From WorldNetDaily
By Michael Farris
Posted: October 16, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
If Americans want a glimpse of all of the good that can be done for children if our Senate decides to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), we need look no further than 90 miles off the coast of Florida. For a shining example of the success of internationalism, Cuba is the United Nation's latest poster child.
In articles released this week by official Cuban news agencies, UNICEF representative José Juan Ortiz praised Cuba for being "able to apply the U.N. Convention on Children's Rights in a way which is truly a model."
Cuba? A model in the area of children's rights? The Communist nation was extolled particularly for advancing the right of children to "self-expression." UNICEF's Ortiz commended the Cuban youth group "the José Marti Pioneer Children Organization" for granting children "the possibility of expressing themselves." This organization even "met in Congress," Ortiz noted.
The José Marti Pioneer Children Organization is the Cuban version of a long-standing Communist youth organization created to promote communist ideology. While UNICEF believes the group promotes self-expression, an award-winning Cuban blogger – posting on the ultra-liberal website Huffington Post – described her own experience in the group in far different terms.
Blogger Yoani Sanchez described the Pioneer Children's annual ritual held this year on Oct. 8, 2009. "In all the schools in the country, today is the ceremony for the first-grade students to enroll in the Pioneer organization. The morning assembly lasts longer than usual; the parents accompany their children while they put on the neckerchiefs and shout, for the first time, the slogan, 'Pioneers for communism, we will be like Che.'"
Observing the ceremony at her son's school this year, Sanchez recalled her childhood experience as a Cuban first-grader: "I felt touched by the hand of the Fatherland even though in reality I was only being added to the ranks of an ideology."
The practice of ideological indoctrination continues to this date. Describing the scene in her son's classroom in 2009, Sanchez writes, "The teacher walked up and down the ranks and asked the children to repeat the slogan about Che Guevara."
Sanchez's son Teo declined to repeat the slogan. When caught by the teacher for non-participation, Teo was asked why he didn't want to recite the slogan. "Che is dead," he said, "and I don't want to be dead."
"Ah, Teo," the teacher replied, "repeat the slogan now, why make problems for yourself."
So much for self-expression – parrot the government slogan or find yourself in trouble. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDailyAfter dismissing jihad charges in new book, showcases imam cited in '93 WTC bombing
Posted: October 16, 2009 ~ 9:00 pm Eastern
By Art Moore
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
While mocking an explosive new book that presents internal documents showing it is a U.S. front for global jihad, the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations is trumpeting a keynote speaker at its 15th annual banquet next week who was an uninidicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing investigation and who told New Jersey Muslims the U.S. government would one day be taken over by an Islamic caliphate.
CAIR currently features Imam Siraj Wahhaj's name on the opening flash page to its website, along with co-keynote speaker Dalia Mogahed, who sparked controversy of her own recently when she defended Shariah, or Islamic law, on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist Muslim group, insisting the majority of women around the world associate Shariah with "gender justice."
Mogahed, senior analyst and executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, was appointed to President Obama's Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
CAIR, which itself was designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-financing case in U.S. history, responded Wednesday to a press conference at the U.S. Capitol in which four House Republicans called for an investigation of CAIR's activities on Capitol Hill, based on documents obtained in a daring undercover operation that formed the basis for the newly released book "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," published by WND Books
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, who is on record stating he hopes to see the U.S. become a Muslim nation, dismissed the lawmakers' claims.
"It's a shame to see elected officials take part in a smear campaign based on bigotry," Hooper told The Hill newspaper.
But the book by counter-terrorism investigator P. David Gaubatz and "Infiltration" author Paul Sperry produces evidence, based in part on 12,000 pages of internal documents, that CAIR's ultimate purpose is to transform the U.S. into an Islamic nation under the authority of the Quran.
The evidence affirms CAIR is part of an organized crime network in America made up of more than 100 other Muslim front groups that collectively comprise the U.S. branch of the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood.
In an attempt to prevent the press conference from taking place, CAIR's in-house legal counsel faxed a letter to the lawmakers alleging the book's authors had engaged in "criminal actions" and warning that a report already had been filed with law enforcement authorities. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
Unindicted terrorist co-conspirator claims it's a civil liberties group
Posted: October 16, 2009 ~ 12:50 am Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Responding to the one-two punch of a call for a congressional investigation into the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the explosive debut of a book portraying it as part of an organized crime network, CAIR struck back by applauding members of Congress and the media who rushed to the group's defense.
On Wednesday, Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., the chairwoman of the 100-plus member Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus, held a press conference on Capitol Hill with three of her colleagues who called for a probe of CAIR's efforts at placing interns in offices of senators and representatives serving on sensitive committees dealing with homeland security and intelligence matters.
