If you can stomach the elitist arrogance and condescension exuding in the video below, you will see liberal news media members in action on CNN discussing the "desecration" of the internet caused by bloggers. Not by pornography, hate sites or terrorist created ones. No, blogs that express points of view that are at odds with the far-left, out of touch news media. Just people exercising their rights of free speech, dissemination of information and opinions.
As we discovered with the Journolist scandal, these media members want to completely control the transmission and availability of information ... with a very liberal/progressive angle.
An online forum called Journolist has been used by hundreds of liberal journalists to collude in “news” presentation in order to advance the liberal agenda. More specifically and egregiously, it was a communications portal that served to facilitate a coordinated approach in getting Obama elected by controlling the news. This involved discussing what stories to cover and with what angle and what stories to suppress.
The prime victim of their journalistic malfeasance was Sarah Palin whom they attacked with a vengeance. Conversely, they intentionally quashed stories on Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obama’s associations with his racist church and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
The Daily Caller uncovered some of the media that were involved including Time, Politico, The Huffington Post, The Baltimore Sun, Salon, Guardian, the Washington Independent and the New Republic and big individual names such as Joe Klein of the Times.
Media bias is an understatement of the malfeasance that was perpetrated here.
The following three articles further elucidate and scrutinize this abject journalistic malpractice:
Arizona’s new immigration law S.B. 1070, which has been relentlessly attacked by many liberals and the news media yet is overwhelmingly supported by Americans, is also serving as the prototype for immigration legislation in several other states as discussed below. Americans are sick and tired of the problems associated with illegal immigration: increased crime and violence, massive unreimbursed costs such as for healthcare, education, welfare, and the judicial system which are presently being paid by us through our tax dollars, burdens on our schools and even what is becoming a ubiquitous finding: bilingual signs and communications.
Despite this, the Obama Administration is fighting this law under the pretense that it necessarily requires “profiling”. This is not the true reason, however, as the legislation is essentially a replica of the federal law that adds controls to mitigate the “risk” of profiling. (Of course, liberals want to label “profiling” a racist action when in fact profiling represents the most logical, efficient and prudent way to detect what one is looking for which in this situation, are illegal aliens.)
Among the real reasons that Obama is against the law is for political purposes. He wants more of the Hispanic vote. As we have noted in previous posts, the fact that he would intentionally keep the border unsecured which also affords terrorists the ability to sneak into this country, is inexcusable, irresponsible, contemptuous and actions of what could be termed an anti-President.
Let’s reiterate. Obama resolutely refuses to secure our borders for personal political reasons which consequently places America in much greater jeopardy for future terrorism by allowing terrorist to infiltrate undetected into our country. This also financially burdens all 50 states (or in his mind, 57 states) and their citizens who have to bear all the attendant costs associated with these illegals which is estimated to be around $113 billion per year.
And one more thing. Ideology and narcissism aside, the Obama Administration and some liberal groups state that the cost of deporting the entire illegal alien population would be prohibitively expensive – estimated to be $285 billion over 5 years. The cost for them staying here during these 5 years is $565 billion ($113 billion per year times 5 years).
Interesting! We could actually save $280 billion over these five years if these illegal immigrants were sent back where they came from. That is $56 billion per year in net savings which would then jump to more than $113 billion per year after these first 5 years.
No wonder the federal government is against this: it would save us money instead of being a money losing proposition which the Democrats feel more comfortable with!
Arizona Immigration Law Emerges as Model for Other States
July 7, 2010
Arizona’s immigration law, considered controversial by some and under legal assault by the Obama administration, is fast emerging as a popular model in other states where illegal immigration is a hot-button issue.
And while protests against the law have drawn thousands to marches across the country, polls have consistently showed a majority of Americans favor the get-tough approach against illegal immigration.
At least three other states could pass similar legislation next year, and in many others, like Florida, GOP candidates are filming campaign ads and pushing debates favoring the law.
Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah have each taken steps against illegal immigration, and politicians in the three states are advocating further measures when their legislatures reconvene early next year, according to The Washington Post.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in at least 14 other states drew up bills that permit police officers to question anyone they suspect of being in the county illegally – the core issue of the Arizona law.
But it’s an open question in many of those states whether these bills would make it past sitting governors, many of whom are Democrats. In Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, however, political factors improve the chances that state legislatures could follow Arizona's lead when they convene in 2011, according to the Post.
Oklahoma was actually the first state, not Arizona, to adopt legislation that was the toughest ever against undocumented immigrants. That happened in 2007. The measure made it a felony to knowingly provide transport or shelter to an illegal immigrant, and blocked illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses and tuition.
The lawmaker responsible for the measure, Republican state Rep. Randy Terrill, has said he wants to go even further with another bill next year that would seize property from businesses that knowingly employ undocumented immigrants.
Terrill cited the arrest of an alleged Mexican drug cartel member last week as evidence that an "Arizona-plus" measure is needed urgently. He said the effect of Arizona's law had been to push illegal immigrants "straight down Interstate 40" toward Oklahoma, according to the Post.
In South Carolina, GOP Gov. Mark Sanford touted a comprehensive set of new measures against illegal immigration as the strictest yet when he signed it into law in 2008. The measure forced businesses to check the immigration status of their workers.
Harboring and transporting illegal immigrants also became a state crime. State lawmakers want to build on it and were quick this year to draw up an Arizona-style bill, introducing it less than a week after the Arizona measure had been signed.
"We had a bill that was introduced this year that was very similar to the final version of the Arizona legislation. It was too late for us to move on it, but I have every expectation a new bill will be introduced in January," Republican state Sen. Larry Martin told the Post.
"As long as an officer has a lawful reason to question someone, and then a suspicion develops [that] they are an undocumented person, then I think our law enforcement folks ought to be able to pursue that," he said.
In Utah, pro-immigrant advocates fear that new legislation clamping down on illegal immigration is inevitable next year. Several lawmakers there are advocating a crackdown, according to the Post.
On paper, Arizona's controversial new immigration law is not that different from the federal version. But the key difference is this: Arizona wants every illegal immigrant caught and deported. The federal government says treating all 11 million of the nation's illegal immigrants as criminals would overwhelm the system.
In its lawsuit challenging the Arizona law, the Justice Department says its policy is to focus on dangerous immigrants: gang members, drug traffickers, threats to national security. Law-abiding immigrants without documentation would largely be left alone.
Homeland Security officials say the government cannot possibly find, arrest and deport everyone who is here illegally. And trying to do so would also upset a balance crafted by Congress that takes into account humanitarian interests and foreign relations.
But proponents of the Arizona solution insist that's no reason not to try. And they say the state's toughest-in-the-nation law is a reasonable way to start.
"If it's really the case that they don't have enough resources to enforce the laws that Congress has passed, it would seem it's incumbent on them to go back to Congress and ask for more resources," said Steven Camarota, research director at the center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors stricter enforcement of immigration laws. "But since they don't do that, it sort of undermines the argument."
Arizona's new law is nearly identical to federal immigration law. At issue is how it is enforced. The federal government says the state law is unconstitutional because it usurps federal authority to protect U.S. borders and American citizens. Arizona counters that the federal government is not doing its job, which forces state officials to step in.
State lawmakers argue that the federal government already enlists local authorities to identify illegal immigrants who have been arrested for other crimes. The new law, they say, just extends that to police patrols.
The federal government says the law goes too far by making it a state crime to be in Arizona illegally and requiring police to question the immigration status of anyone they encounter who is believed to be undocumented.
The furor over the Arizona law is overblown, Camarota said Wednesday. It does not envision mass deportations or roundups, just a slow but steady pressure on illegal immigrants to leave Arizona — either for their home countries or for another state.
The number of illegal immigrants in the country fell for the first time this decade in 2007, and dropped another 800,000 between 2008 and 2009, primarily due to the recession and increased enforcement efforts.
As of January 2009, an estimated 10.8 million people were in the country illegally, 1 million less than the 2007 peak, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
Deportations have been increasing, climbing from 185,944 in 2007 to 387,790 last year.
Many critics argue the federal government cannot selectively enforce immigration law, but it's common for law enforcement at all levels to prioritize. Small-time pot dealers do not receive the same level of investigation or prosecution as big-time heroin traffickers. The government has also tolerated medical marijuana in 14 states.
But Arizona's law has brought selective enforcement — and the differences that exist even among police agencies — into clearer focus.
Those differences are stark, even in the Phoenix metro area. Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris says in an affidavit supporting the federal suit that he will probably have to move detectives focused on violent crime to street patrol because regular officers will be busy enforcing Arizona's new law.
But Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has been at the forefront of the effort to empower local authorities to enforce immigration laws, routinely assigns deputies to crime sweeps where they target illegal immigrants.
The federal government is worried that other states will follow Arizona's lead, overwhelming federal agencies with non-criminal illegal immigrants who will cost the government millions to deport.
A March study by the liberal Center for American Progress estimated that deporting the entire illegal immigration population and securing the borders would cost $285 billion over five years.
In the government lawsuit, officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection declared they will be forced to shift resources from major cases to minor ones if the law goes into effect as scheduled on July 29.
Five other lawsuits, filed by immigrant-rights groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and individuals, are already before a federal judge in Phoenix. The federal challenge filed Tuesday is expected to be transferred to the same judge, who has hearings set for next week on requests to block the law from taking effect.
The federal lawsuit focuses on a core constitutional concern — balancing power between the states and the federal government. More specifically, the issue centers on the long-running "pre-emption" legal argument that says federal law trumps state law.
The government sidestepped concerns about the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates. Experts said those are weaker arguments that do not belong in a federal legal challenge.
Material from the Associated Press was used in this story.
If you're a guy, just some more reasons to want to be a conservative.
And if you're a woman, sorry! At least you know that you're not superficial like men are and probably don't need to see a corresponding one with Conservative Men Versus Liberal Men.
The following is just one more inexcusable example of the far-left biased news media and its double standards in reporting/not reporting news. It is also why they are becoming more irrelevant as Americans have realized that their reportage is extremely biased and incomplete - so they seek it from Fox News, talk radio and the internet.
We can only imagine the immense outrage and headlines if the reverse occurred instead and Jerry Brown was the one being called a Nazi.
Jerry Brown Calls Meg Whitman a Nazi, Media Mostly Mum
By Noel Sheppard 06/12/2010
California's Democrat gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown on Tuesday called his Republican rival Meg Whitman a Nazi.
You probably didn't hear about this because America's media largely ignored it.
By contrast, the press had a field day when Republican senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina made a comment about Barbara Boxer's (D-Calif.) hair that was picked up by an open microphone Tuesday evening.
Why the double standard?
Consider your answer as you read what Brown told KCBS radio's Doug Sovern:
Brown boasted about his legendary frugality. "I've only spent $200,000 so far. I have 20 million in the bank. I'm saving up for her." It's true - his stay-on-the-sidelines, bare-bones primary run cost him almost nothing, at least in California political terms. But he also fretted about the impact of all those eBay dollars in Whitman's very deep pockets. "You know, by the time she's done with me, two months from now, I'll be a child-molesting..." He let the line trail off. "She'll have people believing whatever she wants about me." Then he went off on a riff I didn't expect.
"It's like Goebbels," referring to Hitler's notorious Minister of Propaganda. "Goebbels invented this kind of propaganda. He took control of the whole world. She wants to be president. That's her ambition, the first woman president. That's what this is all about."
Sovern followed this up Thursday:
The campaign of Meg Whitman has issued the following statement in response to the comments made by Jerry Brown, quoted in my blog posting "Run Jerry Run."
"Just last week, Governor Brown promised he wasn't going to engage in mudslinging, but now he is comparing Meg Whitman to Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. Jerry Brown's statements comparing our campaign to a propagator of the Holocaust is deeply offensive and entirely unacceptable."
Jerry Brown's campaign spokesman, Sterling Clifford, confirms to the Associated Press that the conversation took place, describing it as "a discussion after a chance meeting while they were exercising. I wouldn't vouch for the accuracy of it, but I also don't want to dispute the accuracy of it. It was jogging talk taken out of context." He says Brown was not comparing the Whitman campaign to Nazis.
UPDATE: Friday afternoon, Jerry Brown issued the following statement: "I regret making the comments. They were taken out of context."
Pretty serious stuff happening in America's most-populated state, wouldn't you agree?
Yet our media weren't very interested.
Although Politico reported this matter late Thursday evening, as did the Associated Press shortly after, the rest of our supposedly impartial press almost completed ignored Brown's disgusting remarks.
According to Google news and LexisNexis searches, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and NBC didn't file one report on this subject through Friday evening.
NOT ONE!
I can also find no newspaper reports outside of California.
Zero, nada, zilch!
Bucking the trend was Fox News during Friday's "Special Report" and CNN's Jack Cafferty giving it a mention on the same day's "Situation Room."
