's claims about the demand for high-skilled workers weren't being born out for her husband led to the president's offer to take a look at his resume.
"I'll have to take you up on that," she told him. And Obama came back to it after covering a range of issues in the 45-minute session, telling Wedel, "Remember to send me that information!"
Obama got a variety of questions on the economy, and defended his policies on small businesses and innovation. An Occupy protester sent in a video saying she was out of work and asking Obama: "I need help. I'm 53. What am I going to do?"
The president's response, in part: "The most important thing I can do for folks who are out of work right now is grow the economy."
Obama was also asked to justify his administration's use of unmanned drone strikes, and contended they were being used judiciously. "I think that there's a perception somehow that we're just sending in a whole bunch of strikes willy-nilly," Obama said. "This is a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists who are trying to go in and harm Americans."
And he was asked about online piracy. Congress recently delayed action on legislation cracking down on online piracy after opposition from Internet companies including Google.
Obama said he thought it was possible to protect intellectual property that creates jobs in the U.S., while still respecting the integrity of the Internet as an open system.
The exchanges came a day ahead of the Republican primary in Florida, as GOP presidential hopefuls attack Obama daily. But none of the questions put to him were about the presidential race. They were about the State of the Union and people's lives now.
There were also light moments, as Wedel asked Obama if he would show off his dance moves (the president refused, saying the first lady mocks his dancing) and another questioner asked the president how he and Michelle Obama planned to celebrate their 20th wedding anniversary this fall (since it's shortly before the election, Obama said he wasn't sure how romantic it would be).
More than 133,000 questions were submitted and voted on by YouTube users. Google officials selected the questions to ask based in part on those results.
Although many of the questions that appeared online were about Obama's stance on legalizing marijuana — something he has said he opposes when asked in the past — that did not come up Monday. Organizers said the No. 1 voted question was about the potential extradition to the U.S. of Richard O'Dwyer, a British student accused of setting up a website that gave people access to films and TV shows for free in violation of copyright laws.
Obama said he wasn't personally involved in the case but the administration wanted to ensure that intellectual property is protected "in a way that's consistent with Internet freedom."
Monday, January 30, 2012
Muslim Family Found Guilty in Canadian Honor Killings
KINGSTON, Ontario (AP) — A jury on Sunday found an Afghan father, his wife and their son guilty of killing three teenage sisters and a co-wife in what the judge described as “cold-blooded, shameful murders“ resulting from a ”twisted concept of honor.”
The jury took 15 hours to find Mohammad Shafia, 58; his wife Tooba Yahya, 42; and their son Hamed, 21, each guilty of four counts of first-degree murder in a case that shocked and riveted Canadians from coast to coast.
After the verdict was read, the three defendants again declared their innocence in the killings of sisters Zainab, 19, Sahar 17, and Geeti, 13, as well as Rona Amir Mohammad, 52, Shafia’s childless first wife in a polygamous marriage.
Their bodies were found June 30, 2009, in a car submerged in a canal in Kingston, Ontario, where the family had stopped for the night on their way home to Montreal from Niagara Falls, Ontario.
Prosecutors said the defendants allegedly killed the three teenage sisters because they dishonored the family by defying its disciplinarian rules on dress, dating, socializing and going online. Shafia’s first wife was living with him and his second wife. The polygamous relationship, if revealed, could have resulted in their deportation.
The prosecution alleged it was a case of premeditated murder, staged to look like an accident after it was carried out. Prosecutors said the defendants drowned their victims elsewhere on the site, placed their bodies in the car and pushed it into the canal.
Defense lawyers said the evidence suggested that the deaths were accidental. They said the Nissan car accidentally plunged into the canal after the eldest daughter, Zainab, took it for a joy ride.
After the jury returned the verdicts, Mohammad Shafia, speaking through a translator, said, “We are not criminal, we are not murderer, we didn’t commit the murder and this is unjust.”
His weeping wife, Tooba, also declared the verdict unjust, saying, “I am not a murderer, and I am a mother, a mother.”
Their son, Hamed, speaking in English said, “I did not drown my sisters anywhere.”
But Judge Robert Maranger was unmoved, saying the evidence clearly supported their conviction for “the planned and deliberate murder of four members of your family.”
“It is difficult to conceive of a more despicable, more heinous crime … the apparent reason behind these cold-blooded, shameful murders was that the four completely innocent victims offended your completely twisted concept of honor … that has absolutely no place in any civilized society.”
The family had left Afghanistan in 1992 and lived in Pakistan, Australia and Dubai before settling in Canada in 2007. Shafia, a wealthy businessman, married Yahya because his first wife could not have children.
The months leading up to the deaths were not happy ones in the Shafia household, according to evidence presented at trial. Zainab, the oldest daughter, was forbidden to attend school for a year because she had a young Pakistani-Canadian boyfriend, and she fled to a shelter, terrified of her father, the court was told.