Myrick and her colleagues learned of the plot from documents made public for the first time in "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," a new book by P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry that rose to the top of the best-sellers lists yesterday on its official debut.
However, CAIR, an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator according to both the FBI and Justice Department, issued a press release yesterday saying it was comforted by attacks on the press conference and the book by other members of Congress and members of the media.
Supporting comments by Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., were singled out for praise by CAIR.
"I am appalled by this request (for an investigation of Muslim 'spies' in Congress) and the insinuation that Muslim-Americans are somehow conspiring against this country through their work on Capitol Hill," said Sanchez. "As a strong advocate for diversity and religious freedom, I find these claims to be outrageous and offensive. I urge the rest of my colleagues to join me in denouncing this witch hunt, which is clearly intended to create fear and distrust in our Capitol Hill community."
Conyers had this to say: "It shouldn't need to be said in 2009, and after the historic election of our first African-American president, but let me remind all my colleagues that patriotic Americans of all races, religions and beliefs have the right – and the responsibility – to participate in our political process, including by volunteering to work in congressional offices."
CAIR also cited certain media organizations for their coverage of the Myrick event and the book.
"An article in Salon.com called the actions of the elected officials who launched the anti-Muslim book the 'most despicable domestic political events of the year,'" the CAIR press release said. "The article calls the co-author of 'Muslim Mafia' a 'ranting, insane hatemonger.'"
CAIR also mentioned an article in Politico that characterized CAIR's efforts on the Hill as a "fairly straight forward public relations and lobbying strategy."
CAIR did not mention that it tried to get the press conference called off by making sweeping and unsubstantiated accusations against one of the authors of the book – even threatening them with civil and criminal charges. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
Posted: October 15, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
By Art Moore
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Despite protests and threats from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, four Congress members went ahead with a press conference at the U.S. Capitol yesterday to call for an investigation of the Muslim lobby group based on documents uncovered in the explosive new book "Muslim Mafia," by WND Books.
Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., received a fax Tuesday from CAIR's in-house legal counsel, alleging the authors of the new book, set for release today, had engaged in "criminal actions" and warning that a report already had been filed with law enforcement authorities.
The faxed letter from CAIR's Nadhira al-Khalili noted the Washington-based group had been forewarned of the press conference Myrick held with fellow members of the House anti-terror caucus leadership, Reps. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., Trent Franks, R-Ariz., and Paul Broun, R-Ga. The lawmakers called for an end to political lobbying by groups, such as CAIR, operating as fronts for the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood, the parent of al-Qaida and Hamas.
Myrick says in the foreword to "Muslim Mafia" that the WND Books publication – based on a six-month undercover operation that produced 12,000 pages of documents – finally provides the "proof" that radical Muslim "agents living among us have a plan in place, and they are successfully carrying out that subversive plan."
Holding up the book, Shadegg said, regarding the CAIR fax, "Interestingly, whenever books like these are published, there are efforts to intimidate those who publish them and write them. And efforts to intimidate those who speak out in support of them."
Shadegg continued, "We need an informed body politic, we need informed Americans to understand the threats against this country. And knowing the kinds of things that are in this book are very important. The latest book provides stunning documentation of many of the things that are said in it about CAIR."
Franks said the anti-terror caucus fears CAIR has planted "spies" inside Congress targeting sensitive committees dealing with homeland security.
"It's the water inside the ship that sinks it," he warned.
Franks said CAIR and its agents are influencing policies related to the USA Patriot Act, the post-9/11 security measure to help law enforcement crack down on terrorists.
"Muslim Mafia" uncovered confidential CAIR memos revealing that in one year alone, officials with the terror-supporting front group made an alarming 72 separate trips to Congress to lobby against the Patriot Act. The same year Congress met fewer than 150 days.
U.S. prosecutors believe CAIR, while claiming to be a civil-rights group, is actually a front group for Hamas and other terrorists. The Justice Department stated in September 2007 during its prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation in Dallas – the largest terror-financing case in history – that CAIR "has been identified by the government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew." [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
Taxpayers rally outside more than 100 press offices
Posted: October 16, 2009 ~ 12:55 am Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
American taxpayers are e-mailing and fax-blasting mainstream media and preparing to storm press offices and stations from Maui, Hawaii, to Atlanta, Ga. – and more than 100 locations in between – this Friday and Saturday.
They are protesting mainstream media bias and a news blackout of the growing movement against Obama administration
policies.
An organizer who goes by the name "Thomas Paine," told WND he became fed up with the media after he noticed the press ignored nearly 1 million protesters as they descended on Washington, D.C., on Sept. 12.