By contrast, when Fiorina was caught on an open microphone saying that Boxer's hair was "so yesterday," the media had a field day.
CNN has already done eleven reports on this vital matter impacting our nation. MSNBC's done three.
On the broadcast networks, NBC did three reports, ABC did two, and CBS did one. Those actually included a segment on ABC's "World News with Diane Sawyer"
As for newspapers, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New York Daily News, and the Houston chronicle all found Fiorina saying Boxer's hair was "so yesterday" newsworthy.
I guess our media must think a Republican commenting about a rival's hair is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than a Democrat calling a political opponent a Nazi.
Earlier this year while jogging on a trail, Texas Governor Rick Perry shot and killed a coyote that was threatening his dog. Not unexpectedly, this served as fodder to illustrate how far our country has devolved from its founding which was exemplified by a strong work ethic, common sense, responsibility and practicality compared to where we are right now. The quintessential examples of this and polar opposites on myriad issues are Texas and California.
The Governors of California and Texas are jogging with their dogs along different trails at different times each is faced with a coyote that jumps out and starts to attack their dog. Their responses mirror the attitudes and politics of their respective states:
California Governor:
1. Governor starts to intervene and then realizes he should stop; the coyote is doing what is natural.
2. Call animal control. Animal control captures coyote and spends $200 testing it for diseases and $500 relocating it.
3. Call Vet. Veterinarian collects dead dog and spends $200 testing it for diseases.
4. Governor goes to hospital and spends $3500 getting checked for diseases from the coyote and getting bite wound bandaged.
5. Running trail gets shut down for 6 months while wildlife services conduct a $100,000 survey to make sure the area is clear of dangerous animals.
6. Governor spends $50,000 and starts a coyote awareness program for people who live in the area.
7. State legislature spends $2 million investigating how to better handle rabies and how to possibly eradicate it.
8. Governor’s security agent fired for not stopping the attack and letting the Governor try to intervene.
9. Cost $75,000 to train new security agent.
10. PETA protests the relocation of the coyote.
Texas Governor:
1. Governor pops a $1.23 .380 ACP Gold Dot Hollow Point and drops the coyote.
2. (Not complicated enough to need a #2.)
He and the dog keep jogging.
And people still wonder why California is BROKE… as are many other liberal/Democrat run states, counties and cities.
According to liberals, these women could be empathetic to the causes and rights of all the women across America.
Wrong!
And what about the men of this country?
A recent Pew Research Report finds that there is overwhelming public support for Arizona's new immigration law. This is, of course, despite what the news media is reporting or the liberal politicians are spewing.
Sign Seen During Illegal Alien Protest in Phoenix:
The rapidly increasing incendiary rhetoric of illegal Mexicans here in this country does not portend well for the near future in many areas of America unless quick and decisive actions are taken. Fueling these belligerent and entitlement attitudes and uprisings are irresponsible comments made and positions taken by the far left news media and demagogic liberal politicians including Obama. Even those involved in education have had a pernicious effect on the problem as witnessed by several recent incidents in California. We have seen violence flare up in many areas in that state on top of an already increased level of crime perpetrated by these illegals throughout this country.
We must support immediate and decisive action otherwise we will be paying not only monetarily but also in blood.
Instead of reporting all relevant stories in order to inform the public, the media have become fervent supporters and cheerleaders for Obama and the Democratic Party. Instead of their role as anticipated by the Founding Fathers to protect the people from the government and expose malfeasance, they countenance nearly all behavior by liberal politicians and function as a de facto wing of the Democratic Party – a P.R. one.
This collusion with and protection of the favored Obama and Democrats is corrupt, pernicious and threatens the survival of capitalism and democracy in this country. Unless more Americans wake up to this reality and strongly react, our future looks abysmal.
One-Sidedness Now Epidemic In Newsrooms
By Larry Elder 05/04/2010
Obama Double Standard Disease: an affliction that causes the media to ignore, rationalize or trivialize to defend, support and advance the tax-the-rich, spread-the-wealth, expand-the-government agenda of the president and his party.
This stands in stark contrast with media treatment of those who refuse to embrace the left-wing, America-bullies-world, dissenters-are-racist, pro-amnesty, gay-marriage-is-a-right, pro-Roe worldview.
ODSD is pandemic. Here are just a few cases.
When the economy recovered under President George W. Bush, the major media pronounced it a "jobless recovery." Now, despite unemployment stalled at 9.7% for several months, the same media call it a "surprising" or "unexpected" recovery.
Obama urged passage of an $800 billion "stimulus" package to prevent unemployment from reaching 8%. Post-stimulus passage, unemployment reached 10%. Consider how the media would have treated Bush had he given varying predictions about, and then varying accounts of, the number of jobs supposedly "created or saved" — a laughably unprovable yardstick.
Obama brazenly claims that under his policies, 95% of "working Americans" received a "tax cut." But nearly half of American workers pay absolutely nothing in income taxes. And after exemptions, tax credits and other deductions, the Obama tax cut even exceeded many workers' payroll taxes. How does a check, given to someone who pays little or no taxes, become a "tax cut"?
The National Rifle Association backed the 2000 presidential candidacy of George W. Bush. Describing the organization's relationship with Bush as "unbelievably friendly," an NRA official said a Bush victory would mean "a president where we work out of their office." The media pounced.
Typical of the coverage was a Washington Post article with this headline: "The NRA Brags That They'll Work Out Of President GW Bush's Oval Office." The Post pointed out that the NRA gave more than $500,000 in 1999 and 2000 to the GOP and expected to spend between $12 million and $15 million more on the 2000 election.
The Service Employees International Union, to elect Obama and other Democrats in 2008, spent $85 million. And in support of corporate bailouts, ObamaCare and higher taxes to "spread the wealth differently," SEIU President Andy Stern said, "Western Europe, as much as we used to make fun of it, has made different trade-offs which may have ended with a little more unemployment but a lot more equality."
NBC's Matt Lauer did not ask Obama about the incredible willingness of the SEIU — his biggest financial supporter — to accept fewer jobs for "a lot more equality." CBS' Katie Couric did no story on the union's admission that higher taxes mean fewer jobs. No Washington Post editorial page asked how Stern's "trade-off" of fewer jobs squares with what Obama said about the importance of creating jobs: "That's the single most important thing we can do."
Acorn strongly endorsed Obama. The group's CEO, Bertha Lewis, gave a speech at the winter conference of the Young Democratic Socialists. She said: "Any group that says, 'I'm young, I'm Democratic and I'm a socialist,' is all right with me.
"You know, that's no light thing to do, to actually say, 'I'm a socialist.' ... Right now, we are living in a time which is going to dwarf the McCarthy era. It's going to dwarf the internments during World War II. We are right now in a time that is going to dwarf the era of Jim Crow and segregation.
Did the media ask Obama about Lewis' lunatic attack on those who disagree or about her open embrace of socialism? Did the media ask if Obama cared to comment on his promise, made during the campaign, to allow Acorn to "shape the agenda" of his presidency? Did they ask why Obama dismisses critics who call his agenda "socialism" — even as one of his biggest backers uses that very word?
ODSD ravages the country. It guarantees a pass is given to an administration that refuses to use the term "Islamofascism"; that offends traditional allies like Israel and new ones like Poland and the Czech Republic; that apparently accepts a nuclear Iran; that ignores government's role in the housing meltdown while blaming Wall Street "greed"; and that makes appeals to voters along racial lines.
It means the harmful consequences of the exploding welfare state get ignored, trivialized or disputed. It means "experts" hand-picked by the media overwhelmingly support the administration's income-equality agenda. It means that inconvenient news stories questioning "bigger and better" government or showing another side are downplayed, underreported or dismissed.
The Obama Double Standard Disease is a pre-existing illness — not covered, even under ObamaCare.
With Obama’s ascendancy to the Presidency, Americans are witnessing and experiencing rampant racism and not of whites to blacks but rather the opposite, of blacks to whites. Furthermore, this is being accepted with either in your face glee by many blacks or by a dismissive attitude by the liberal media and politicians.
This acceptance of preferential treatment, privileges, rights, etc. because the facilitator or perpetrator is black (as opposed to white) is unacceptable, discriminatory and illegal.
IT IS RACIST AND MUST BE STOPPED! This must be done by actions including verbally, protests, laws and lawsuits.
There must be no tolerance of this black on white (or on any other race/color)!
Stories similar to the one below has become quite commonplace throughout the country with liberals claiming that such actions are “providing more equal opportunities or leveling the playing field”. Such claims are demagoguery but are used to obtain advantages for blacks at the expense of others. There are plenty disadvantaged whites or Hispanics who are being discriminated against by these actions.
You can just imagine the national outrage and uproar (including visits by Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton) if there was a school field trip for (poor) whites that excluded blacks. We didn’t hear a peep from these racist demagogues that white children were excluded.
Double standards are not acceptable!!
Field trip for black students sparks controversy at Ann Arbor elementary school
David Jesse AnnArbor.com Staff May 3, 2010
An Ann Arbor elementary school principal used a letter home to parents tonight to defend a field trip for black students as part of his school’s efforts to close the achievement gap between white and black students.
Dicken Elementary School Principal Mike Madison wrote the letter to parents following several days of controversy at the school after a field trip last week in which black students got to hear a rocket scientist.
Principal Mike Madison is shown at Forsythe in this 2005 file photo.
“In hindsight, this field trip could have been approached and arranged in a better way," Madison wrote. "But as I reflect upon the look of excitement, enthusiasm and energy that I saw in these children’s eyes as they stood in the presence of a renowned African American rocket scientist in a very successful position, it gave the kids an opportunity to see this type of achievement is possible for even them.
“It was not a wasted venture for I know one day they might want to aspire to be the first astronaut or scientist standing on the Planet Mars.
“I also think it’s important that you know that I have talked to the children who did not go on the field trip, and I think they have a better understanding of the purpose of the AA Lunch Bunch now, as I hope you do. I’m sorry if any kids were upset by the field trip or my discussion afterwards with them, and I have let them know that.
“The intent of our field trip was not to segregate or exclude students as has been reported, but rather to address the societal issues, roadblocks and challenges that our African American children will face as they pursue a successful academic education here in our community.”
A handful of parents have complained to district administrators about the trip, the group and Madison. More than a half-dozen parents contacted AnnArbor.com to raise the complaints, but none would agree to talk on the record, citing concerns of reprisals to their children by Madison.
While there’s no clear agreement between the two sides about exactly what happened, most of the controversy centers on a field trip taken last week by the Lunch Bunch for African American boys and girls to hear a black rocket engineer talk.
District spokeswoman Liz Margolis said after the trip was over, those who went returned to their fifth-grade class and were greeted by boos by those who didn’t go on the trip. Margolis said Madison, who is black, heard the boos, and went to talk to the class. She said he and the class had a “discussion” about race issues.
“He wasn’t yelling at them. He was very passionate about it,” Margolis said.
Parents have complained he was yelling at the class and belittled a Muslim girl who said she also had experienced racism and discrimination.
The program itself began earlier this year after the school received its latest achievement results. Margolis said the Lunch Bunch came from the school’s School Improvement Team and is tied to that team’s goals. She said several other schools in the district have similar programs targeting specific subgroups of students who are at risk.
According to meeting minutes, Madison introduced the club to the PTO in February as part of the school and district’s equity work.
Parent Vicki Haviland, who is white and has three children at Dicken, said she is supportive of the overall program. Haviland is the secretary of the Dicken PTO and has filed papers for the open school board seat.
“I think the African-American Lunch Bunch is totally in line with the district’s equity work,” she said. “I think the field trip was a fine idea.”
She said she hopes the school and the district would “do a better job in talking about (race in education). Clearly there are people who don’t feel heard about it.”
David Jesse covers K-12 education for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at davidjesse@annarbor.com or at 734-623-2534.
The following are some of the comments that readers made to the above article:
I propose Dicken create a "Whites Only Lunch Bunch Club."
By creating and sanctioning both the "African American Lunch Bunch Club" and sponsoring the "blacks only" field trip, Madison is in direct violation of the Non-Discrimination Policy of the Ann Arbor Public Schools (Board Policy 2050). That policy reads as follows: No person shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in any educational program or activity available in any school on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, creed, political belief, age, national origin, linguistic and language differences, sexual orientation, gender expression, socioeconomic status, height, weight, marital or familial status, or disability.
Michael Madison's actions are also in direct violation of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative which states that a "public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."
Madison writes, "The intent of our field trip was not to segregate or exclude students as has been reported, but rather to address the societal issues, roadblocks and challenges that our African American children will face as they pursue a successful academic education here in our community."
If this had been a "whites only" field trip you'd have Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and every other noise maker heading to Ann Arbor screaming racial injustice and demanding that the person or persons involved in arranging this field trip be relieved of their duties. Why is it when it's the other way around, nothing is ever said or done???