The prosecution presented wire taps and cell phone records from the Shafia family in court. In one phone conversation, the father says his daughters “betrayed us immensely.”
The wiretaps, which capture Shafia spewing vitriol about his dead daughters, calling them treacherous and whores and invoking the devil to defecate on their graves, were a focal point of the trial.
But defense lawyers argued that at no point in the intercepts do the accused say they drowned the victims.
Latest Friday night document dump shows Holder was informed of Brian Terry’s murder on day Fast & Furious weapons killed border agent
Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice dumped documents related to Operation Fast and Furious on congressional officials late Friday night. Central to this document dump is a series of emails showing Holder was informed of slain Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s murder on the day it happened – December 15, 2010.
An email from one official, whose name has been redacted from the document, to now-former Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke reads: “On December 14, 2010, a BORTAC agent working in the Nogales, AZ AOR was shot. The agent was conducting Border Patrol operations 18 miles north of the international boundary when he encountered [redacted word] unidentified subjects. Shots were exchanged resulting in the agent being shot. At this time, the agent is being transported to an area where he can be air lifted to an emergency medical center.”
That email was sent at 2:31 a.m. on the day Terry was shot. One hour later, a follow-up email read: “Our agent has passed away.”
Burke forwarded those two emails to Holder’s then-deputy chief of staff Monty Wilkinson later that morning, adding that the incident was “not good” because it happened “18 miles w/in” the border.
Wilkinson responded to Burke shortly thereafter and said the incident was “tragic.” “I’ve alerted the AG [Holder], the Acting DAG, Lisa, etc.”
Then, later that day, Burke followed up with Wilkinson after Burke discovered from officials whose names are redacted that the guns used to kill Terry were from Fast and Furious. “The guns found in the desert near the murder BP officer connect back to the investigation we were going to talk about – they were AK-47s purchased at a Phoenix gun store,” Burke wrote to Wilkinson.
“I’ll call tomorrow,” Wilkinson responded.
Holder has faced difficult questions surrounding the question of when he was first informed of the gunwalking program. He testified in Congress that he had only learned of Fast and Furious a “few weeks” before a May 3, 2011, House Judiciary Committee appearance.
Holder has since walked back that “few weeks” comment, amending it to more of a “couple months.”
“I did say a ‘few weeks,’” Holder said during a November 8 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, responding to a question from its chairman Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy. “I probably could’ve said ‘a couple of months.’ I didn’t think the term I said, ‘few weeks,’ was inaccurate based on what happened.”
There have also been a series of documents containing the intimate details of Fast and Furious that were sent to Holder throughout 2010 from several of his senior aides. Holder claims he did not read his memos.
Holder will be appearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform next Thursday, Feb. 2. Though Holder has already testified before Congress three times about matters relating to Fast and Furious — twice before the House Judiciary Committee and once before the Senate Judiciary Committee — this is the first time the House oversight committee will have an opportunity to question Holder himself.
“The Judiciary Committee has multiple issues with the Attorney General,” House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller last week. “We have one issue: the issue of breaking the law in order to enforce the law.”
“The oversight committee is investigating the Department of Justice, which is very different than his appearances before the Judiciary Committees in which they’re asking how things are going at Justice. What we’ve discovered in our investigations is a pattern of cover-up [and] delay. Ultimately Congress was given false information and now we’ve had people both resign and take the Fifth as we try to get to the basic elements of why and how was Congress lied to.”
A total of 103 members of the House have called for Holder’s resignation or firing, expressed “no confidence” in Holder via a formal House Resolution, or both. Two sitting governors, two U.S. senators and all the major Republican presidential candidates join those 103 congressmen in not trusting Holder. Many of those who have called for Holder’s resignation have pointed out that Holder claiming that he didn’t read his memos is a sign that he’s admitting incompetence to avoid charges of corruption.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Islamist Egyptian MP calls for Zawahiri's return
By Bill RoggioJanuary 28, 2012
A member of the newly elected Egyptian parliament has called for al Qaeda's emir to return to the country "with his head held high and safely."
Aboud al Zomor, who served as the first emir of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and was later imprisoned for his role in President Anwar Sadat's assassination, said that he welcomes Ayman al Zawahiri's return to Egypt and that he would be given safe haven, according to a report published yesterday in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. The report was translated from Arabic by the Foundation For Defense of Democracies.
"When asked if he saw any danger in al Zawahiri's return, al Zomor said that 'he was not a threat to Egypt, the likes of al Zawahiri differed with the previous regime and they were only a danger for this regime and not for Egypt, and now he is liberating Afghanistan and Iraq...'" the report stated. Zomor also lamented that the US would be opposed to Zawahiri's return to Egypt.
Zomor denied having direct contact with members of al Qaeda, and claims to have renounced violence.
"I've distanced myself from that currently because I took the political line and closed the page on the past, as a result of which doors to peaceful action opened for us," he told Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.