"I surfed al the channels looking for the big story on the D.C. march and found none – save Fox News," he said. "I was infuriated. How can anyone who calls themself a journalist ignore this?"
He came up with the idea for "Operation: Can You Hear Us Now?" More than 100 media protests across the nation are set to take place this weekend. Nearly 9,500 fans have flocked to a Facebook page for the event.
Tea partiers in New York are set to march to offices of CBS, CNN, NBC/MSNBC, Fox News and ABC News. A New York march route has been posted online.
Georgia protesters will storm CNN headquarters in downtown Atlanta. In case CNN should refuse to cover the event, the Canadian Broadcasting Company, or CBC, has sent a team to the city to report the story.
Ralliers are also taking to the streets of Chicago and other major cities across the U.S. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
By Thomas Sowell
Posted: October 13, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
Back in the days of the Soviet Union, two Russian economists who had never lived in a country with a free market economy understood something about market economies that many others who have lived in such economies all their lives have never understood. Nikolai Shmelev and Vladimir Popov said: "Everything is interconnected in the world of prices, so that the smallest change in one element is passed along the chain to millions of others."
What does that mean? It means that a huge increase in the demand for ice cream can mean higher prices for catcher's mitts, among other things.
When more cows are needed to produce more milk to make ice cream, then fewer cows will be slaughtered and that means less cowhide available to make baseball gloves. Supply and demand mean that catcher's mitts are going to cost more.
While this may be easy enough to understand, its implications are completely lost on many people in politics and in the media. If everything is connected to everything else in a market economy, then it makes no sense to have laws and policies that declare some given goal to be a "good thing," without regard to the repercussions, which spread out in all directions, like waves that spread across a pond when you drop a rock in the water.
Our current economic meltdown results from the federal government, under both Democrats and Republicans, declaring home ownership to be a "good thing" and treating the percentage of families who own their own home as if it was some sort of magic number that had to be kept growing– without regard to the repercussions on other things.
We are now living with those repercussions, which include the worst unemployment in decades. That is the price we are paying for increasing home ownership from 64 percent to 69 percent. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
By David Limbaugh
Posted: October 13, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
Is there no problem Obama and his mesmerized Democrats think cannot be solved with money – other people's money? Just when you think you've heard it all, more news stories about this bunch surface to shock you.
The Sunday Times reports that the administration is considering a novel approach to the war in Afghanistan: outbidding the Taliban to persuade Afghan villagers to lay down arms.
So much for a "war of necessity," which was just an opportunistic sound bite for Obama to demonize Bush while cynically pretending to be hawkish enough in the war on terror to appeal to Middle America. No, for Obama, Afghanistan must just be another "street" to organize, another constituency to schmooze in his permanent – now global – campaign.
Even when the Bush administration employed strategies to win over Sunnis, it was coupled with a redoubling of our military effort and a marked alteration in our strategy to "hold" territory once we had taken it. This idea that you can reduce this war to an auction, divorced from the required steps needed to strengthen the security there, is insane.
That's not merely my independent assessment. One general close to Gen. Stanley McChrystal told the Times he was taken aback by the administration's attitude. "It surprised a lot of us – we thought the policy decision was made to come down on the counter-insurgency course of action." The general said the notion that "we can just cut deals with the Taliban without having to do anything" is a "crazy" idea.
Why won't money alone do it? Because "at the moment you can't recruit from Pashtun communities or their families will be killed, so we need to first improve security."
Apparently, this concept doesn't register with Obama, who has obviously been mentored from an early age to believe that all the world's problems can be mitigated, if not reduced, by "economic justice" – the naked redistribution of U.S. bucks. He surely missed those lessons instilling such truisms as "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
Then again, Obama's Marxist mentors – Franklin Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers – also understood that you don't build an army of street organizers or a recurring voting constituency by teaching people of the streets to fish. When you "spread the wealth around," you make the distributees dependent on your next handout – beholden to your largesse with other people's money and personally worse off in every respect.
There could be no better illustration of this reality than WJR radio host Ken Rogulski's interviews of potential recipients of "stimulus money" handouts at the Cobo Center, in Detroit. One woman described it as "Obama money" that came from "his stash." "That's why we voted for him. Obama! Obama!" That's why you'll surely vote for him again. So much for America as the land of opportunity and entrepreneurship. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
By Joseph Farah
Posted: October 13, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
Well, it's official.
The self-proclaimed watchdog of the news media admits the dirty little secret – "The mainstream press is liberal."
That's the word from Thomas Edsall, formerly of the Washington Post and now with the Huffington Puffington Post, in the Columbia Journalism Review.