Can you imagine the fallout if whites only were taken on a field leaving black kids behind.Jesse Jackson,Farakon,Al Sharpton etc.would be here in 12 hours flat with their mugs on national tv.That being said the parents who complained but refuse to be named are spineless.Way to stand up for your beliefs.I hope you sleep well and are proud of yourselves.Lame excuse given too.
But the field trip was by invitation only and only black students were invited to attend. Madison used skin color as the sole criteria for determining who could experience this special field trip. When there wasn't enough room for all the black children to attend, he "uninvited" some of the black girls. I wonder what Madison would have done had there not been enough room for all of the black boys? Sent the light-skinned black boys back to their classrooms?
Madison also wrote in his email message to parents this evening, "Even though I am the principal of Dicken school, these strategies and interventions were not made in isolation by myself. The entire staff at Dicken decided that we needed to do something different."
Embarrassing attempt by Madison to "share the blame" for HIS ridiculous decision to give special privileges to children based solely on the color of their skin.
What the article fails to mention is that Madison is a black male and that he doles out special attention and privileges not to underachieving children, physically disadvantaged children, economically disadvantaged children, or all non-white children - just black children specifically. Privileges at Dicken Elementary School are based solely on skin color. There's nothing subtle about it, Michael Madison and the Ann Arbor School District are engaging in discriminatory practices.
Mr. Madison has taken, and will continue to take a lot of heat for this effort. In retrospect, it is easy to label this particular initative as a bad idea, at least in the way it was implemented. But let's cut him some slack. The achievement gap is a persistent problem, one that calls for special attention and out-of-the-box thinking. This was a sincere and heartfelt attempt to provide African American students with a unique opportunity to meet with a strong positive role model. Rather than sounding the alarm of indignation at reverse discrimination, let's look at this as a learning experience about how to introduce the issue of race (which people are very reluctant to discuss openly and honestly) into the classroom.
Madison just doesn't get it. Closing the achievement gap is a noble cause and I fully support it. What I don't support is excluding children out based solely on the color of their skin.
Madison has created an extremely hostile and divisive atmosphere at Dicken Elementary School.
P.S. Madison, you didn't apologize to all the children who weren't invited. My children did not get an apology from you. The only children who received an apology from you were the ones you berated and bullied for voicing their displeasure at being excluded, the ones you brought to tears, the ones who needed to be counseled after your angry tirade (because they are not black).
Madison starts to apologize and acknowledge he messed up, but catches himself and writes, "But as I reflect upon the look of excitement, enthusiasm and energy that I saw in these children’s eyes as they stood in the presence of a renowned African American rocket scientist in a very successful position, it gave the kids an opportunity to see this type of achievement is possible for even them."
But Madison, why did only the black children get to have such a wonderful experience? I wish you could have seen excitement, enthusiasm and energy in my children's eyes.
Andrew Thomas: I agree with your sentiment, but there are other ways to think outside the box and to accomplish these goals without engaging in blatant discrimination.
If white students had been invited to go they would have had a chance to see that a black man could achieve things that they might only associate whites. The school missed a very good opportunity to help break some racial stereotypies. Seems like a wasted opportunity.
And lest anyone believe otherwise, there were black children on that field trip who come from financially-privileged families.
If you believe in genetic mental equality, then the black achievement gap in the Ann Arbor school district is a function of nurture, not nature. The fact that there is a persistent achievement gap for black students in AA schools despite the tons of extra resources AA pumps into special emphasis programs speaks to the failure of the parents of these children.
Madison needs to listen to Bill Cosby and transmit some serious heat to the parents of these underperforming children. The AA school district is obviosuly bending over backwards to help them... and its not working. If you want to escape the soft discriination of low expectations- move into the Saline school system. AA is headed downhill.
I think all parents should join hands and and formally and peacefully protest the school, and then take a class action lawsuit againts # 1 the county. # 2 the school, and #3 Mike Madison!
This is a blatant abuse of his powers and he is no less guilty!
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” - Chief Justice Roberts
What happen to M. L. King's "I have a Dream" speech where people were judge by what they did and not their color? We should outlaw all racial groups and just be AMERICANS!
And in another example of PC (political correctness) run amok (see Arizona Should Be Praised Rather Than Reviled For Seeking To Protect Its Citizens Since The Federal Government Hasn't):
PC In The DOD
Investors Business Daily 04/26/2010
Political Correctness: The Army disinvited the Rev. Franklin Graham from praying at the Pentagon because he might offend Muslim soldiers. But isn't that the same attitude that led to the Fort Hood massacre?
The Army didn't want to offend a Muslim soldier — Maj. Nidal Hasan — who openly threatened "infidels" in Islamic diatribes. Brass ignored his jihadist rants and treated him with kid gloves. Hasan later opened fire on soldiers.
An internal Pentagon probe mentioned none of this, so no one should be surprised that the painful lesson of Fort Hood has not been learned — that catering to militant Muslims does not win their hearts and minds. In fact, it can embolden them.
In the latest chapter of military PC, the Pentagon canceled the appearance of Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, at an upcoming National Day of Prayer event because of Muslim complaints over his past "inappropriate" remarks about Islam.
After the 9/11 attacks, Graham described Islam as "a very evil and wicked religion." He explained that he thought it was his "responsibility to speak out against the terrible deeds that are committed as a result of Islamic teaching."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations called on its supporters to pressure the Pentagon to withdraw its May 6 prayer invitation to Graham. CAIR hailed the Pentagon's cave-in as a "victory."
No matter the circumstances, bowing to such a radical group — one with proven terror ties — is a new low in political correctness, even for the Army.
Another group, the liberal Military Religious Freedom Foundation, joined CAIR in complaining about the "Islamophobic" Graham. It argued that the Pentagon showed religious favoritism toward Christianity in inviting him.
Really? The Pentagon holds annual Iftar dinners for Muslims and is building mosques for them. It's also actively recruiting Muslim soldiers, even after the Fort Hood betrayal, and offering them leave for Islamic holidays.
Yet letting an evangelical preacher pray is too "Christian-themed"? Please. If the Pentagon favors any faith these days, it's Islam.
Our military leadership has been impaired by a PC culture that blinds it to even internal Islamic threats. Now comes this affront to one of the nation's leading evangelicals, who has boldly warned about such threats.
As it happens, President Obama met over the weekend with the 91-year-old Billy Graham at his North Carolina home as part of a pre-scheduled meeting. Out of respect for the elder Graham, the commander in chief ought to overrule the Pentagon and re-invite his son to speak on the National Day of Prayer.
But given this president's obsession with apologizing to the Muslim world, we won't hold our breath.
The following essay sheds important light on the out of control progressiveness of our tax code and how it threatens our democracy, productivity and attitudes. This is all elucidated in a very cogent fashion and understandable fashion.
Clearly, we must reverse the perversities of the tax code and make sure virtually everyone has some financial responsibility. Our future is depending on it.
Guess Who Didn't Pay Taxes On Tax Day
By Elizabeth Factor and Mallory Factor April 16, 2010 FOXNews.com
Progressive Democrats are using “tax reform” to create a group of Americans who pay no federal income tax at all.
Did you file your federal income taxes on or before April 15? Almost 50% of American households won’t be paying any federal income tax this year, and the reasons why have profound implications for our democracy as well as our economy now.
A series of tax reforms, generous exemptions and tax credits, including last year’s economic stimulus bill, have dropped millions of Americans from the federal tax rolls. Huge numbers of Americans are simply no longer affected by the federal income tax. The Tax Policy Center projects that 47 percent of all U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2009. And, the bottom 40 percent of income earners actually receive a cash payment from the government at tax time. This cash payment is styled as a “refund” but it is actually a net cash transfer from the government--not a refund of taxes actually withheld on income. And for many Americans, this cash transfer from Uncle Sam actually exceeds all federal, state and local taxes that they pay in any form during the year including sales taxes and social security taxes.
Of course, we are accustomed to the idea that high income earners pay more in taxes both in absolute terms and as a percentage of their incomes. But taxing only the top half of a society is not normal progressive taxation. Instead, the recent changes to our tax system are an example of politicians using the tax code for their own political ends. In this case, the so-called progressive Democratic politicians are using “tax reform” to grow their political base by creating a group of Americans that pay no federal income tax.
The people who don’t pay federal income taxes are, as the phrase goes, “rational economic actors” just as much as anyone. Like all people, non-taxpayers respond to economic incentives. Their demand for entitlements and government programs is naturally insatiable because they don’t care at all about the cost. Non-taxpayers don’t have any “skin in the game” and are completely indifferent to the government raising income taxes. So they will always support increasing government programs as a long as they get even a small benefit from them because it does not cost them a cent. It’s also perfectly rational for non-taxpayers to support politicians who favor more spending. Non-taxpayers get something for nothing, at least until the country becomes insolvent.
The so-called progressive Democratic politicians are rational actors too. By taking more and more Americans off the federal tax rolls, they are creating a permanent base of supporters for themselves. These politicians may claim to support increased government spending because of their concern for the less-fortunate but--hey, it also happens to be in their own political self-interest. And these politicians will continue to spend on these programs until our nation goes bust because they want to keep their jobs and grow expensive programs for their political base.
And what about the people paying all the federal taxes? Well, taxpayers respond to incentives too. When faced with increasing tax rates, taxpayers will reduce their income, which is why it is impossible to raise a lot of revenue by increasing taxes above a certain point. As taxes on income rise, taxpayers spend less time on work and more on leisure.
They avoid sales of investments and assets which could trigger income until they can pair them with offsetting losses from other transactions. They spend billions of dollars on tax advice and structuring to reduce their tax burden, which makes economic sense for them but which is a waste of resources for our society. In the aggregate, a tax system that is hostile to investment and growth has a distortive effect which harms U.S. productivity and reduces the standard of living of our whole nation.
Under the Obama administration, many Americans accustomed to paying their share of federal taxes are being taken off the tax rolls. Recent tax law changes mean that for the first time, in 2009, a family of four making $50,000 can pay no federal income tax at all. This family may not change its behavior and outlook immediately from its taxpaying days. But the family’s economic incentives are now to keep America taxing and spending. And a family at this income level has surely suffered in this recession, but should they really pay no federal income tax at all?
Ronald Reagan once said that a taxpayer is “someone who works for the Federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.” Every American should have to work for the federal government at least a little bit. We need to move back to a broad-based tax system so that more Americans understand that there is no such thing as free money—government spending actually has a huge cost for our nation.
The so-called "progressive" politicians have turned John Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country” on its head. And telling so many Americans that they don’t need to make sacrifices for our government, as we are now saying, is dangerous new territory for our nation and for the health of our democracy and economy.
Elizabeth Factor is an international tax lawyer and former investment banker.Mallory Factor is the co-chairman and co-founder of the Monday Meeting, an influential meeting of economic conservatives, journalists and corporate leaders in New York City. Mr. Factor is a well-known merchant banker and speaks and writes frequently on economic and fiscal topics for news stations, leading newspapers and other print and online publications. Mr. Factor writes frequently for the Fox Forum. Mr. Factor can be reached at mallory.factor@malloryfactor.com
Unfortunately though not unexpected given Obama’s past, his Presidency has increased rather than decreased racial discord. He was anointed as the racial healer by the media and many politicians and even voted for by millions of credulous voters who were deceived by his rhetoric on the issue rather than scrutinizing his unalloyed history of racism.
His twenty year close association with the vitriolic, racist, anti-white Reverend Jeremiah Wright and membership in a church that preached black nationalism philosophy, anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism (“Goddamn America”) as well as revered and formally honored Louis Farrakhan, should have served as more than fair warning of his sentiments.
Obama’s verbatim assessment of his church which was that “"I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial", should have further substantiated his racist philosophy. Of course, there are numerous other examples which came to light both before and after he was elected President.
After becoming President, he has continued to engender racial polarity such as by imprudently insinuating himself in the Henry Jones (Professor of Black Studies) and Cambridge, Mass. police incident in July of last year (About Obama’s Racially Inflammatory and Irresponsible Comments and More Unfortunate Consequences of Obama’s Racially Charged Statement). He also has appointed several radical and racist blacks to his Administration such as Eric Holder and Van Jones whose actions, history and rhetoric exude these sentiments.
By “promoting” racism in his discourse and overtly inappropriate selections, Obama is feeding black racism against whites (and others) and even against other blacks – those that don’t toe the black victimization and dependency agenda. If an Afro-American speaks out for conservative issues or is against demagogue preached policies (such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc.) then they are labeled “Uncle Toms” or “traitors”. This is abhorrent. No ethnic or racial group is or should be considered to be monolithic in its beliefs, morals, likes, etc. By demanding this of all blacks, they are being intra-racially racist and intolerant.
Exacerbating the problem, Obama could rein in this destructive behavior from his bully pulpit as the President but he won’t (because he clearly agrees). This is recklessly irresponsible and contributes to the political racist slandering by Democrats, especially by the politicians, news media and black demagogues against "non-compliant" blacks, conservatives and the Tea Parties.