Zomor is one of the primary founders of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the terrorist group that merged with al Qaeda. Zawahiri succeeded Zomor as the group's emir and presided over its merger with bin Laden's terror group in the 1990s.
Zomor, who was freed along with his brother Tarek from prison in 2011 after serving more than 20 years for their role in assassinating Sadat, now leads the Building and Development Party, a Salafi Islamist political party that won 16 seats in Egypt's recent parliamentary elections. His party is allied with Al Nour; together they make up the Islamist Bloc, which won 127 of the 498 seats. Both Zomor's party and Al Nour call for sharia, or Islamic law. The Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, which also calls for Islamic law, won 235 of the seats in parliament, giving Islamist parties 362 total seats. The newly elected parliament will appoint the committee to craft Egypt's new constitution.
(AINA) -- A mob of over 3000 Muslims attacked Copts in the village of Kobry-el-Sharbat (el-Ameriya), Alexandria this afternoon. Coptic homes and shops were looted before being set ablaze. Two Copts and a Muslim were injured.
The violence started after a rumor was spread that a Coptic man had an allegedly intimate photo of a Muslim woman on his mobile phone. The Coptic man, Mourad Samy Guirgis, surrendered to the police this morning morning for his protection.
According to eyewitnesses, the perpetrators were bearded men in white gowns. "They were Salafists, and some of were from the Muslim Brotherhood," according to one witness. It was reported that terrorized women and children who lost their homes were in the streets without any place to go.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Then read the piece by Palin below.
I've said it before, if these bozos are the best we can offer then we are screwed. Whether Newt or Mitt or Rick or Ron or Uncle Barry is elected. It will make no difference.
from Palin's Facebook Page:
Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left.
by Sarah Palin on Friday, January 27, 2012 at 5:57pm
We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.
We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.
I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.
We know that Newt fought in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, Newt was among a handful of Republican Congressman who would regularly take to the House floor to defend Reagan at a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News or talk radio or conservative blogs to give any balance to the liberal mainstream media. Newt actually came at Reagan’s administration “from the right” to remind Americans that freer markets and tougher national defense would win our future. But this week a few handpicked and selectively edited comments which Newt made during his 40-year career were used to claim that Newt was somehow anti-Reagan and isn’t conservative enough to go against the accepted moderate in the primary race. (I know, it makes no sense, and the GOP establishment hopes you won’t stop and think about this nonsense. Mark Levin and others have shown the ridiculousness of this.) To add insult to injury, this “anti-Reagan” claim was made by a candidate who admitted to not even supporting or voting for Reagan. He actually was against the Reagan movement, donated to liberal candidates, and said he didn’t want to go back to the Reagan days. You can’t change history. We know that Newt Gingrich brought the Reagan Revolution into the 1990s. We know it because none other than Nancy Reagan herself announced this when she presented Newt with an award, telling us, “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.” As Rush and others pointed out, if Nancy Reagan had ever thought that Newt was in any way an opponent of her beloved husband, she would never have even appeared on a stage with him, let alone presented him with an award and said such kind things about him. Nor would Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, have chosen to endorse Newt in this primary race. There are no two greater keepers of the Reagan legacy than Nancy and Michael Reagan. What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque rewriting of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.
But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.
I spoke up before the South Carolina primary to urge voters there to keep this primary going because I have great concern about the GOP establishment trying to anoint a candidate without the blessing of the grassroots and all the needed energy and resources we as commonsense constitutional conservatives could bring to the general election in order to defeat President Obama. Now, I respect Governor Romney and his success. But there are serious concerns about his record and whether as a politician he consistently applied conservative principles and how this impacts the agenda moving forward. The questions need answers now. That is why this primary should not be rushed to an end. We need to vet this. Pundits in the Beltway are gleefully proclaiming that this primary race is over after Florida, despite 46 states still not having chimed in. Well, perhaps it’s possible that it will come to a speedy end in just four days; but with these questions left unanswered, it will not have come to a satisfactory conclusion. Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of Governor Romney’s conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on Newt Gingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate. The Tea Party grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with the perceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers trying to sew this all up. And, trust me, during the general election, Governor Romney’s statements and record in the private sector will be relentlessly parsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swing voters. This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chief rival.
As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they’re now using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary. So, one must ask, who are they really running against?
- Sarah Palin
As pointed out by the Walid Shoebat Foundation Blog:
CNN is apparently willing to include the words “honor killing” and “conservative Afghan” in its news reports but is unwilling to say that the honor killing was mandated by Islamic teachings or even mention that the murderers were Muslims. Instead, the word “conservative” has the effect of comparing such nasty people with the Christian right in America.
The most tragically ironic aspect of this story is that the man who murdered his daughters and tried to cover it up, said that he killed them because they “betrayed kindness.”
This CNN news report is a must-see for the network’s bias. It fits right in line with the network’s history of running interference for Islamists.