But it's not what you think.
It's an admission, yes. But it's also a rallying cry for a coming out party – a giant celebration of the media's liberaldom.
"Once, before 1965, reporters were a mix of the working stiffs leavened by ne'er-do-well college grads unfit for corporate headquarters or divinity school," wrote Edsall. "Since the civil rights and women's movements, the culture wars and Watergate, the press corps at such institutions as the Washington Post, ABC-NBC-CBS News, the NYT, The Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, etc. is composed in large part of 'new' or 'creative' class members of the liberal elite – well-educated men and women who tend to favor abortion rights, women's rights, civil rights, and gay rights. In the main, they find such figures as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell beneath contempt."
Edsall goes on to agree with critics that if only reporters were allowed to vote, "Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry would have won the White House by landslide margins."
None of it matters, explains Edsall, because "While the personnel tend to share an ideological worldview, most have a personal and professional commitment to the objective presentation of information, a commitment that is not shared by the conservative media."[CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From RenewAmerica
This article from August 26, 2009, by Joan Swirsky, is being included today to go along with Mychal Massie's column, "Globalist cover-up hiding Obama's past?" which had referenced it. I must agree with the way Mychal Massie stated his feeling about it: "I'm not an investigative journalist. I write opinion, and it is my opinion that Obama is but the tip of something much larger, and if same were to become known it would reverberate worldwide."
By Joan Swirsky
August 26, 2009
Back in October of 2008, when the subject of Obama's constitutional eligibility to be president of the United States was just a blip on the radar screen of public awareness, I wrote an article about how easy it was to find my then- 92-year-old mother's birth certificate.Frankly, I didn't think finding my mother's birth certificate was possible, given the fact that she had been born in a farmhouse in Storrs, CT, along with nine of her 10 siblings, to parents who didn't speak English. Despairing that she would never be "qualified" to receive the care [in a nursing home] that she desperately needed, I set about to find the document, which I was sure had vanished in the unreliable record-keeping of 1913. When I called the third number, I explained to the woman who answered the phone that I was "asking something impossible." I gave her my mother's first name and her father's last name. Within four minutes, she said, "Here it is!" When I expressed my amazement, the woman said: "That's nothing...we're routinely asked to find birth certificates from the 1800s, and we do that all the time!" Total time it took me to find my mother's 1913, born-in-a-farmhouse birth certificate: 10 minutes!
Obama was born not in 1913, like my mother, but in 1961 — or perhaps in 1957, according to his MySpace page, which would make him 52, born supposedly in Hawaii before it became a state in 1959. So it was quite curious that not one cyber-sleuth could find an authentic, verifiable copy of his original vault-copy birth certificate. I'm not talking about the faux version Obama posted on his website, which was deemed the real thing by FactCheck.org, a "truth"-detecting site that is sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation, the same foundation that hired Obama and his terrorist pal William Ayers and gave them millions of dollars for a research project in Chicago. In other words, the least credible source!
Even more significant is that no one in the media thought Obama's missing birth certificate worth even casual mention. Their thinking seemed to be: We're not going to check on his eligibility to be president, if we don't even question why other crucial documents were — and continue to be — sealed? For instance: his baptism certificate; elementary, high school, college and graduate school transcripts; visa(s); selective service record; alleged multiple Social Security numbers; Illinois attorney's license; Illinois State Senate records; law practice client list; Univ. of Chicago scholarly articles; financial records while a community organizer in Chicago; and medical records. I'm also curious about why Michelle Obama's law license was suspended in 1993 by the Illinois Supreme Court, but then again she wasn't running for president.
Instead, the media were frantically busy trying to divert public attention away from those pesky things known as credentials with gossip-driven tabloid reportage of Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber in order to avoid the bigger-than-Watergate potential scandal of whether or not Obama was eligible — according to the U.S. Constitution — to become President of the United States!
NOW WE KNOW WHY
In an explosive interview by Dr. Laurie Roth on her syndicated West Coast radio show on August 7th with Douglas Hagmann — a respected journalist, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and longtime private investigator, and Judi McLeod, a prolific journalist and the managing editor of Canada Free Press — the reason for the media blackout about the birth-certificate issue was nothing less than organized Mafia-like dire threats to members of the media issued not only from the heads of major TV and radio stations but also from Federal Communication Commission officials! [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
By Mychal Massie
Posted: October 13, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
Barack Obama has spent (or had spent for him) between $1.8 million and $3.2 million in legal fees to keep his personal records secret. These include his birth certificate, his college records and all else that could provide more insight into his past.
But why? Who spends that kind of money to keep their records hidden unless they have something to hide? And if someone (especially a political figure, not to mention a sitting president) is willing to go to such lengths, it is reasonable to believe he has something to hide. It is reasonable to believe that whatever it is they are hiding would be damning if revealed. What could it be that Obama is so fearful of having revealed?
Consider the kind of power it takes to command such silence. Let's face it – there is nothing not known that cannot be made known – Jimmy Hoffa's resting place notwithstanding.
Let's first start with what it takes to keep the cacophony of silence and complicit cover-up silent and covered up.
Joan Swirsky writes that Douglas Hagmann, in an interview with Dr. Laurie Roth, revealed, "The reason for the media blackout about [Obama's] birth-certificate issue was nothing less than organized Mafia-like dire threats to members of the media, issued not only from the heads of major TV and radio stations, but also from Federal Communication Commission officials. According to Hagmann and [his investigative partner] Judi McCleod, who conducted a nine-month investigation and documented their findings scrupulously," threats were made to fire major talk-show hosts if they mentioned Obama's birth certificate, threats were made by FCC officials to yank broadcasting licenses, and memos were circulated by corporate TV headquarters to all on-air employees advising them not to mention the birth-certificate issue, his lawyer's license or his college records. ("Who is behind quashing the birth-certificate issue?"; Aug. 26, 2009; RenewAmerica.com)
According to Swirsky, during the interview Hagmann and McCleod alluded to e-mails and other evidence in their possession – copies of which, they said, were secreted in several locations.
But the question that begs answering is: Why go to such lengths to keep documents away from public scrutiny? The birth-certificate issue is only a critical problem if, as many believe, it contradicts Obama's citizenship story. And why prevent access to college records or restrict inquiry concerning his law license? It was Michelle who mysteriously had her license suspended in 1993.
An even more pressing question is: How does a person like Obama – a nobody from nowhere – come to command such power and money so as to pull this off? Think about what it takes for a presidential candidate, and now sitting president, to have such power.
The answer can only be that Obama is the front man for something far more sinister. One person, without the strength and backing of a cabal capable of toppling governments and affecting worldwide currencies, etc., could not even consider such an undertaking, much less pull it off. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
'Though it may sound grotesque, routine removal would save lives'
By Aaron Klein
Posted: October 12, 2009 ~ 9:34 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
TEL AVIV – President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar defended the possibility of removing organs from terminally ill patients without their permission.
Cass Sunstein also has strongly pushed for the removal of organs from deceased individuals who did not explicitly consent to becoming organ donors.
In his 2008 book, "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness," Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler discussed multiple legal scenarios regarding organ donation. One possibility presented in the book, termed by Sunstein as "routine removal," posits that "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission."
"Though it may sound grotesque, routine removal is not impossible to defend," wrote Sunstein. "In theory, it would save lives, and it would do so without intruding on anyone who has any prospect for life."
Sunstein continued: "Although this approach is not used comprehensively by any state, many states do use the rule for corneas (which can be transplanted to give some blind patients sight). In some states, medical examiners performing autopsies are permitted to remove corneas without asking anyone's permission."
Sunstein's example of medical examiners removing corneas, however, applies only to patients who are already declared deceased. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
Firearms tracking act gives authorities access to your 'mental health records'
Posted: October 12, 2009 ~ 10:30 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A firearms tracking bill has many bloggers up in arms over a federal requirement that would purportedly force gun owners to list their firearms on federal income tax returns.
But while the bill implements sweeping gun-control measures – including one that would prohibit citizens from owning a gun without a license – the income tax provision doesn't exist.
The Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act, or H.R. 45, was introduced Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Il., on Jan. 6. While the bill does not include stipulations about reporting guns on tax forms, it does contain numerous gun-control proposals that are drawing fierce criticism from gun-rights advocates.
If enacted, the bill would forbid any person from owning any handgun or semiautomatic firearm that accepts a detachable ammunition feeding device, not including antiques, without obtaining a license. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
'They ought to be ashamed of themselves – they're nothing but hacks'
Posted: October 13, 2009 ~ 8:28 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh went on a scathing attack of news reporters today for publicizing racist-sounding remarks he never made – and he's demanding retractions and apologies from every journalist who repeated the "libelous" statements.
While Al Sharpton and some NFL players try to block Limbaugh's partial acquisition of the St. Louis Rams, claiming he's used racially charged rhetoric, Limbaugh says he never made the inflammatory comments.
The following is one of the alleged quotes media have attributed to Limbaugh:I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: Slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.
Limbaugh called the statement "outrageous slander" on yesterday's program.
"Slavery – indentured servitude, whatever you want to call it – is abominable, particularly in a free country," he said. "If I had said what they say I said, I would be gone. There would be nobody around."
On today's show, Limbaugh declared, "The idea that somebody could reportedly say, 'Hey! Slavery is great. You know what, it keeps the streets safer at night!' in 1998 and it's only now surfacing?
"I guarantee you the Clinton war room would have been all over it in 1998. This quote sat dormant for 11 years? And all of the sudden it shows up in vengeance in conjunction with a report that I am a minority participant in a bid for the St. Louis Rams?"
NFL players association chief DeMaurice Smith, Al Sharpton, some players and sportswriters are protesting the possible acquisition and citing the alleged quotes as reason for their objections. In an Oct. 12 letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, Sharpton accused Limbaugh of being "divisive" and "anti-NFL."
Today, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell responded by saying the league doesn't want owners making racially charged statements, according to the New York Daily News. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
Congress seizes on explosive new book based on daring undercover CAIR probe
By Art Moore
Posted: October 14, 2009 ~ 9:00 am Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
In the wake of the sensational ACORN video sting operation
by two young investigators, an even more daring and devastating undercover investigation – this one infiltrating the nation's most aggressive Muslim "civil rights" organization for six months – has produced stunning revelations about the supposedly "moderate" group, backed up by 12,000 pages of documents obtained during the secret op.
As revealed in a new book detailing the operation and its findings, the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, is not the beneficent Muslim civil-rights group it claims to be. Indisputable evidence now shows CAIR and other "mainstream" Islamic groups are acting as fronts for a well-funded conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood – the parent of al-Qaida and Hamas – to infiltrate and destroy the American system.
Until now, CAIR has remained a powerful force in the nation's capital and across the country, from demanding the Obama administration stop FBI counter-terrorism tactics to compelling a school district to apologize to Muslims.
That influence, many believe, may be coming to an end, as a result of the undercover investigation – which included the son of a veteran counter-terrorism investigator, who grew a beard and converted to Islam, as well as two veiled female interns.
"Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," a WND Books publication by counter-terrorism investigator P. David Gaubatz and "Infiltration" author Paul Sperry, documents CAIR's ultimate purpose to transform the United States into an Islamic nation under the authority of the Quran.
The book already has prompted action on Capitol Hill.
With evidence from "Muslim Mafia" in hand, U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the Congressional Anti-Terror Caucus, and other members of Congress – including Reps. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., and Paul Broun, R-Ga. – plan to hold a press conference today in Washington calling for an investigation and an end to political lobbying by front groups such as CAIR.
"Now we have proof – from the secret documents that this investigative team has uncovered, coupled with the ones recently declassified by the FBI – that [radical Islamists] agents living among us have a plan in place, and they are successfully carrying out that subversive plan," Myrick writes in the foreword to "Muslim Mafia." [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
By Ann Coulter
Posted: October 14, 2009 ~ 6:17 pm Eastern
© 2009
The question of whether President Obama should send more troops to Afghanistan misses the point.
What Obama really needs to do is: Invent a time machine, go back to the 2008 presidential campaign and not say, over and over and over again, that Afghanistan was a "war of necessity" while the war in Iraq was a "war of choice." (Oh, and as long as you're back there, ditch Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett and that gay "school safety" czar.)
The most important part of warfare is picking your battlefield, and President Bush picked Iraq for a reason.
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11 – or the dozen other times American embassies, barracks and buildings came under jihadist onslaught since Jimmy Carter presided over "regime change" in Iran in 1979. Both countries – and others – gave succor to terrorists who had attacked the U.S. repeatedly, and would do so again.
As liberals endlessly reminded us during the three weeks of war in Afghanistan before the U.S. military swept into Kabul, Afghanistan has all the makings of a military disaster. It is mountainous, cave-pocked, tribal, has no resources worth fighting for and a populace that makes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed look like Alistair Cooke.
By contrast, Iraq had a relatively educated, pro-Western populace, but was ruled by a brutal third-world despot.
It's always something with the Muslims. You either have mostly sane people governed by a crazy dictator – Iraq, Iran and Syria (also California and Michigan) – or a crazy people governed by relatively sane leaders – Pakistan and Afghanistan, post-U.S. invasion (also Vermont and Minnesota). There are also insane people ruled by insane leaders (but enough about the House Democratic Caucus). Sane people with sane rulers has not been fully tried yet.
Not only could regime change in Iraq work, but Iraq's countryside was susceptible to America's overwhelming air power. Also, Iraq has fabulous natural resources. Once the U.S. got control of Iraq's oil fields, the Shia, Sunni and Kurds could decide to either prosper together or starve together. (And it's not just oil: They're basically sitting on top of most of the world's proven reserves of cab drivers.)
By contrast, there aren't a lot of sticks that can be used in a wasteland like Afghanistan, where the people live in caves and scratch out a living in the dirt. The only "carrot" we might be able to offer them would be actual carrots.
But Democrats couldn't care less about military strategy – at least any "strategy" that doesn't involve allowing soldiers to date one another. To the extent you can get liberals to focus on national security at all, you will find they are rooting against their own country. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
Posted: October 11, 2009 ~ 6:43 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
TEL AVIV – Economic crises can be used to usher socialism into the U.S., argued President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.
In his 2004 book "The Second Bill of Rights," Sunstein used the precedent of the Great Depression to point out that historic economic crises "provided the most promising conditions for the emergence of socialism in the U.S."
"With a little nudge or a slight change in emphasis, our culture could have gone, and could still go, in many different directions," wrote Sunstein in his book, which was reviewed by WND.
Last week, WND reported Sunstein wrote in the same book the U.S. should move in the direction of socialism but the country's "white majority" opposes welfare, since such programs largely would benefit minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics.
"The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics)," wrote Sunstein.
In Sunstein's book, the Obama appointee openly argues for bringing socialism to the U.S. and even lends support to communism.
"During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care and a social minimum."
Continued Sunstein: "I think this debate was unhelpful; it is most plausible to see the two sets of rights as mutually reinforcing, not antagonistic." [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
Jewish state can't afford to stand by while D.C. talks about talking
By Jerome R. Corsi
Posted: October 10, 2009 ~ 12:30 am Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
This is the seventh excerpt exclusive to WND from WND senior staff reporter Jerome R. Corsi's new book "Why Israel Can't Wait: The Coming War Between Israel and Iran," available from WND Books.
Ironically, Obama's weakness in supporting the Iranian post-election street demonstrators makes it more likely Israel will now seriously consider launching a preemptive strike on Iran.
U.S. negotiations with Iran could now easily take years; the Iranians could easily take a year simply to talk about talking. With the rapid progress Iran is making on its nuclear program, Israel does not have an indefinite time for the United States to resolve the nuclear conflict with Iran.
On Tuesday, June 2, 2009, air-raid sirens rang out throughout Israel in Israel's largest-ever civil-defense exercise, code-named "Turning Point 3." On a cloudless day along the Mediterranean beaches in Tel-Aviv, a drill was conducted in which school children were instructed to "duck and cover" under their desks. "Clearly, the drill stimulated the most extreme scenario facing Israel at this point in time – a war on multiple fronts, with Iranian, Syrian and Hezbollah projectiles, some of them unconventional, raining down on the state," the Jerusalem Post wrote. Yet, the paper quoted an unnamed "senior defense official" who denied the test had anything to do with a planned Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran and the missile retaliation Iran and her surrogate allies would hurl at Israel in return. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
Urges making U.S. government subject to U.N.-run apparatus
By Jerome R. Corsi
Posted: October 10, 2009 ~ 12:15 am Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
White House science czar John Holdren has called for the United States to surrender sovereignty to a "Planetary Regime" armed with sufficient military power to enforce population limits on nations as a means of preventing a wide range of perceived dangers from global eco-disasters involving Earth's natural resources, climate, atmosphere and oceans.
As previously reported, WND has obtained and reviewed a copy of the 1970s college textbook "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment" that Holdren co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich's wife, Anne. The authors argued that involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by "climate change."
On page 943, the authors recommended the creation of a "Planetary Regime" created to act as an "international superagency for population, resources, and environment."
The authors argued, "Such a Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist." (Emphasis in original text.)
In the next sentence, the authors specified the following conclusion: "Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and the oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans." [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
By Craig R. Smith
Posted: October 12, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
I, for one, am delighted to hear that our 44th president received the coveted Nobel Peace Prize last week. It now places him in a unique fraternity of past recipients. This prize may prove very valuable to his legacy.
Upon receiving the news, Mr. Obama stepped to his trusty microphone and teleprompter and said, "I was surprised and deeply humbled."
The honor has caused something I see as a modern-day miracle – a feat as big as the parting of the Red Sea or bringing Lazarus out of the grave: It humbled our president.
Now that he is "humbled," hopefully he can get over himself and get doing the business of the American people and not just those on the Democratic Left. Humility in leadership is a good thing. Now that millions of Americans have voted him in and the Nobel committee has awarded him, all he has left is to focus on unemployment, the economy, real health-care reform and defending the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic.
"Let me be clear. I do not view it as recognition of my own accomplishments but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," he said.
Sounds surprised to me, don't you think? As Lech Walesa said "So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far."
The prize, if awarded for his accomplishments, obviously was for ridding the world of Bill and Hillary Clinton, marginalizing candidate John McCain and preying on the anger of a nation toward George Bush. Those are all worthy accomplishments, don't you think? He used the race issue to neutralize the most powerful political dynasty in modern American politics.
That is not worthy of a prize? It sure is! [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
By Herman Cain
Posted: October 12, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
Unemployment has hit 9.8 percent. New jobless claims grow each month. Federal spending is increasing exponentially, while current tax revenues are decreasing. The value of the dollar is in a nose dive.
The deficit for fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30, 2009, has come in at $1.4 trillion dollars, nearly four times the deficit of any previous year in history.
Business bankruptcies are on the rise, while some businesses are literally hanging on by their cash-flow fingernails.
Newsflash! The $789 billion "stimulus bill" is not working. And no, don't give me that baloney that the stimulus needs more time.
The bill was philosophically flawed from the beginning, but the big-government-and-more-taxes members of Congress refused to even consider solutions offered by the less-government-and-fewer-taxes members.
Meanwhile, Congress is trying to ram a $1 trillion-plus health-care deform bill down our throats, with a Cap & Trade & Tax & Kill bill waiting in the wings in the Senate. The Democrats are also secretly talking about a second "stimulus" bill, but they are not calling it a stimulus. I call it more government spending with no new results.
Here are three suggestions that would get this country out of a recession in 12 months, not that the Democrats will listen or even consider any of these ideas. These are not original ideas. They are just great ideas from several sources that Congress and the president are ignoring because they would result in less government control.
The reason that we would be out of the recession in 12 months is that businesses would get excited and start planning to grow their business instead of making plans to just survive. It's just that simple. The prospect of bigger government and more taxes does not inspire businesses to grow. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
By Barbara Simpson
Posted: October 12, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
Barack Obama is like the opera singer vocalizing before a performance: Take a breath and sing … 'me, me, me, me, me!'
Reports are that when Robert Gibbs woke him early Friday with the news that the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize had his name on it, Obama was surprised.
And humbled, of course.
Of course.
It wouldn't do for him to express pride in the award. With good reason: he's done nothing to earn or deserve it.
Consider that any normal person would be bursting with pride after being named for that international honor. For a normal person, a Nobel Prize for peace or for any of the other categories of honorees, such as literature, medicine and science, would engender feeling excitement and happiness.
Those emotions would reflect that the person was being rewarded and honored for years of research, work and accomplishment in their chosen field.
But Barack Obama isn't a "normal" person. He's a man of mixed race with a clouded family history who somehow got out of the comfortable middle class and into the heady ether of the Ivy League. How or why we don't know, but get there he did, using the perks that opened doors to the ride of his life that continues today.
It's an amazing story, because despite what many believe were disadvantages of race and birth and possibly religion, he's risen above them – way above them.
Consider: a man of little accomplishment who, in the course of barely four years, went from community organizer to politics and now president of the USA.
Then on Friday, it's the Nobel Peace Prize.
How nice that former vice president Al Gore – who won his own Nobel Peace Prize for his fictional climate-change work and "documentary" along with a Grammy and an Oscar – says Obamas' Nobel is extremely well deserved and an honor for the country.
It takes one to know one. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From WorldNetDaily
By Chuck Norris
Posted: October 12, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
God and guns are what our country was founded upon. Any new student of the Revolutionary period quickly learns that. They are what keep us strong, or what should keep us strong. They are there for our defense.
God and guns were so important to our founders that they established our protection to exercise them in the first two amendments to our Constitution – the uninhibited and unrestricted freedom to choose our own religion and bear our own firearms.
But, more and more, these pillars of American life and liberty are being attacked and abandoned, not only out of sheer bias but ignorance of our founders, the Revolutionary period and our Constitution. Instead, these pivotal American rights have become the brunt end of cultural jokes and are often regarded as biased lifestyle components of "rednecks" and rural citizens.
For example, gone but not forgotten is even President Obama's partiality on the campaign trail in April 2008. You might recall, at a private California fundraiser, when he addressed the economic hardships of those in Pennsylvania, he quipped: "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. … And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion … as a way to explain their frustrations."
Presently, with the Supreme Court back in session, and new justice Sonia Sotomayor's narrow view of the Second Amendment, gun rights are back again on the docket. Two weeks ago, concerning a case out of Chicago, the justices agreed to rule on whether the Second Amendment gives Americans a constitutional right to keep and bear arms that is enforceable against local and state gun laws.
And with two more justices likely on the edge of retirement, the more than 90 million firearm bearers in this country have a right to be concerned. No wonder some are calling the gun issue the new abortion. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
Posts