Black Tea Party Activists Called 'Traitors' Black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement — and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation's first black president.
Feb. 10: Angela McGlowan announces at the Tupelo, Miss., City Hall, that she is running for the 1st Congressional District as a Republican.
ALBANY, N.Y. – They've been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement — and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation's first black president.
"I've been told I hate myself. I've been called an Uncle Tom. I've been told I'm a spook at the door," said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.
"Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks," he said.
Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the tea party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they're black — or that most tea partyers are white — should have nothing to do with it, they say.
"You have to be honest and true to yourself. What am I supposed to do, vote Democratic just to be popular? Just to fit in?" asked Clifton Bazar, a 45-year-old New Jersey freelance photographer and conservative blogger.
Opponents have branded the tea party as a group of racists hiding behind economic concerns — and reports that some tea partyers were lobbing racist slurs at black congressmen during last month's heated health care vote give them ammunition.
But these black conservatives don't consider racism representative of the movement as a whole — or race a reason to support it.
Angela McGlowan, a black congressional candidate from Mississippi, said her tea party involvement is "not about a black or white issue."
"It's not even about Republican or Democrat, from my standpoint," she told The Associated Press. "All of us are taxed too much."
Still, she's in the minority. As a nascent grassroots movement with no registration or formal structure, there are no racial demographics available for the tea party movement; it's believed to include only a small number of blacks and Hispanics.
Some black conservatives credit President Barack Obama's election — and their distaste for his policies — with inspiring them and motivating dozens of black Republicans to plan political runs in November.
For black candidates like McGlowan, tea party events are a way to reach out to voters of all races with her conservative message.
"I'm so proud to be a part of this movement! I want to tell you that a lot of people underestimate you guys," the former national political commentator for Fox News told the cheering crowd at a tea party rally in Nashville, Tenn., in February.
Tea party voters represent a new model for these black conservatives — away from the black, liberal Democratic base located primarily in cities, and toward a black and white conservative base that extends into the suburbs.
Black voters have overwhelmingly backed Democratic candidates, support that has only grown in recent years. In 2004, presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry won 88 percent of the black vote; four years later, 95 percent of black voters cast ballots for Obama.
Black conservatives don't want to have to apologize for their divergent views.
"I've gotten the statement, 'How can you not support the brother?'" said David Webb, an organizer of New York City's Tea Party 365, Inc. movement and a conservative radio personality.
Since Obama's election, Webb said some black conservatives have even resorted to hiding their political views.
"I know of people who would play the (liberal) role publicly, but have their private opinions," he said. "They don't agree with the policy but they have to work, live and exist in the community ... Why can't we speak openly and honestly if we disagree?"
Among the 37 black Republicans running for U.S. House and Senate seats in November is Charles Lollar of Maryland's 5th District.
A tea party supporter running against House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Lollar says he's finding support in unexpected places.
The 38-year-old U.S. Marine Corps reservist recently walked into a bar in southern Maryland decorated with a Confederate flag. It gave his wife Rosha pause.
"I said, 'You know what, honey? Many, many of our Southern citizens came together under that flag for the purpose of keeping their family and their state together,'" Lollar recalled. "The flag is not what you're to fear. It's the stupidity behind the flag that is a problem. I don't think we'll find that in here. Let's go ahead in."
Once inside, they were treated to a pig roast, a motorcycle rally — and presented with $5,000 in contributions for his campaign.
McGlowan, one of three GOP candidates in north Mississippi's 1st District primary, seeks a seat held since 2008 by The National Republican Congressional Committee has supported Alan Nunnelee, chairman of the state Senate Appropriations Committee, who is also pursuing tea party voters.
McGlowan believes the tea party movement has been unfairly portrayed as monolithically white, male and middle-aged, though she acknowledged blacks and Hispanics are a minority at most events.
Racist protest signs at some tea party rallies and recent reports by U.S. Reps. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Barney Frank, D-Mass., that tea partyers shouted racial and anti-gay slurs at them have raised allegations of racism in the tea party movement.
Black members of the movement say it is not inherently racist, and some question the reported slurs. "You would think — something that offensive — you would think someone got video of it," Bazar, the conservative blogger, said.
"Just because you have one nut case, it doesn't automatically equate that you've got an organization that espouses (racism) as a sane belief," Johnson said.
Hilary Shelton, director of the Washington bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, suggested a bit of caution.
"I'm sure the reason that (black conservatives) are involved is that from an ideological perspective, they agree," said Shelton. "But when those kinds of things happen, it is very important to be careful of the company that you keep."
Americans are under relentless assault by more liberal and far left members of the Federal government as well as the news media. Their purpose? To trivialize opposing points of view and actions in order to facilitate implementation of their radical agenda. That is a major reason for their denigrating the Tea Party Movement as being racist, composed of fringe elements, and not representing average Americans. The same can be said for their attacks on corporations (insurance companies, banks, pharmaceuticals), healthcare providers (including physicians and hospitals) and those in the vanguard exposing the realities of what really is transpiring (Fox News, conservative commentators, Sarah Palin). Diaphanous allegations and ad hominem attacks are their modus operandi.
We must counter their verbal attacks, false allegations and fabrications - persistently and loudly. If we don't and keep acquiescing to the Federal government's increasing restriction of our rights, freedoms and choices as well as their unrestrained confiscation of our hard earned money through taxes and fees, we will have little left. We will end up in a situation not dissimilar to that of communist Russia in the 1970's and early 80's with a privileged, powerful, and corrupt government ruling and repressing the rest of the people, the proletariat, and where there is controlled but not free speech and the government determines most aspects of our daily lives.
Speak loudly and often in defense of your rights so that we can continue to SPEAK FREE!
Speak Free
Media contributed by Tami Peterson Lewiski www.digitaldecorating.com
The anti-Conservative violence in Canada that preceded Ann Coulter’s intended but canceled speech is not an oddity – there or here. It seems that free speech whether by private citizens, politicians, writers or members of the media is only free if it espouses principles that comport with far-left ideology. Many conservative speakers and politicians have been attacked or had their speeches disrupted or terminated by groups of the radical left yet little or nothing was mentioned in the “main stream” media. In the majority of these situations, it appeared that such disruptive behavior was officially countenanced and not adequately or expeditiously neutralized.
When was the last time a liberal speaker at a University had their speech cancelled by out of control conservatives? Can’t think of any.
If one unkind word is spoken against a far-left adherent, the media is in an uncontrollable frenzy. The reverse does not occur in that the media and our present government actually encourage wanton vicious attacks against the right.
There are several important lessons in all of this. First, we must stand up and protect and fight for our rights. We must not allow our conservative points of view to be officially suppressed, threatened or punished whether it is by our government or a public institution. If we back down and don’t fight back, the consequences will be further erosion of our rights and freedoms. This is what has happened even in Canada and, of course, elsewhere. Let’s not let it happen here in America. There are already proposals to do just this such as the "Fairness Doctrine" and Obama's information czar who suggested controlling, correcting or deleting information on the internet that the government may deem "inaccurate" or "inappropriate".
We also must not be apologetic for our points of view or for non-violent means to express them. The left has done this very well. We need to be more verbally aggressive, loud and persistent.
Oh, Canada!
by Ann Coulter 03/24/2010
Since arriving in Canada I've been accused of thought crimes, threatened with criminal prosecution for speeches I hadn't yet given and denounced on the floor of the Parliament (which was nice because that one was on my "bucket list").
Posters advertising my speech have been officially banned, while posters denouncing me are plastered all over the University of Ottawa campus. Elected officials have been prohibited from attending my speeches. Also, the local clothing stores are fresh out of brown shirts.
Welcome to Canada!
The provost of the University of Ottawa, average student IQ: 0, wrote to me—widely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached me—in advance of my visit in order to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.
This marks the first time I've ever gotten hate mail for something I might do in the future.
Apparently Canadian law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group," which the provost, Francois A. Houle advised me, "would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
I was given no specific examples of what words and phrases I couldn't use, but I take it I'm not supposed to say, "F----you, Francois."
While it was a relief to know that it is still permissible in Canada to promote hatred against unidentifiable groups, upon reading Francois' letter, I suddenly realized that I had just been the victim of a hate crime! And it was committed by Francois A. Houle (French for "Frank A. Hole").
What other speakers get a warning not to promote hatred? Did Francois A. Houle send a similarly worded letter to Israel-hater Omar Barghouti before he spoke last year at U of Ottawa? ("Ottawa": Indian for "Land of the Bed-Wetters.")
How about Angela Davis, Communist Party member and former Black Panther who spoke at the University of Zero just last month?
Or do only conservatives get letters admonishing them to be civil? Or—my suspicion—is it only conservative women who fuel Francois' rage?
How about sending a letter to all Muslim speakers advising them to please bathe once a week while in Canada? Would that constitute a hate crime?
I'm sure Canada's Human Rights Commission will get to the bottom of Francois' strange warning to me, inasmuch as I will be filing a complaint with that august body, so I expect they will be reviewing every letter the university has sent to other speakers prior to their speeches to see if any of them were threatened with criminal prosecution.
Both writer Mark Steyn and editor Ezra Levant have been investigated by the Human Rights Commission for promoting hatred toward Muslims.
Levant's alleged crime was to reprint the cartoons of Mohammed originally published in a Danish newspaper, leading practitioners of the Religion of Peace to engage in murderous violence across the globe. Steyn's alleged crime was to publish an excerpt of his book, America Alone in Maclean's magazine, in which he jauntily described Muslims as "hot for jihad."
Both of them also flew jet airliners full of passengers into skyscrapers in lower Manhattan, resulting in thousands of deaths. No, wait—that was somebody else.
Curiously, however, there was no evidence that either the cartoons or the column did, in fact, incite hatred toward Muslims—nor was there the remotest possibility that they would.
By contrast, conservative speakers are regularly subjected to violent attacks on college campuses. Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and I have all been the targets of infamous campus attacks.
That's why the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute (a sponsor of my Canada speeches) and the Young America's Foundation (a sponsor of many of my college speeches) don't send conservatives to college campuses without a bodyguard.
You'd have to be a real A-Houle not to anticipate that accusing a conservative of "promoting hatred" prior to her arrival on a college campus would in actuality—not in liberal fantasies of terrified Muslims cowering in terror of Mark Steyn readers—incite real-world violence toward the conservative.
The university itself acknowledged that Francois' letter was likely to provoke violence against me by demanding—long after my speech was scheduled, but immediately after Francois disseminated his letter—that my sponsors pony up more than $1,200 for extra security.
Also following Francois' letter, the Ottawa University Student Federation met for 7 1/2 hours to hammer out a series of resolutions denouncing me. The resolutions included:
"Whereas Ann Coulter is a hateful woman;
"Whereas she has made hateful comments against GLBTQ, Muslims, Jews and women;
"Whereas she violates an unwritten code of 'positive-space';
"Be it resolved that the SFUO express its disapproval of having Ann Coulter speak at the University of Ottawa."
At least the students didn't waste 7 1/2 hours on something silly, like their studies.
At the risk of violating anyone's positive space, what happened to Canada? How did the country that gave us Jim Carrey, Mike Myers, Martin Short, Dan Aykroyd and Catherine O'Hara suddenly become a bunch of whining crybabies?
After Tuesday night, the hatred incited by Francois' letter is no longer theoretical. The police called off my speech when the auditorium was surrounded by thousands of rioting liberals—screaming, blocking the entrance, throwing tables, demanding that my books be burned, and finally setting off the fire alarm.
Sadly, I missed the book-burning because I never made it to the building.
But, reportedly, a Canadian crowd hasn't been this excited since they opened a new Tim Hortons. Local reporters couldn't make out what the crowd was chanting, but it was something about "Molson" and a "sled dog."
I've given more than 100 college speeches, and not once has one of my speeches been shut down at any point. Even the pie-throwing incident at the University of Arizona didn't break up the event. I said, "Get them!" and the college Republicans got them, and then I continued with my rambling, hate-filled diatribe—I mean, my speech.
So we've run this experiment more than 100 times.
Only one college speech was ever met with so much mob violence that the police were forced to cancel it: The one that was preceded by a letter from the university provost accusing me of hate speech.
(To add insult to injury, Francois didn't even plan to attend my speech because Tuesday is his bikini wax night.)
If a university official's letter accusing a speaker of having a proclivity to commit speech crimes before she's given the speech—which then leads to Facebook postings demanding that Ann Coulter be hurt, a massive riot and a police-ordered cancellation of the speech—is not hate speech, then there is no such thing as hate speech.
Either Francois goes to jail or the Human Rights Commission is a hoax and a fraud.
Incredibly and without little fanfare or news exposure, Obama is appropriating more than $100 billion of our taxes for indoctrinating our youth into the far-left ideology. This includes teaching the Saul Alinsky method of radical community organizing such as used by ACORN and re-educating these modern day “Hitler youths” to ascribe to Marxism, anti-American and anti-capitalism sentiment, etc. These individuals will also serve to recruit more voters to the Democratic Party and try to influence election results.
Now you know that our hard earned tax dollars are being used for a far-left agenda aimed at undermining our country and turning our youth against us.
Gov't Organizing Radicals In Our Schools
By PHYLISS SCHLAFLY 02/26/2010
President Obama's budget has added more than $100 billion in federal taxpayers' money to what is called "education," so that means it will be spent by alumni of the Saul Alinsky school of radical community organizing and/or the Chicago Democratic machine. We're indebted to Pamela Geller of AtlasShrugs.com for exposing the shocking use of some of these funds.
Obama is using the public schools to recruit a private army of high-schoolers to "build on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda." We now know Obama's "agenda" is to move the U.S. into European-style socialism.
Obama's Internet outreach during his campaign, Obama for America, has been renamed Organizing for America (OFA) in order to recruit students to join a cult of Obama and become activists for his goals.
Stirring It Up
Geller discovered that the teacher of an 11th-grade government class in Massillon, Ohio, passed out the sign-up sheet, headed with Obama's "O" logo, asking students to become interns for Organizing for America.
These interns will get an intensive nine-week training course using comprehensive lesson plans. Assigned readings include Saul Alinsky's notorious "Rules for Radicals," "Stir It Up: Lessons From Community Organizing and Advocacy" by left-wing activist Rinku Sen, and parts of "Dreams From My Father" dealing with Obama's days as a Chicago community organizer.
Republican students will be filtered out of the intern program by requiring applicants to answer questions that reveal their politics. One example: "What one issue facing our country is important to you and why?"
Geller said the purpose of this training to become Alinsky-style community organizers is, "of course, to elect more Democrats." The program is specifically geared to get the kids working in the 2010 elections.
Change Agenda
The sign-up sheet for Organizing for America starts with this instruction: "Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America, is building on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda of change."
The application explains that this national internship program is "working to make the change we fought so hard for in 2008 a reality in 2010 and beyond."
This is not the first time Obama has tried to enlist schoolchildren into an Obama cult.
Last fall, the instructions mailed to every school by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan added a very political dimension to Obama's speech that was broadcast to public school children on Sept. 8.
Geller explained the extensive political dimension of the intern program. The OFA student interns will be trained in the goals and language of the left: "anti-war agitation, anti-capitalism, Marx, Lenin, (Bill) Ayers, LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) agenda promotion, global warming, soft-on-jihad and illegal immigration."
Also on OFA's reading list is "The New Organizers" by Zack Exley. It brags about "an insurgent generation of organizers" inside the Obama campaign that has "almost without anyone noticing ... built the Progressive movement a brand new and potentially durable people's organization, in a dozen states, rooted at the neighborhood level."
The 10-page "National Intern Organizer Curriculum" is very specific in describing the tactics that interns will be taught. It includes these components: "Using Story as an Organizing Tool, Building Relationships and Building Teams, Mobilizing to Win on the Issues (issue advocacy), Health Care Service Project."
Passage of ObamaCare is one of this intern project's major goals. The curriculum promises to provide "insight on the strategy and plan behind the health care campaign" and "further motivate them to work on the issue."
The sign-up sheet states that the "purpose" of training these students is "to build community" among the interns and teach them "to be leaders in OFA's organizing work." After all, Barack Obama knows a great deal about being a community organizer — that was his only real job before he got into politics.
Acorn Support
Job prospects may be bleak for many Americans, but they will be rosy for alumni of Obama's intern program.
After the students have been fully trained as Alinsky-style community organizers, they will be eligible for jobs in Senior Corps, AmeriCorps or Learn and Serve America.
Those three so-called "service" organizations, which annually dole out millions of dollars to left-wing groups, are overseen by the Corporation for National and Community Service.
The U.S. Senate just confirmed this corporation's new chief executive, Patrick Corvington, who was a senior official of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which has given over a million and a half dollars to the Acorn network of organizations.
The news media and “our” liberal politicians see themselves as so elitist and righteous that they are resorting to attacking the American people who disagree with their policies. They disparage us as ignorant or benighted simply because we are exercising our Constitutional (and inherent) rights to oppose their far-left positions. Democracy has suddenly become an inconvenience for them as it has made passage of their various bills which would further restrict and control our rights and freedoms and plunder more of our hard earned wealth, nearly impossible.
This is also exactly why they are viciously attacking and denigrating the Tea Party Movement, a grass roots movement that represents an angry middle America. We are sick and tired of politicians imperiously foisting expensive and irresponsibly solutions on us, ransacking ever increasing amounts of the fruits of our labor, and destroying our economy, jobs and freedoms yet they live by another set of rules (including their gold plated healthcare plan), corruptly aggrandize themselves with our tax dollars and evince a general antipathy toward the people who are suppose to be their bosses.
This must stop. These despicable, arrogant, corrupt politicians must be voted out of office ASAP!
As for much of the news media, a boycott of their products and programs can be quite effective. In the following article alone, several of these are quoted from that excoriate Americans that we can place on this list:
Times Magazine, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker
To this we can add other far-left media like: MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS
Money, or the lack of it, talks. Let’s be quite loud on this issue!
Blame Americans First
Democrats lose patience with democracy.
By Matthew Continetti March 1, 2010
What’s the clearest sign the Obama agenda is in trouble? That’s easy: the string of jeremiads in the pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, and other outlets of fashionable opinion. Unable to tout the administration’s successes, and worried about Republican ascendancy, liberals have assigned responsibility for the mess they’re in neither to their program nor to their methods but to larger, structural faults in American politics and society. Beginning with you.
You aren’t too bright, for one thing. After all, opines Jacob Weisberg in Newsweek, the “biggest culprit” behind “our political paralysis” is the “childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.” You simply do not know what’s good for you. “On many issues these days,” writes the Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein, “the American people are badly confused.” “The people may have spoken,” writes the New -Yorker’s James Surowiecki. “It’s just not clear that they’re making any sense.” In a blog post titled “Too Dumb to Thrive,” Time magazine’s Joe Klein cuts to the chase: “It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you’re a nation of dodos.”
The problem, as Weisberg sees it, is that America “simultaneously demands and rejects action on unemployment, deficits, health care, and other problems.” Note the myopia. For Weisberg, the only conceivable “action” on any issue is limited to the policy preferences of liberal Democrats. No other options spring to mind.
This is nonsense. Just because the public says the economy is important does not necessarily mean it has to support a stimulus measure that has added massively to the debt without much benefit. Just because the public is concerned with rising health care costs does not mean that it has to support a bill that could alter existing health care arrangements and increase costs in the long-term. Steven Pearlstein writes that Americans “want to do something about global warming.” No they don’t. Global warming came dead last in a recent Pew survey of public priorities.
The reason health care, cap and trade, and the other blocks of Obama’s New Foundation are unpopular isn’t public ignorance. It’s that the public sees them as counterproductive—and in many cases beside the point. The people’s representatives have responded to a variety of signals, from falling poll numbers, to town hall protests, to GOP victories in -Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Which is precisely how democracy is supposed to function.
And that’s the problem, says Kurt Andersen in New York magazine. “American democracy has gotten way too democratic.” The “thoughtful, educated, well-off, well-regarded gentlemen” who designed our Constitution “wanted a government run by an American elite like themselves.” But the “populist impulse” abroad in the land today has scared legislators into obeying the people’s demands.
It was not always thus. “In the old days,” Andersen laments, “the elite media really did control the national political discourse” and “presidents and congressional leaders could pretty well manage the policy conversations” without the public trying to butt in. But there’s no going back now; “maybe our republic’s constitutional operating system simply can’t scale up to deal satisfactorily with a heterogenous population of 310 million.”
This liberal uneasiness with democracy is not new. In 2003, in The Future of Freedom, Fareed Zakaria made the case against too much public involvement in government. In 2008, in Hot, Flat, and Crowded, Thomas Friedman dreamed of America becoming “China for a day” so that he could impose his environmental agenda on a truculent populace. In a 2009 New York Times column, Friedman wrote that a dictatorship, “when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today,” has “great advantages” over democratic systems. In the Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows writes that “whatever is wrong with today’s Communist leadership [in Beijing], it is widely seen as pulling the country nearer to its full potential rather than pushing it away.” Nevertheless, the Democrats probably aren’t going to run on “Communist China Does It Better.”
What makes the liberal jeremiads confusing is that they work at cross purposes. On one hand, you’ve got the attacks on the people’s intelligence and representative government. On the other, you’ve got the attacks on American institutions for not being representative enough. Which is it? Are the people the problem, or is their government? According to Fallows, it’s the latter: “Our government is old and broken and dysfunctional, and may even be beyond repair.”
The culprit is the Senate, which gives equal say to states with small populations and requires 60 votes to pass legislation. Fallows says these minority rights have turned the Senate “into a deep freeze and a dead weight.” “America is not yet lost,” Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times, “but the Senate is working on it.” In a Huffington Post blog, Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, writes that special interests are “using the filibuster to stop legislation that would benefit the little guy,” whether the little guy likes it or not.
You can make a persuasive argument that the filibuster has been deployed too frequently in recent years, especially when it has prevented presidents, Republican and Democrat, from staffing their administrations. Nevertheless, the Senate and the filibuster are there for good reasons: to defuse momentary passions that could have unintended and harmful consequences for the country.
The system is designed to ensure broad consensus before Congress enacts major reforms. Such consensus existed during the New Deal and Great Society. And there was consensus behind certain elements of Reagan’s and Bush’s and Clinton’s programs, as well. That was not the case when George W. Bush attempted to overhaul Social Security, however. The public agreed with Bush that there was a problem, but it did not like his solution. It has had the same reaction to Obama’s proposals.
The liberal program is in disarray because liberals have failed to establish general agreement. They have found that simple majorities do not automatically translate into programmatic success. And when they are met with public opposition and institutional resistance, they do what comes naturally. They blame Americans first.
Matthew Continetti is associate editor of The Weekly Standard and the author, most recently, of The Persecution of Sarah Palin (Sentinel Books).
Some very interesting information is available about Obama’s past both before and during his Presidency. For understandable reasons, the liberal “mainstream” media has conveniently elected not to publicize this information lest they cast an unfavorable light on their Messiah. Of course, anyone else who is sentient could have rather easily surmised this just from his behavior and policies.
If you have some time, check the video and audio clips out. He is far more radical than most people are willing to concede which translates into greater threats to our rights and freedoms as we have already seen this first year. He disguises his nefarious intentions with lies and duplicitous rhetoric.
The upshot of this all is manifest: Obama can’t be trusted!
We all must be vigilant and vocal and relentlessly fight threats to our rights.
Some of Michelle Obama's books on socialism that are sitting on the bookshelves in the White House Library:
Michelle Obama stocked the White House Library with books on socialism.
The big, centralized government rhetoric of the Democratic Party is eerily reminiscent of that of the old Soviet Union which doesn’t bode well for the country or economy. Adding to the problem is the sinister brainwashing of our children to believe in the virtues of a large, powerful centralized government and denigrate capitalism and free choice.
Inexplicably, those who have the most to lose such as American Jews, are actually the most ardent supporters of these far left ideologies.
Perspectives Of A Soviet Immigrant (No. 6)
By Svetlana Kunin
There was an old Soviet saying: If you need to find food to fill your refrigerator, plug it into the microphone of a party leader giving a speech.
Today in America, if we plug a refrigerator into our leader's teleprompter, I suspect the refrigerator will stop working.
Democratic party leaders speak incessantly of limiting profits and regulating salaries.
It brings back to memory another Soviet line: You pretend you are paying us salaries, and we pretend we are working. If bureaucrats predetermine the value of your work, there is no incentive to be productive. This is the quickest way to kill a dynamic economy.
I never expected to hear this kind of rhetoric in the USA. Today, the American educational machine teaches exactly the same points the Soviets taught.
It idealizes Socialist societies and denigrates America, especially its economic system.
American students are brainwashed to despise economic freedom and to yearn for a big government state.
Freed from their parents' control, but intimidated by the relentlessly negative portrayal of America, young Americans look for politicians to show them the way.
As someone who experienced real government-approved anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union, I am amazed by the obliviousness of American Jews, the most fervent supporters of left-wing politics.
They support a party that is obsessed with pitting one group against another, and that incessantly plays on envy and hatred for bankers, rich people, big business and doctors.
They fail to notice that the success of Jews, as well as other minorities, in the sciences, business and arts is directly correlated to their freedom from oppressive, centralized control. American Jews who support big government do not understand what their ancestors escaped from.
Persecutions of Jews throughout history all have one thing in common: a centralized power that manipulates and directs people's anger away from themselves onto an easy target.
No matter how much Jews align themselves with the power structure and work for noble causes, they will remain an easy target.
As they said in the Soviet Union pertaining to Soviet Jews: They don't beat your record; they beat your face — meaning that no matter how much you try to assimilate, no matter how many good deeds you do, the centralized power can direct populist anger toward you and crush you when it suits them.
When the Bolsheviks took power after the 1917 proletarian revolution, their first steps were to take control of the banks and the media.
Of course, it is not fair to compare our current American democratic leaders with the Bolsheviks.
Yes, they both use the same slogans in their speeches.
Yes, they both stir up envy and class warfare to distract from their failures.
Yes, both political movements sought control of the banks as the foundation for their new egalitarian vision.
And yes, they are both opposed to free speech, as was made clear by the reaction of American leftists to the recent
Supreme Court decision.
But you would never find a Czar anywhere in the Soviet government.
• Kunin lived in the Soviet Union until 1980, working as a civil engineer. She is now a retired software developer living in Connecticut.
For those that don't know about history and never were taught this in school - here is a condensed version:
Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel . The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
1. Liberals, and
2. Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement .
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching, "yakking" and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement .
Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood, and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.
Conservative include such greats as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Monroe, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan and Paul Revere.
Counted among Liberals are Franklin Roosevelt, Barney Frank, Jimmy Carter and .... Barack Obama (socialist/communist?)
The scientific malfeasance perpetrated by United States weather “researchers” under the auspices of NASA is nothing short of audaciously and abominably corrupt. This should surprise no one as we have already exposed the Climategate fraud perpetrated by the Climate Research Unit in Great Britain in collusion with scientists from around the world. The offense that they have committed is similar to the British based fraud: deleting data that did not support the global warming ideology, cherry –picking data, and largely using monitoring stations in locations which would naturally provide warmer data.
And our politicians wonder why Americans are thoroughly cynical and distrustful of our government in record high numbers? Those scientists involved in this fraud should be fired and receive no benefits. To think that we were so close to having Cap and Trade pass based on manipulated and factitious data for venal, corrupt and ideological purposes which would have cost our country tens of trillions of dollars, dramatically reduced our standard of living, burden future generations with incomprehensible debt and ultimately bankrupt us.
By the way, where is all the liberal media outrage over this outrageous fraud? Have you even seen or heard one story aside from Fox News?
Just another reason the liberal media is fast becoming inconsequential!
A U.S. ClimateGate?
Investors Business Daily 01/22/2010
Hoaxes: Climate researchers and the Weather Channel's founder accuse NASA of the same data manipulation as Britain's Climate Research Unit. Were weather stations cherry-picked to hide the temperature drop?
We recently commented on how our space agency for two years refused Freedom of Information requests on why it has had to repeatedly correct its climate figures.
In a report on global warming on KUSI television by Weather Channel founder and iconic TV weatherman John Coleman, that reticence has been traced to the deliberate manipulation and distortion of climate data by NASA.
As Coleman noted in a KUSI press release, NASA's two primary climate centers, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, N.C., and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University in New York City, are accused of "creating a strong bias toward warmer temperatures through a system that dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked the locations of weather observation stations they use to produce the data set on which temperature record reports are based."
Joseph D'Aleo, of Icecap.us, said the analysis found NASA "systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations." The number of actual weather stations used to calculate average global temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 today. The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35.
E. Michael Smith, a computer programming expert who worked with D'Aleo, said he found "patterns in the input data from NCDC that looked liked dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold locations." The more he looked, the more he found "patterns of deletion that could not be accidental."
Stations in places such as the Andes and Bolivia have virtually vanished, meaning, according to D'Aleo, temperatures from these areas are now "determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon." He says it's as if Minneapolis stopped reporting and its average temperature was extrapolated from readings in St. Louis and Kansas City.
Smith argues that the decrease in stations used and the selectivity of locations make NASA's data and conclusions suspect. D'Aleo goes further, saying such cherry-picking and data manipulation are a "scientific travesty" committed by activist scientists to advance the global warming agenda.
To us, it looks like just another example of ideologically driven climate deceit following the Climate Research Unit scandal and the fraudulent claim by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that Himalayan glaciers would soon vanish.
Too many Americans either do not have the perspective to appreciate the freedoms that we have or adhere to a perverted sense of a world utopia (ie. Hollywood liberals) - often after they have benefitted from these very freedoms. Fortunately, as evidenced by the Tea Party movement and the national groundswell of support for recently elected U.S. Senator, Scott Brown, millions of Americans are cognizant of how precious freedom, rights and individuality really are and how ephemeral they can be as evidenced by the proposed and effected changes under the imperious government of the Obama Administration and far left Congressional Democrats.
The following editorial is another prescient editorial written by Svetlana Kunin, a Russian immigrant who persevered under Russian rule and now lives in America.
Perspectives Of A Russian Immigrant (No. 5)
By Svetlana Kunin 01/21/2010
Visitors to national parks are warned not to feed the wildlife because this interferes with the natural survival ability of the animals. Progressives do not make the same connection with human nature.
The image of a country where government takes care of its citizens attracts the liberal mind. This image has two dimensions: fairness and equality.
Many American intellectuals admired the Olympic opening ceremony last summer in Beijing: Hundreds of expressionless men moved and beat their drums in perfect unison, an impressive and symbolic image as, in real life, each man has an allocated and regulated place and function.
Serving Ideology
Hollywood liberals are impressed with Venezuela, where the evil capitalists are kicked out of the country and the government controls the media.
Democratic congressmen admire the idea of the Cuban system. They ignore the fact that the government prohibits its citizens from leaving the country, and foreigners are allowed to see only what the government wants them to see.
Released Soviet archives show how a society can project an image of glory and prosperity, as long as the intended audience is shown only two dimensions. But they also reveal the third dimension: the dimension of cruelty.
In such societies, individuals, science, education, art and sport are subservient to ideology. There are numerous examples.
A whole branch of science — genetics — was eliminated for 20 years when party leaders declared it to be a bourgeois pseudoscience and a "whore of capitalism" because it contradicted the theory of Marxism-Leninism.
Scientists were sent to labor camps or killed. Leading Soviet geneticist Nikolai Vavilov died in prison.
The control of mediocrity over talent is the defining structure of these societies. There are political rules. If you conform, then you are living among equals. If you break the rules, then you suffer. If you are part of the ideological machine, you are a beneficiary of the system. That is why there are former citizens who have fond memories of the USSR.
American Zoo
Such ideological oppression is insidious, and we increasingly find it in America. Already, American parents are forced to send their children to failing schools. Americans will soon find the same to be true of their medical care. Political correctness limits their speech and corrupts their actions, as was on display in the Fort Hood attack.
How can correctness be political? If it is political, then it is an agenda.
In contrast to the progressive vision, the strength of America is built on ideals such as individual liberty and the law of the land. These two dimensions gave life to the third dimension: opportunities.
Americans have the opportunity to make choices free from any centralized control. Free individuals have the opportunity to escape a bad situation, and explore their talents and aptitude. The American Constitution protects individuals from oppressive government.
How do our current political leaders propose to transform America? They ignore the Constitution. They will collect the income of citizens living today and those not yet born. They envision a zoolike country where the citizens are assigned a place to live, to work, the medical care they can get and the food they eat.
Our leaders will be our zookeepers, fairly distributing services and goods. People will rely on zookeepers and forget how to plan their own lives and take care of themselves.
The image of a fair and equal society will be projected, but the third dimension — a bureaucratic cruelty over defenseless individuals — will result. This is not a progressive society; it's an oppressive one. There is no escape from oppressive centralized state control.
Those who support this transformation cannot see beyond the flat two-dimensional image of utopia.
As a consequence of Obama’s unwavering adherence to his radical and inimical ideologies, his glaring lack of previous executive experiences, and his prodigious and destructive arrogance and narcissism which preclude him from dispassionately assessing all angles of situations, he has set America to pay dearly this and in coming years. Exacerbating this situation further is his innate corruptness, scheming dishonesty and expressed profound disdain for America and most of its citizens (excluding the chosen minorities in specific and his constituency in general).
If you have any doubt about this, just consider all the mandated minority preferences in Obamacare and other legislation (which are racist and should be unconstitutional), wealth transfer beneficiaries, the dropping of charges against the New Black Panther Party regarding voter intimidation during the Presidential election, and even his racist tact in response to the Henry Gates – Cambridge police office incident, etc.
The following editorial enumerates some of the issues or incidents that Obama’s inept or ideologically blinded responses, attitude or inactions will ultimately lead to bad outcomes for America. Aside from a few exceptions, you won't see incisive assessments like this in the sycophantic liberal news media
Chickens Of '09 Coming Home To Roost In '10
By Victor Davis Hanson
Plenty of our chickens will be coming home to roost this year.
Take foreign relations. In 2009, the new administration assumed that George W. Bush was largely responsible for global tensions. As a remedy, we loudly reached out to our foes and those with whom we had uneasy relationships.
But so far these leaders — like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Russia's Vladimir Putin — have only interpreted Barack Obama's serial goodwill gestures as weaknesses to be exploited. They play the part of the pushy class bully, we the whiny nerd.
In the waning days of 2009, Iran has announced it has no intention of dismantling its nuclear facilities and ignored the latest Obama deadline to cease. There's no reason not to expect the theocracy to make significant strides in its nuclear program in 2010, while continuing without rebuke to beat and murder democratic dissidents in its streets.
Russia has announced plans to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons — and scoffed at our polite suggestions that it should pressure Iran to stop its nuclear development.
Venezuela brags of its own similar program to come — an act that could threaten all the neighboring democracies in the region.
The administration courted China on a much-heralded Asian tour. President Obama has even said he would be our first "Pacific president."
Unfortunately, China was not impressed. It declined our advice about reducing its carbon footprint and instead reminded Americans that we owe the Chinese people nearly $1 trillion. Expect much more of that hectoring in 2010 as our debt to China grows.
Consider also the threat of Islamic terrorism. In 2009, some in the Obama administration decided "war on terror" was too provocative a label for what might be better dubbed "overseas contingency operations." Apparently, they were thinking a kinder, gentler image would discourage terrorists.
Accordingly, the self-confessed architect of Sept. 11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was promised a civil trial in New York rather than a military tribunal normally accorded to out-of-uniform murderous terrorists. Expect a lot of soapbox speechmaking about America's sins during his testimony in 2010.
As part of our efforts to break with the Bush anti-terrorism past, President Obama also vowed he would close the facility at Guantanamo Bay by Jan. 22, 2010 — another deadline that won't be met.
But as 2009 ended, we were reminded that radical Islamic terrorists still want to kill us for who we are, and what we represent, rather than any particular thing we do.
Maj. Nidal Hasan, nursed on radical Islamic doctrine, murdered 12 fellow soldiers and one civilian at Ford Hood, Texas.
Five would-be terrorists with U.S. citizenship were arrested in Pakistan on their way to link up with Islamist militant groups. And Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was stopped in flight from Amsterdam before he could blow up an American passenger jet.
Note that all these recent terrorists were not poor, lived in the hospitable West — and cared little that the Obama administration has been critical of prior U.S. war-on-terror policies.
So, while we assured the world in 2009 that we wouldn't be overzealous in our various efforts to stop terrorists, the terrorists proved that they most certainly would be in theirs to kill us.
Meanwhile, at home we operated on the same naive assumptions. The Obama administration inherited a $500 billion deficit and expanded it threefold. Its planned mega-deficits may well grow the aggregate national debt over the next decade to over $20 trillion.
But the administration's 2009 calculations on how to service the growing red ink are based on continued cheap interest. Yet in 2010, it is likely we will see rising inflation, rising interest rates — and rising costs to the continual self-destructive borrowing.
We were given a financial break on energy prices in 2009. The worldwide recession sent oil down to about $50 a barrel.
But America did little during the year's reprieve to rush into production newly discovered domestic gas and oil fields, to tap existing finds in Alaska, or to license new nuclear plants.
By year's end, oil was creeping back up to $80. If the economic upswing continues, in 2010 it may near its old high of nearly $150 a barrel. Soon we will wish we had done something concrete in 2009 rather than offering more stale rhetoric about wind and solar power.
In other words, 2009 may seem to have ended relatively quietly. But in our foreign relations, in the war against terror, in our massive borrowing and in our energy policies, we created chickens that soon will come home to roost in 2010.
Shocking developments are beginning to occur regarding the liberal media’s apotheosis of Obama: some individuals are actually starting to scrutinize and question their messiah’s actions and policies. Amazing! Incredible! Some of his myrmidons are stepping out of line.
There may be a glimmer of hope for America yet.
Jack Cafferty Rips Obama on Failed Openness Pledge: 'Just Another Lie Told for Political Expediency'
We are all aware and incensed at the unparalleled contemptuous that Congress in general and certain individuals in particular (Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Barney Frank, John Murtha, etc.) have for the American public and even the democratic process. They are running the government as a dictatorial aristocracy, imposing legislation on unwilling citizens seemingly at times by fiat. They are cognizant of their unfettered, completely unstoppable powers which is further abetted and protected by a sycophantic far left news media (except for Fox News).
The Democrats have a super-majority in the Senate which makes any legislation they formulate filibuster proof. To add insult to injury, they will use whatever means necessary to pass their bills – heavy handed threats, illegal procedural maneuvers, specious information and interminable corruption and bribery (using our tax dollars) as we have witnessed in their attempting to pass Obamacare.
One glimmer of hope is present and it involves the special election being held in Massachusetts this coming Tuesday, January 19th to determine who will fill the vacant Senate seat previously held by Ted Kennedy. The Republican candidate for Senator, Scott Brown, an extremely intelligent, shrewd, articulate and photogenic conservative aided by prodigious grassroots support of angry voters not only from Massachusetts but also from across the country, has incredibly turned this race into a statistical tie in the nation’s most liberal state. This is a manifest indictment and rejection of the policies and attitudes of the Obama Administration and the Congressional Democrats.
We all need to give Scott Brown our firm support – financially and verbally – IMMEDIATELY! Contact everyone that you know in Massachusetts and friends who know voters there. They must be informed of the supreme importance of this election and need to vote for Republican candidate Scott Brown. Financial contributions can be made through the following websites:
Andrew Bostom, the author of The Legacy of Jihad (Prometheus, 2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism (Prometheus, November, 2008), posted the following on his website on September 28, 2008. This is a speech delivered by Geert Wilders who is the chairman of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands regarding the threat to the world that Islam presents. The Netherlands is one of the main European countries at the forefront of this cancerous Islamization invasion that threatens the freedoms and liberties of peaceful peoples of other religions and cultures.
With the dramatic worldwide rise of terrorism almost exclusively perpetrated by Muslims and a multitude of Islamic attacks of various degrees affecting the United States over more than the last decade, this speech is eminently pertinent, insightful, and significant. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that we are dealing with an enemy that is relentlessly intent on destroying non-believers and imposing Sharia law, an enemy that is indoctrinated by a religion founded on violence, hate, intolerance, and total abrogation of human rights and freedoms except for a select few.
Excuses, “politically correct” doctrines, actions and legislation espoused and supported by liberals including their transfer of billions of dollars away from security related issues and intelligence gathering renders us even more vulnerable to attacks, violence and losses of our personal freedoms and rights. Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and other ideologues of the Democratic party are the main facilitators of this, jeopardizing the security and lives of over three hundred million Americans.
We must understand this metastasizing Islamic enemy and stop it before it obtains world domination.
We must also oust our politicians who are placing this country at far greater risk than necessary.
Geert Wilders: Wisdom and Courage
…liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.
Geert Wilders, chairman Party for Freedom, the Netherlands
Speech at the Four Seasons, New York
September 25, 2008
Dear friends,
Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that’s new to me.
It’s great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: “The sky over New York and the will of man made visible.” Of course. Without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done.
I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.
My short lecture consists of 4 parts.
First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.
The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome’s ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.
But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see – and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.
There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.
Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear “whore, whore”. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.
Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they “understand” the 9/11 attacks.
Muslims demand what they call ‘respect’. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.
Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators “settlers”. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.
Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.
Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.
Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah’s personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah’s word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.
The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world – by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.
Quran as Allah’s own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means ‘submission’. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.
This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam “the most retrograde force in the world”, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.
Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.
I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.
Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.
A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.
Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.
Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: “Islam has bloody borders”. Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.
It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.
This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe’s history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: “the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.”
If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.
Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don’t think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.
Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all smililary-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.
Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe’s last chance.
This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.
This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.
This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks tot its location, it is safe from jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America – as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.
Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.
This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.
These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:
“Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy”.
The liberal news media and Democrats fear a potential cataclysmic loss of the Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy to a Republican in among the most liberal states. The paucity of any significant coverage speaks volumes and adds even more credence to the immense game changing possibility of Republican candidate Scott Brown winning. (Massachusetts special election will be this coming Tuesday January 19th.)
All Americans concerned about their future and what damage Obama et al have done to this country just over the past year, need to provide verbal assistance and financial support for his candidacy. For contributions, check out:
http://www.brownforussenate.com/
https://www.icontribute.us/scottbrown
When Will Nets Show Up in 'Teddy Kennedy Seat' Race? So Far, Zero Coverage
By Tim Graham 2010-01-13
The U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts to replace Ted Kennedy is heating up. Republican Scott Brown has made it "tick tight" (to borrow from Dan Rather) for Martha Coakley, and Democrats are very nervous, and spending money on TV ads. It's on the Washington Post front page today. ABC's Jake Tapper added this from the White House on Twitter Wednesday morning:
Gibbs says "a lot at stake" w/Mass. Senate race but POTUS still has no plans to go. Hmmmm.
Do they fear a repeat of New Jersey, proof Obama might hurt more than help, even in a blue state? This makes me wonder: how are ABC, CBS, and NBC covering this race as it heats up? They haven't done a single story yet.
So they haven't touched on outrageous Democrat plans to delay seating Brown if he wins. They haven't touched on Coakley's debate gaffes from Monday night, like saying (as we lose American fighters to roadside bombs in Afghanistan) terrorists "are not there any more."
How can liberal journalists say Sarah Palin's dumb, and let Coakley say stupid things like that?
When will the referees of campaign discourse rule on Coakley suggesting Brown is a cad for voting against forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense (sometimes) abortion-causing pills to rape victims. Kathryn Lopez has more. The Boston Globe has suggested that maybe Coakley's the soft-on-rape candidate.
It's a little bizarre that the broadcast networks would cover Ted Kennedy's death and funeral as an enormous story, but ignore the campaign to replace him.
As you may know, a special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s open Senate seat is being held this coming Tuesday, January 19th in Massachusetts. Though it is “local” election, for many obvious reasons it is having and will have potentially explosive repercussions and ramifications for the entire country short and long term. The voting and outcome can potentially annihilate Obama’s and Congressional Democrats’ ideological agenda of socialism, wealth redistribution, taxation and other radical legislation. Most immediately, a Republican win would kill the Obamacare bill.
The profound consequences of such a win are impossible to overstate. The Republican candidate for Senator, Scott Brown, would represent the 41st Republican Senator which would finally provide the ability to filibuster Congressional legislation rather than have Pelosi, Reid et al. contemptuously ram anything they want down the throats of unwilling and protesting Americans.
Presently in probably the bluest of blue states, a few polls have Scott Brown in essentially a dead heat with the Democratic challenger, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. Among her supporters including financially are Moveon.org and the SEIU (Service Employees International Union). We suspect that corrupt and infamous ACORN is also working feverishly to help elect Democratic candidate Coakley
Since we all strongly care about our country, it is imperative that we help Scott Brown get elected. He has received unprecedented grassroots support from both the voters of Massachusetts as well as from Americans all across the country. Many of these voters are Democrats or Independents who are fed up with the arrogance, incompetence, profligacy, and dictatorial attitude that is endemic in Washington.
Who is Scott Brown? He is a presently a Republican Massachusetts State Senator who has represented the Norfolk, Bristol & Middlesex District since 2004. Just previous to this, he served in the Massachusetts House of Representatives for the 9th Norfolk District starting in 1998. He is homegrown, having graduated Wakefield High School (1977), Tufts University (1981), and Boston College Law School (1985). Politically, Brown has been described as a moderate Republican with socially moderate and fiscally conservative views. He is extremely intelligent, articulate, sensible and principled.
The following video exemplifies these traits and his refreshing attitude that he is there to serve the people and not rule over them as the Democrats in Congress have repeatedly demonstrated and verbalized.
With all due respect, it's not the Kennedy's seat, it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat.
The following are two of his political websites that you can visit to make contributions to his campaign. Even a small amount now can potentially pay dividends for all of us later if he can pull out an earth shattering win.
http://www.brownforussenate.com/
https://www.icontribute.us/scottbrown
The following article posted on www.usnews.com analyzes the present situation:
Scott Brown in Virtual Tie in Massachusetts Race as Dems Deploy
By Robert Schlesinger January 13, 2010
In the first contest of 2010, the question shouldn't be whether Democrats will win but by how much. On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters will select the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's successor. Martha Coakley, the Bay State's attorney general and the Democratic nominee, was until very recently the prohibitive favorite over GOP nominee Scott Brown, a state senator. Not only had Coakley raised $5.2 million to Brown's $1.2 million (his fundraising has increased dramatically with the new national attention), but Massachusetts is about as reliably Democratic as they come.
The race was supposed to be a yawner but has become the focus of the political world as recent polls have shown it to be a nail-biter: Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, reported over the weekend that Brown had a 48-47 lead, while a Rasmussen poll released today had Coakley ahead by a mere two points, 49-47--a virtual tie, as it is within the 3 percent margin of error. As recently as last month, political guru Stuart Rothenberg wrote that, "If Brown can crack the 40 percent mark against Coakley, it would be noteworthy," political guru Stu Rothenberg wrote last month. Tuesday Rothenberg moved the Massachusetts senate into the "narrow advantage" for Democrats column on his report.
As I reported last week, the liberal group MoveOn.org started fundraising for Coakley, warning its members that "progressive hero Ted Kennedy's senate seat--and with it any hope for passing majori progressive legislation this year" were in danger. I wrote then that , "a telling sign of serious tightening would be either of the national parties moving late money into the race." Well this week the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee bought more than $500,000 in television ads in a race that under normal circumstances would not require a national Democratic dime. In addition, the Service Employees International Union is pouring $685,000 into the race.
As the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza observes today, the race has become a good preview of the campaign themes the two parties may trot out in other races this fall, with Democrats trying to use the specter of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin to tar their GOP opponents and Republicans harping on change. Cillizza writes:
If Brown manages to win, expect Democrats to quickly dismiss the loss as an outlier due to Coakley's substandard campaign. But, privately, something close to panic may well set in if the alleged ace in the hole--linking Republicans to the Bush administration and/or Palin--doesn't come through in a state as strongly favorable to their party as Massachusetts and in a political environment that is tilting away from them on the issues of the day.
Republicans believe that Brown's candidacy is already a blueprint for how they can be competitive almost anywhere in the country in November and so, regardless of whether Brown wins or loses next Tuesday, you can expect a heavy dose of the sort of independent/status quo shakeup messages that Brown has ridden to something close to a dead heat in Massachusetts.
Given that even a narrow Coakley win will be decried as a loss for Democrats, it's hard to see much good news coming to them next Tuesday.
If you work hard, are honest and play by the rules: you’ve been had! As a consequence of implementation of liberal ideology into law and the tax code, these are actions and characteristics that will be penalized. In our new world, laziness, irresponsibility and dishonesty are repeatedly rewarded. And their “needs” become legislated rights and our forced obligation to pay for.
What Suckers We Are
Investors Business Daily 12/29/2009
Statism: Let's face it: Big government is making suckers out of all of us. All of us, that is, who play by the rules and pay our bills. Here's a little test to see just how big a sucker you really are.
Are you still paying your mortgage each month at the interest rate you agreed to? Sucker! The government has created a program to let those who aren't paying on their mortgages get lower interest rates on their loans.
And if you haven't had the government make the bank reduce the amount you owe on your loan, you're an even bigger fool.
Do you work for a private company instead of the government? Sucker! The real money is made working for Uncle Sam. The average pay for federal government workers is now $71,206, compared with $40,331 for those in the private sector.
In fact, nearly one out of five federal workers pulls down more than $100,000. That's up over 33% during what the administration says is the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
And that's before overtime and benefits — which used to suffice for such workers — kick in. Meanwhile, a "pay czar" aggressively caps salaries at companies that receive "federal" money.
Still paying full price for your kids' meals at school? The government currently provides free or reduced-price lunch, breakfast or both for nearly 60% of all school-age children nationwide. Households with incomes of up to 185% of poverty level are eligible.
In Philadelphia public schools, 72% of students have access to a universal feeding program — regardless of income. Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey wants to nationalize that program.
Are you represented by a senator who promised to vote for health care reform before demanding a few barrels of pork from Majority Leader Harry Reid? As Reid himself said, "I don't know if there is a senator that doesn't have something in this bill that was important to them. And if they don't have something in it important to them, then it doesn't speak well of them." Translation: "Sucker!"
You don't actually pay federal income tax, do you? According to the Tax Policy Center, roughly 47% of American households don't — and that's expected to top 50% soon. So if you're still cutting a check to Uncle Sam when half of your fellow citizens pay nothing — or even get a tax credit — well, if that's not the definition of "sucker" we don't know what is.
If it makes you feel any better, Vice President Biden says true patriots pay more in taxes. By extension, your love of country is even more apparent when you also help your neighbors pay their mortgages, food bills and health care costs.
Don't ask what your country can do for you. Ask how big a sucker you can be for your country.
The following video detailing the perfidy, deception, arrogance, contemptuousness and corruptness of Obama and the Democrats is eminently provocative, both emotionally and intellectually. The dramatic, percussive music redolent of the testosterone suffused "Batman Returns" themes helps deliver a powerful and serious message that should serve to galvanize outraged Americans to take productive actions to depose our imperious Democratic politicians. Maybe some of these same elitists will begin to appreiciate the magnitude of our fury and realize that they are here as our elected representatives to serve us – not rule over us!
The elitist hauteur of liberal politicians, if left unchallenged, will translate into significant loss of many of our remaining rights and freedoms. Several prominent Democratic politicians including Obama have displayed arrogant and wanton disregard for the specifics of the Constitution, perverting its dictates in order to meet their ideological agenda.
One of these involves the current healthcare legislation based on their belief that healthcare is a right that they can fully control, regulate and issue mandates including forcing people to buy health insurance and forcing citizens to subsidize the care of others. Nowhere in the Constitution is the government given such authority.
Health Care Not In Constitution
Investors Business Daily
Self-Evident Truths: Sen. Dianne Feinstein says it comes under the Commerce Clause. Rep. Steny Hoyer says it's mandated by the "general welfare" clause. Despite liberal wishes, health care is not a right.
The "living Constitution" that Democrats and their court appointees have given us may be the death of our freedoms. Their constitution adapts to the times and serves the whims of the elitists. The Constitution is supposed to limit government powers. It does not allow government to do anything it feels like doing.
Cass Sunstein, the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is the author of "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever."
He writes glowingly of how President Franklin Roosevelt, unsatisfied with the Constitution the Founding Fathers wrote, proposed a Second Bill of Rights in a speech on Jan. 11, 1944.
One of the new "rights" FDR envisioned was "the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health." If health care were a right under the U.S. Constitution, FDR would not have had to propose it as one to be added.
Yet liberals believe it should be, and some believe it is. Feinstein, the senior senator from California, was asked Tuesday by CNSNews on what constitutional authority the Senate and House bills are authorized. She responded, as others have, "Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. That's how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs."
Maybe so, but it's a power that has been grossly abused and distorted beyond all meaning. The Commerce Clause was intended for the regulation of economic activity across state lines that involves the production distribution or consumption of commodities. One does not go to a doctor to engage in commercial activity.
Mandates including the one to buy health insurance go over the line. "Even if the Supreme Court has expanded the commerce power, there has been one constant," noted Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "Congress was always regulating activities in which people chose to engage." He added that "rather than regulate what people have chosen to do," the mandates "would require them to do something they have not chosen to do at all."
When asked the same question, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer pointed to Article 1, Section 8, which gives the Congress the power to raise taxes in order to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Does that give Congress the authority to buy things like health insurance?
We and others have made the point that broccoli is good for our general welfare, but can Congress make us eat it and charge us if we don't? Losing a few pounds would help us all and reduce health care costs, but can Congress mandate health club memberships? Hoyer thinks so.
This clause says nothing about the citizens of the United States, only the United States as a whole. The Constitution provides for the raising of armies to defend the country, not for whether or when women should get mammograms and who should pay for them.
Hoyer is wrong, according to constitutional lawyer David B. Rivkin: "The notion that the general welfare language is a basis for a specific legislative exercise is all silly, because if that's true, because general welfare language is inherently limitless, then the federal government can do anything."
Does the "general welfare" allow for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make backroom deals that tax other states and other citizens to benefit a single state such as Nebraska and its citizens and to literally bribe senators like Ben Nelson for their vote?
Health care is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the only time the word "care" appears is in Article II, Section 3, which says the president of the United States "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That includes our highest law, the U.S. Constitution.
The New York Times, the bastion of far-left liberalism and anti-Americanism whose slogan should be “only liberally biased news that we want to print”, has added to its reverse racist contributions with a new one: a gift section devoted exclusively to people of color. Whites can just move on to the next section.
Imagine the outrage if a conservative paper contained a similar section labeled specifically for Caucasians? There would be relentless outrage spewing largely from the black “community” (aka demagogues) with accusations of racism and privilege.
Such actions do not serve to advance harmony and assimilation but instead encourage more divisiveness and racism (as can be seen in the comments following the post). Just advertise the products and let people determine whether or not they may be interested without introducing a racial component.
Of course, our position is that the New York Times has long practiced irresponsible and severely biased journalism with anti-American posturing and should not be patronized by most Americans. Let economics do the talking and facilitate them going bankrupt.
The myriad attempts by liberals to indoctrinate our children by a variety of means are well known with some discussions of this in past posts (Aug. 2 and Oct. 2). Some of these methods are overt such as singing songs of reverence about Obama. Other methods may not be quite as obvious to these impressionable children such as by employing reinterpretation and misrepresentation of history, de-emphasis of conservative thought, individuals and topics and overwhelming concentration on items of liberal ideology (such as: socialism is good – capitalism is bad or praising Islam while at the same time denigrating Christianity). As parents, we must be ever vigilant to protect our children from this institutional and stealth liberal indoctrination.
The following story appearing in the Columbia Daily Tribune from Columbia, Missouri details how school supplies with Obama slogans and logos were being sold in several schools in the area. Though it doesn’t appear that the schools specifically ordered these partisan paraphernalia and the supplier intimated that it was just an error but not their fault, the issue still remains that partisan political material was distributed to the impressionable. Was this an honest error or a consequence of some intentional and larger scheme? Fortunately in this situation, a few involved and concerned parents complained about these inappropriate supplies which were then removed.
Supplies with Obama logo surprise school
By Jonathon Braden December 3, 2009
Columbia Daily Tribune
A notebook sold to a student out of a supply machine at Mill Creek Elementary School bears a logo and slogan similar to those used in the Obama campaign last year. The supplier also distributed pencils with a similar theme.
Pencils and notebooks resembling President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign ads have been sold in at least one Columbia school and other public schools, causing the company that distributes the materials to travel around the state yanking the supplies out of machines.
“Don’t be mad at us,” said Greg Jones, a sales representative with Pencil Wholesale. “It was a total accident.”
Pencil Wholesale distributes supplies to six Columbia schools: Parkade Elementary, Cedar Ridge Elementary, Paxton Keeley Elementary, Mill Creek Elementary, Smithton Middle School and Hickman High School, said Linda Quinley, the district’s chief financial officer.
At Mill Creek, at least one pencil and a notebook with designs similar to Obama campaign advertisements have been sold out of a supply machine. Two families have complained about the politically tinged materials.
Three Missouri schools have contacted Jones since the beginning of the school year asking that the materials be removed, and Mill Creek Principal Mary Sue Gibson this week said she also planned to call Pencil Wholesale.
“I just don’t want to get into that political arena at all,” she said.
The bound three-ring notebook bears a photo of literal change — pennies, quarters, dimes and nickels stacked into piles. Above the photo, white text reads “CHANGE” over a navy background.
Below the photo, “WE CAN BELIEVE IN” sits above a logo similar to Obama’s campaign image — three red stripes separated by white stripes in front of a white circle with a blue background arching over the circle.
The supplies were designed by the art department of Harcourt Pencil Co., based in Milroy, Ind., Jones said.
“The art department was trying to be cutesy,” he said.
There was no response this morning to a phone message to Harcourt.
Jones delivers the supplies to about 800 schools. He remembers seeing the Obama-esque notebook when it was first designed, but “I didn’t think one thing about it,” he said.
Jones has agreed to go to schools that might have received the supplies and remove them.
“I wish I could do it over,” he said. “But, for now, I can just make it right.”
Harcourt plans to give Jones a refund on the supplies as well, he said.
But first, Jones has to find the supplies. Out of a case of 72 notebooks, three of the controversial notebooks can be found, he said.
“It’s turned out to be really ugly,” Jones said. “We’re trying to get them out of the schools as fast as we can.”
He also wants to be clear that neither he nor his company created the design. In fact, he said, he’s a registered Republican who voted for John McCain in last year’s presidential election.
Michael Cembalest from J.P. Morgan researched the prior private sector experience of the cabinet officials selected by Presidents since 1900 who would be expected to deal with employment related issues. These are the individuals that the president might seek advice from regarding economic issues as they would have real world experience. This includes the secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development and excludes Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security. There are a total of 432 cabinet members that were assessed.
The chart (below) shockingly though not unexpectedly shows one of the reasons why many Americans have been critical of Obama's cabinet selections and provides a strong explanation for the economic failures of Obama’s policies: he has surrounded himself with virtually no individuals with private sector experience. Obama's percentage at around seven percent is essentially off the chart and is miniscule compared to all the other Presidents.
This visually shows that Obama has, at best, made extremely poor choices for key positions which then leads to questions about his judgment and motivations. Another question that these findings raise is whether these individuals were selected specifically because of general ideology versus specialized experience with a positive track record. (Rhetorical question - just consider Tim "turbo tax cheat" Geithner and Lawrence "I lost $1.8 billion dollars of endowment funds at Harvard" Summers!)
Any way we look at it, Obama has surrounded himself with many corrupt, incompetent and/or ideologically liberal or radical individuals. We, the American people, unfortunately are paying a colossal price.
Given the recent and scandalous revelations that global warming is a complete fabrication “based” on sham, manufactured data to support the position, you would think that this story would garner at least some interest. Actually, this outrageous fraud perpetrated by abhorrent, ethically corrupt individuals in collusion with powerful, connected and avaricious individuals (Al Gore, Michael Moore, etc.) should be Front page news and one of the lead stories in broadcast and cable news. This is a story of trans-national collusion, corruption, scientific malfeasance, greed and aggrandizement of power involving individuals, companies, organizations and politicians. It is the Watergate of the early 21st century. Climategate.
Not unexpectedly, except for Fox News, no other major television news has mentioned this bombshell of a story. That includes ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC. Approximately five days and zero coverage. Why? Because the far left and many liberals want to believe that global warming is true – it is part of their ideology. They don’t want to destroy an important tenet which is also intimately associated with their environmental issues. Showcasing this fraud would be significantly detrimental to the environmental movement.
Once again, the overwhelming majority of the media has abdicated its responsibilities to the public. And they wonder why they are being marginalized by the American public while Fox News continues to shine, become more influential and be watched by a rapidly increasing viewership? The bottom line is that if you want the relevant, important news – watch Fox News.
In a way, the liberal politicians of today can learn quite a lot from the real life experiences of the Pilgrims when they first landed at Plymouth in 1620. The Democratic Congress and radical Obama Administration want to effectively eviscerate capitalism and impose socialism on us which will be disastrous.
We, the American people know that. So did the Pilgrims, but they had to find out the hard way.
The following article effectively outlines this historical perspective in an insightful way that is most applicable to our predicament today.
Thankful For Plenty
Investors Business Daily 11/24/2009
Blessings: Thanksgiving, as we all learned in school, was about Native Americans and Pilgrims feasting together in friendship to give thanks for a bountiful harvest. The truth, as is often the case, is quite different.
We've all heard about how the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth after a perilous overseas trip — and how they nearly starved until Native Americans, including the English-speaking Squanto and Wampanoag Chief Massasoit, helped them to survive by teaching them about native foods and cultivation.
There's some truth to that. The Indians did help out. But a bigger reason for why they survived to give thanks — and one that gets short shrift today — can be summed up in one word: capitalism.
After reaching land in 1620, the Pilgrims — led by Gov. William Bradford — set about organizing their society along communal lines. Each would give according to his ability, and each would receive according to his needs — a kind of primitive communism.
Profiteering would not be allowed. All land and production would be publicly owned. It was an ugly disaster from the start.
Strong men ceased working hard when it became clear others weren't pulling their weight. Frustrated at being unable to better their own lot in life, some even resorted to theft.
Within months, people were starving. Literally. Nearly half the colony of 106 died in the first awful winter of 1621. The winter of 1622 was little better. Paradise had turned into a death camp.
Gov. Bradford later wrote that the colony was beset by "confusion and discontent." Something had to change. But what?
Desperate, Bradford and the other elders abandoned the colony's cherished communalism, instead allowing settlers to "set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land."
Basic agrarian capitalism, in short.
As Bradford wrote in his "History of Plymouth Plantation," "This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been ... . (I)nstead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many."
By 1623, the bounty produced by the colony's privately owned farm parcels was substantial. Famine no longer stalked the people, and survival was no longer in doubt. That year, the first real Thanksgiving was held.
Today, in an era of bailouts and massive government spending, capitalism has come under sustained and withering criticism. Perhaps some of that criticism is deserved.
Yet we'd do well to remember it's the one system that reliably produces plenty. It lets us realize our true potential and rise above the circumstances of our birth. And it unleashes humankind's awesome creativity, making possible the material blessings we have.
Like the Pilgrims, we should be thankful for all this.
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments