Rep. Jim Moran, Democrat of Virginia, Racist Pig

I'd like to give Michelle Malkin a standing ovation for having the guts to sit down at her word processor and write this article, which comes to us from Family Security Matters, about a Democrat congressman who epitomizes the hypocrisy of the Left in America. Kudos to Malkin for not pulling a single punch in her revelation of the race-baiting of Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia. For far too long this white liberal racists in the Democrat party have been able to be insulated from the truth that they are racist pigs and that they don these masks of racial purity to lob bombs at conservatives...the whole time they are the poster children for racism and bigotry in this country.

What got Malkin "inspired" to write this article is the response by Moran towards Rep. Allen West who criticized Barack Hussein Obama - can you imagine, a black man in America actually had the nerve to criticize another black man in America? Well, Jim Moran certainly can't have that! Doesn't Allen West know his place? Moran was quick to attack the rogue black man, West - and in the process showed himself for exactly what he is and Malkin called him out on it.

Let me ask this of Congressman Moran...you know, Mr. Moran, I follow things pretty closely and when Reverend Jesse Jackson, back in 2008, stated that he wanted to cut Barack Obama's balls off, I don't seem to remember you opening your big white mouth once over that. Did you?

Jim Moran, Racist Pig


Congressman Jim Moran is an old white Democrat from Virginia who thinks he can judge whether we minority conservatives are acting sufficiently non-white enough. Moran's an inveterate bully, a brawler, a crook and a bigot. And not one of his civility-preaching liberal colleagues has the courage to call him out.

Responding on cable news to GOP Rep. Allen West's blunt criticisms of President Obama this week, Moran derided the retired U.S. Army colonel, who is black, as "not representative of the African-American community." Moran then launched into the kind of tired race-traitor tirade I've heard from progressives of pallor for more than 20 years.

How dare we "people of color" stray from the left's ideological plantation? If we choose personal responsibility over entitlement, capitalism over statism or self-determination over identity politics, presumptuous white liberals appoint themselves spokespeople for our forefathers and deciders of our true destinies.

To wit: Lt. Col. West "just seems clueless now that he has climbed aboard ship," Moran fumed. "He's climbed this ladder of opportunity that was constructed by so many of his ancestors' sweat, sacrifice, blood, you know, they did everything they could for his generation to be successful. But now that he's climbed on board ship, instead of reaching down and steadying the ladder, he wants to push it off."

West, his father, his mother and his brother all dedicated their lives to military service; four consecutive generations of his family served in the U.S. armed forces. As a freshman congressman, West's message has been a compelling agenda of self-empowerment. For this, he is savaged by a House colleague as a racial saboteur?

But Moran was just warming up. Next, he contrasted conservative West with big-government savior Barack Obama, who he said acted in proper accordance with his ancestors "by reducing college tuition and training our workers, trying to get a decent job for everybody" and leaving a "constructive legacy."

Er, how's the savior's near double-digit unemployment, record food stamp enrollment, re-inflation of the housing and higher-education bubbles, and massive redistribution of wealth from the working class to the Wall Street bundler class working out for you?

Moran hailed Obama as "our Lion King" and compared his Republican detractors to the "hyenas in the background trying to cause trouble" for the White House. This bumbling chief of political correctness apparently is unaware that those hyenas in the Disney movie have been criticized for perpetuating negative stereotypes about blacks and Hispanics. Dog-whistle politics, anyone?

Do Moran's constituents in Virginia's 8th district support his incessant race-baiting? Last year, he accused Tea Party activists of racism for sweeping out entrenched Democrats in the November 2010 midterm elections. It "happened for the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States. It happened because the Southern states, the slaveholding states, didn't want to see a president who was opposed to slavery," he ranted to Arabic-language television network Alhurra. "(A) lot of people in the United States don't want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is liberal, who wants to spend money and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society."

Yet, only two short years before, this hopelessly racist nation put Obama in the Oval Office with a landslide victory. Logic never was the demagogue's strong suit.

The aptly named Moran, an 11-term incumbent, continues to be rewarded by voters for his extravagant spending habits, self-dealing and diarrhea of the mouth. As I've reported previously:

While on the Alexandria (Va.) City Council, he was charged with casting a vote that helped a developer friend win a bid for a lucrative plot of public land. A special prosecutor concluded that Moran had violated the state's conflict-of-interest law. He sobbed as he pleaded no contest to a felony charge of vote-peddling. He received a year's probation for a reduced conflict-of-interest misdemeanor charge and was forced to resign.

In 1995, he had to be subdued by Capitol Hill police when he threw a punch at California Republican Rep. Randy Cunningham on the House floor. After the incident, Moran blamed "talk radio" for creating a hostile environment in Washington. That same year, he screamed "I'll break your nose" at Indiana Republican Rep. Dan Burton during a hearing.

In 2002, Moran revealed in financial disclosure statements that he accepted a $50,000 loan in January 2001 from an "old friend," billionaire America Online co-founder James Kimsey. The congressman claims to have paid the business mogul back at 15 percent interest over three months, and his spokesman emphasized the loan came with no accompanying quid pro quo.

Kimsey's gift came on the heels of Moran's disclosure that he had received another Big Business-tied loan: $25,000 from "old friend" Terry Lierman, a drug industry lobbyist representing Schering-Plough. After getting that unsecured loan at a lower-than-market interest rate, Moran co-sponsored a bill that would extend the patent on Schering-Plough's allergy medicine Claritin -- and prevent generic drug manufacturers from offering inexpensive alternatives.

Liberal busybodies are an annoyance. Liberal race-card abusers who lambaste patriotic minority conservatives to cover their own dirty deeds make my brown skin crawl.

Holder, Blago, Richardson: Triangle of Sleaze

I'm sitting here watching ABC News people on television painting Newt Gingrich as the most horrible man in American politics history so it's a bit refreshing to find this article from Family Security Matters that shows exactly the sleaze factor on the Left in America with three very visible personalities.

I'm just not sure with the likes of these three men and the likes of John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Barney Frank that those on the Left REALLY want to get into a shouting match on ethical behavior.

Holder, Blago, Richardson: Triangle of Sleaze


It was a rough week for the corruptocracy. White House officials better ho-ho-hold on tight because the sleigh ride isn't going to get any smoother.

On Wednesday, disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, D-Ill., received a 14-year prison sentence for scheming to sell President Barack Obama's Senate office, along with several other pay-for-play schemes. Blago played the distressed daddy for the federal judge, invoking his young daughters and wife (who held her notoriously foul tongue in check) to bemoan how his "life is in ruins."

How far Blago's fallen from the glory days of 2008, when he was gloating at the prospect of naming a candidate to fill then-President-elect Obama's seat. "I've got this thing, and it's ***king golden," he crowed. All that glitters now, though, are the paparazzi flash bulbs that Blago faces on his perp walks.

Earlier this week, Bill Richardson, former Democratic governor of New Mexico, disgraced former presidential candidate and failed Obama Commerce Secretary nominee, faced new reports of a federal grand jury into his possible violations of campaign finance laws. The funny-money business is tied to an alleged mistress payoff a la disgraced former presidential candidate and Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.

Additionally, the Wall Street Journal reports, investigators are probing how "Richardson's close allies steered more than $2 billion of public money into investment funds run by money managers who in turn agreed to pay millions of dollars in consulting fees to high-profile Democratic fundraisers and other supporters of Richardson."

The star that joined together this little constellation of sleaze? Disgraced U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Holder and Blago go way back. Holder himself suffered selective amnesia about the relationship during his confirmation hearing. He somehow "forgot" to mention that Blagojevich had appointed him to probe corruption in Illinois casino licensing decisions. State officials had objected to Blago's crony appointment of fundraiser Christopher Kelly to the state Gaming Board. Kelly's business partner was now-convicted felon and shakedown artist Tony Rezko, Obama's former bagman and real-estate fixer.

Holder pocketed $300,000 from Blago to "investigate" and -- surprise, surprise -- concluded that no corruption existed. They stood shoulder to shoulder at a 2004 news conference to make the announcement. But Holder failed to disclose it on his Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, which he signed five days after Blagojevich's arrest in December 2008 for putting Obama's U.S. Senate seat up for sale.

After duping a Senate majority (including 19 Senate Republicans) into approving his AG nomination despite multiple admissions of failure, neglect and sabotage of the rule of law, Holder moved up to perform more cover-ups for Obama's pals. In August 2009, Holder's DOJ announced it was dropping federal corruption charges against Richardson after a yearlong federal probe into pay-to-play allegations involving one of his large political donors and state bond deals.

"It's over. There's nothing. It was killed in Washington," a source close to the investigation told the Associated Press. Even as they tapped Richardson to serve as Obama's first Commerce Secretary, the White House transition team knew about Richardson's pay-to-play scandal involving a California company, CDR Financial Products. FBI and federal prosecutors had launched their probe of CDR's activities in New Mexico in the summer of 2008.

The feds had been digging into a nationwide web of favor-trading between financial firms and politicians overseeing local government bond markets. CDR was tied to a doomed bond deal in Alabama, which, according to Bloomberg News, threatened to cause the biggest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history. CDR raked in nearly $1.5 million in fees from a New Mexico state financial agency after donating more than $100,000 to Richardson's efforts to register Hispanic and Native American voters and to pay for expenses at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the news service reported.

The state agency that awarded the money consisted of five Richardson appointees and five members of his gubernatorial cabinet. CDR made contributions both shortly before and after securing consultant work with the state of New Mexico. CDR's president also contributed $29,000 to Obama's presidential campaign. After Holder dropped the case, New Mexico Republicans blasted the lack of transparency in the decisions and the refusal to heed the advice of experienced, non-political prosecutors and FBI investigators.

Mother Jones writer James Ridgeway's comment on the day of Richardson's Commerce Secretary nomination withdrawal proved quite prescient: "It may be premature to say that Obama and his team have too high a tolerance for corruption. But this first self-destruct among his cabinet picks could well prove all the more damaging because it's something they should have seen coming from miles away."

The same applies, of course, to Holder himself -- who admitted at a House hearing that the Operation Fast and Furious scandal under his watch was "flawed," "reckless," "tragic" and deadly." How much longer will America tolerate this reign of error and terror?

The Left In America - There Is NOTHING Left To Discuss With Them

It's over. Actually, it's been over for quite some time but it is finally sinking in to a few of you out there than any recognition of or dialogue with the Left in America is useless and unproductive. These people not only should be ignored, but shunned. They can take their little snarky phrases, their innuendos of hate, their accusations of racism and shove them all where the sun doesn't shine. We conservatives simply do not care anymore. We don't need Leftists for anything in this country. They are now a non entity.

Now, that is my personal opinion and shouldn't be confused with the article here at Family Security Matters but the article does speak to the issue that there really is very little left in common between conservatives and the Left today. I'd actually go so far as to say there is nothing in common anymore between "independents" and the Left. Sure, there might be one or two common issue there but I see independents leaving the Leftist hijackers of the Democrat party in droves.

So, the next time you find yourself somewhere in a discussion with someone on the Left, just ignore their accusations and mud slinging, laugh at their finger pointing and wave your hand to their lies.

It's time people...time to get down to business of getting this country back on its feet and the Left isn't a part of that plan. Who knows, if they graciously get out of the way, we'll let them stay in the country when we're done. :)

No "Common Ground" With the Left


Among the most desperate and futile efforts by an extreme leftist to don a mantle of credibility is New York Times columnist Paul Krugman’s characterization of his venomous writings as “The Conscience of a Liberal.” Under this colorless title he has not only authored a book, but also regularly presents Internet postings.

It is particularly outlandish to promote oneself under such a contradiction in terms, since with each passing day, each biased news story from the “mainstream” media, and each ensuing example of flagrant double standards, it becomes more apparent that a liberal cannot have a conscience or even a soul (nor do many of them even concede the existence of the latter). Also, as evidenced by Krugman’s malevolent September 11 tirade entitled “The Years of Shame,” it becomes increasingly obvious that his kind do not have much of a memory either.

The essence of Krugman’s diatribe is that the ten-year commemorations of the September 11 attacks seem “subdued” because President Bush, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and their minions “hijacked” and exploited the original event for their own purposes, thereby trivializing it. Krugman then broadens his brush to include everyone who, at the time, temporarily put aside partisan politics to voice support for the President and the stunned nation he sought to rally. In a typical leftist inversion, Krugman maintains that such national unity, brief though it was (liberals could not long remain in the same league with the flag-waving pro-America crowd), actually represented a divisive “wedge,” while the unabated ankle biting from the far left exuded real principle and national cohesiveness.

As to the shameless politicization of September 11, perhaps Krugman has forgotten that it was those on his end of the political spectrum who openly lamented that the al Qaeda attacks had not occurred during the Clinton years, since that would have afforded an unparalleled opportunity to display his “greatness.” And their perverse sentiments are certainly not without precedent. Clinton indeed displayed a willingness to make political hay from horrific tragedy, as with his unconscionable exploitation of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

Nor can the intellectually honest (an admitted rarity among Krugman and his colleagues) fail to recall the menacing words of Obama-crony Rahm Emanuel who famously said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Again, the proof of this soulless obsession is abundant and inarguable. Since the advent of the Democrat controlled Congress in 2007, and their taking of the White House in 2009, America has been victimized by one contrived crisis after another, invariably followed on close order by transparent liberal demands for ever expanding governmental power, always under the fraudulent guise of compassionate and heroic remedies.

Worse yet, even where no crisis exists, but instead the inescapable realities of the human condition manifest themselves, the liberal cabal is always on hand to shamelessly distort things in a relentless effort to convince as many Americans as possible that they are “victims” ostensibly needing the beneficent hand of a statist government to help them get through the day. Thus, inequities in talent and industriousness are demeaned as rapacious practices of “the super rich,” providing goods and services with an expectation of payment is derided as “heartless,” and any attempt to curb a potentially disastrous federal deficit is castigated as “balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.”

The examples of truly hateful and divisive rhetoric abound, and are invariably found on the left. Yet the instigators of such heinous actions are never held to account. Barely nine months have elapsed since the shooting spree by Jared Loughner in Tucson Arizona. But although his monstrous actions were attributed to severe mental problems, the vast and orchestrated liberal effort to lay blame for that atrocity at the feet of conservatives, with no concurring evidence whatsoever, spotlighted the unfettered hate and malevolence of the American left that is regularly unleashed on any who dare to philosophically oppose it.

In the weeks following that appalling event liberal politicians and pundits sermonized endlessly and with near comical sanctimony on the consequences of “incivility” and a political “climate of hate,” though a comprehensive investigation of Loughner’s motivation revealed absolutely no such correlation. Furthermore, even if Loughner had ever claimed some personal impetus on that basis, it is incontrovertibly clear that the major forces of the political right do not operate on that basis.

In stark and revealing contrast, the hostile and malignant actions of the American left are espoused and encouraged by those in official leadership. Unlike the contrived claims of voter intimidation in Florida in 2000, real voter intimidation actually did occur in Philadelphia in 2008, ultimately receiving the blessings of racist Attorney General Eric Holder. Bellicose rhetoric is regularly invoked by leftist radicals and their “community organizer” minions at every crucial juncture in the ongoing contest for control of the nation’s future.

Los Angeles Congresswoman Maxine Waters recently voiced an indefensible and clearly “uncivil” admonition to the Tea Party, which she crowed “can go straight to Hell,” followed ominously by the threat “And I intend to help them get there.” Surpassing even this was James Hoffa’s characterization this week of his supporters as “an army” ready to “march” and “take out” the opposition, whom he described in profane terms.

Yet almost never do these purveyors of hate, nor their many other like-minded cohorts who have expressed similarly venomous sentiments receive even the mildest criticism from the leftist mouthpieces who, in all of their piety, spew endless sermons at the right. Whether from Paul Krugman and his media collaborators or Democrat leaders in the Senate and House or Barack Obama, in the wake of such abominable proclamations the silence among liberals has been deafening.

It is no surprise that, in the wake of 9-11, the fifth-column of the Islamists found fertile ground among these leftists within which it could readily till its hatred for the West and generate sympathy for its murderous cause. Ultimately, the Jihadists recognized that they could count on a liberal culture steeped in “political correctness” to concur with their motivations and intentions to eradicate the Judeo-Christian foundations of this nation and its culture.

As for those sporadic calls for national “unity” from Paul Krugman and similarly hypocritical liberal pontificators, the sum total of their commentary and actions proves them to be wholly and absolutely insincere. The Alinskyite left, with all of its selective moralizing and glaring inconsistencies between last week’s phony sanctimony and this week’s agenda, has proven that it bears far more similarity to the ghoulish plans and tactics of the militant Islamists than the noble thoughts and ideas of Washington, Jefferson and Adams. Consequently, the establishment of any common ground between liberals and Real America is simply unattainable.

Question for Maxine Waters....

Hey Maxine, just how many Black Americans did YOU see at the Wisconsin union protests?

Time to come clean Maxine Waters...the Wisconsin unions are racist, right?

--

Doesn't a Baby With Down's Syndrome Deserve To Breathe In the Breath of Life?

This article from Family Security Matters digs into a recent controversy where a demented blogsite has decided that the best way to attack Sarah Palin is to ridicule her son Trig who has Down's syndrome.

Before I go any further, I need to reveal that a good friend of mine has a son with Down's syndrome. This young man is in his late teens and is quite frankly, living a full and wonderful life. He is happy and yes, he has challenging days, but at the same time, I have personally seen the joy that this young man has brought to his parents. I don't believe my friend and his wife knew ahead of time that their son would be born with Down's but anyone that would ask the question of whether they had had a choice to abort him would get an earful.

With that said, the article delves into the role of government and the "elitist academia" in determining just who lives and dies in our society. From the article:

n New Zealand, which also has socialized medicine, the situation is even more dire, as the government promotes the screening and killing of unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome. As I noted in a previous column, “The new government policy in New Zealand was preceded by the completion of a report on the ‘cost effectiveness’ of aborting Down syndrome babies. It was determined that it was just too expensive to allow these babies to live.”

However, it appears that “60 Minutes”—the version that airs in New Zealand—may be turning a critical eye on what the government has been doing.

Mike Sullivan, a professional engineer in New Zealand, is the father of an almost-three-year-old girl with Down syndrome and an advocate for the rights of the handicapped. He says the upcoming New Zealand “60 Minutes” show covers the government’s “quality improvement” program that was introduced last year and targets unborn babies with Down syndrome for eradication through preventing births. “For those who are not aware of this issue,” he says, “the government’s screening program is preventing the births of 75 percent of people with Down syndrome and is a gross form of discrimination against this group of people, treating these people as less human than others.”

For those of you who did not catch the inconceivable attack on Sarah Palin's son at the blog, Wonkette, get ready to taste some bile as this is what was put up on that blog (and now has been removed) ....from Dana Loesch:

What’s he dreaming about? Nothing. He’s retarded.

[...]

His mom went to a lot of trouble to leak amniotic fluid over 8 states to make sure that he arrived in this world somewhat alive,”

[...]

Enjoy yourself today, Trig. Have fun! Get drunk (on purpose this time)! We can hardly wait for 15 years from now, when you will finally be able to vote and will be sent off by your mother’s junta to fight the Union in the Great Alaska War. It’ll be quite a loss. You’re the smartest one in that family.

These are the people of the world that think they know what is best for you and your family. These are the people that want to determine what the standards and morality should be in our society - they refuse to acknowledge the rights given to us by G_d and upheld by the Constitution. These are the sick mind fucks who think, since they read some off the wall books during their stint at a liberal arts college, they know more than you and me.

These people are menaces to society. If they lived next to you, you'd have a restraining order against them, but since many of them occupy the highest political offices in this land, they are literally turning their perverted mindset into laws that bind you and me.

To say that this blogger would poke fun and demean a child with Down's syndrome makes my blood boil would be an extreme understatement.

All I can say is that my friend's son, Chris, will get excited today about the upcoming Easter holiday where he gets to dig into some of his favorite holiday chocolates and the Wonkette blogger, at the same time, will be destined to spend his weekend writhing in self loathing like he has all of his life.

Progressive Media and the War on the Unborn


A pathetic blogger at the left-wing blog Wonkette made fun of Sarah Palin’s son Trig, who has Down syndrome. Dana Loesch of Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism website has exposed this whole sordid affair, noting, “This is what happens when a little-known blogger who edits the literary equivalent of the bathroom wall in Walmart isn’t clever enough to either write satire or convey why he doesn’t like the Palins. And this is considered acceptable by progressives.”

What drives a left-wing blogger to mock a little boy with a disability? Is it just hatred for Sarah Palin, a pro-life mother who exposes what is at stake in the battle over the “right to choose?” Or is it that a mother would bring a child with Down syndrome into the world?

This controversy is important because of what it says about the progressive mentality. The progressives, who like to think of themselves as guardians of the most vulnerable and defenseless among us, do not have any sympathy for people they believe should not exist or be born. They believe that a mother should terminate the life of a baby with potential defects. This is not only because of their belief that women’s rights always trump the rights of the unborn, but because it is too costly to take care of them, once they come into the world. They support Big Government and higher spending, except on babies whose visible and active lives would make left-wing feminists, a key part of their constituency, feel uncomfortable.

The Wonkette controversy goes far beyond a blogger with bad taste and no conscience. It tells us a lot about the mentality of the progressives in charge of the federal government who are moving ahead with implementation of Obamacare.

It is a fact that when government takes more and more control over the health care of the people, the government will inevitably take over more and more decisions about who lives and who dies. This is the obvious danger that confronts us as Obamacare unfolds. However, in the U.S., at least for the time being, we can make most of those decisions for ourselves. The news is breaking that “Baby Joseph” has returned to Canada, after receiving medical treatment from U.S. hospitals that he couldn’t get in his native country, which has socialized medicine. The costs of the medical operation, which left the child free from tubes and machines, were borne by Priests for Life.

In New Zealand, which also has socialized medicine, the situation is even more dire, as the government promotes the screening and killing of unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome. As I noted in a previous column, “The new government policy in New Zealand was preceded by the completion of a report on the ‘cost effectiveness’ of aborting Down syndrome babies. It was determined that it was just too expensive to allow these babies to live.”

However, it appears that “60 Minutes”—the version that airs in New Zealand—may be turning a critical eye on what the government has been doing.

Mike Sullivan, a professional engineer in New Zealand, is the father of an almost-three-year-old girl with Down syndrome and an advocate for the rights of the handicapped. He says the upcoming New Zealand “60 Minutes” show covers the government’s “quality improvement” program that was introduced last year and targets unborn babies with Down syndrome for eradication through preventing births. “For those who are not aware of this issue,” he says, “the government’s screening program is preventing the births of 75 percent of people with Down syndrome and is a gross form of discrimination against this group of people, treating these people as less human than others.”

He says the documentary will cover these areas:

· The legal action that is being taken out by 23 parents and Right to Life of New Zealand against the government of New Zealand for crimes against humanity.

· Evidence that the government deliberately avoided public consultation on the new program and has excluded people with Down syndrome in their decision making.

· Evidence that the government understood the consequences of the program would be to reduce the number of births of people with Down syndrome.

· Presenting the everyday lives of people with Down syndrome, who are just “getting on with life like the rest of us.”

Sullivan says that while it is not entirely confirmed, it looks like “60 Minutes” of New Zealand will air the story next Wednesday, April 27. While the audience is in New Zealand, the program could be a warning of what could happen to America’s most vulnerable under Obamacare.

What's REALLY Behind the Left's So-Called "Vitriol" Attacks?

Okay, it's been going on now for almost a week - starting with some Twitter feeds just hours after the news of the shooting attack in Tucson where six people were killed and Rep. Giffords was critically wounded. Yes, the clamor from the Left in America, where they jumped on a bandwagon of pointing fingers at conservatives in this country for why the shooting happened, has been going forward full steam and even after their champion, the President of the United States asked for civility the other night, it continues on.

You've all seen the accusations - that Sarah Palin was to blame for the shooter killing those people because of her "crosshairs" graphic, that the Tea Party's rhetoric had become too inflammatory and that conservative talk radio had incited all of this. I'm not going to rehash all of that, I know you are up to "here" with it all.

What I want to point out is what, I believe, is behind this spewing of accusations and attempted placement of blame.

I want to take you back a couple of months ago to November 2, 2010. I want you to recall the day and night of the mid-term Congressional elections. To help set the stage, look at these two videos:







Okay, so there we see Nancy Pelosi in complete denial that they might lose control of the House and then we see an example of the jubilation of the Right in the midterm win.

And that all leads to me just why we've seen this fanatical reaction from the Left over this Tucson tragedy. This is the first time since the November elections that the left, collectively, has had a chance to throw a tantrum. And this is EXACTLY what this is. A tantrum.

We have Leftists across America whose anger and rage against the Tea Parties and Sarah Palin and conservatives in general bubbled up all year long in 2010 and most of them just didn't want to face what might happen in November...and when the GOP kicked their scrawny asses in that election, believe me, the Left was incensed by the defeat. And so, we see that roughly two months later the Left is given an opportunity, for really the very first time, to release that anger over that ass kicking they received.

Think about how this unfolded...a few Twitters came out after the shooting...then a few Lefty bloggers picked up on it....and then a few Progressive journalists put together some sniping reports and then we see the Tucson sheriff on national television show just how ANGRY he is - watch his clips over and over again and tell me that guy is not one pissed off Liberal.

So, while the rest of the Right this past week has been busy pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left's attacks or busy trying to defend the actions of conservatives, I've been sitting back and watching, reserving my opinion.

I have said time and time again that a Progressive, a Marxist, a left-leaning revolutionary, a radical Democrat...whatever you want to call them...is a child in an adult body. And what we have seen this past week is not a thought out strategic plan by the Left to attack the Right - we have seen the adult version of a kid on the floor of a Target store's candy aisle flailing his arms and legs and screaming as his mother says no to a bag of fun size Snicker bars.

Leftists cannot accept themselves as individuals. They have never been comfortable in their own skin. And they never, ever can accept defeat. Their movement was damaged in November and we have seen this past week just how utterly and completely pissed off they are.

It's actually kind of funny, don't you think?

The New Axis of Evil: The American Marxist Left, the Islamic Terrorists, the South American Revolutionaries

One might wonder what exactly the radical Left in America might has in common with the islamic terrorists of the Middle East and the leftist revolutionary groups of South America ...well the answer is ....their goal...that is what they have in common...the capture, the destruction, the conversion of one United States of America. Great evidence is coming out about this unholy alliance and the impending threat it holds for all of America.

In this article at Family Security Matters, we see some disturbing evidence of how these misfit groups are co-mingling and supporting each other in terms of achieving that goal:

At a conference for the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) at Duke University in 2004, ISM operative Abe Greenhouse is reported to have said that Israel’s West Bank is the training ground for attacks and tactics to be used against the U.S. at the Mexican border. Recent events indicate that this statement may have been prophetic.

Last weekend’s raids on homes and offices of so-called “anti-war” activists in Chicago and Minneapolis highlighted the close alliance between Leftwing anti-American Marxist groups and Islamic jihadists and their collaborative efforts to destroy Israel and the United States. Clearly, the radical Left is not discriminating and will join forces with any group that shares its hatred of Israel and the United States.

The FBI raids were ostensibly based on information about the connections of those “anti-war” groups to specific Middle Eastern and South American terrorist groups such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Columbian terrorist group FARC. In addition, there were links to Hezbollah and evidence will show a link to the Zapatistas in Mexico. Apparently, there were also tips about the harboring of terrorists at a “safe house” and fundraising efforts for terrorist activities in the United States. Those raided are accused of giving material aid to terrorist groups against a Presidential directive making it illegal to do so.

If any of you followed the story this past week of those FBI raids in the midwest of the protest groups, you saw those leftist protesters angrily crying out about a "police state" and such and you saw signs saying similar things to this: "Protesting War is NOT a crime!"

Well, as you can see, the FBI had good information and the radical and violent Left in America could give a shit less about American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan - those protests are only for appearance and to try and gain some numbers into their movement. The Left here is intent upon the "revolution" and overthrow of the American system - the same bloody damn goal that Bill Ayers had a few decades ago.

And in the midst of this, we have islamists who are on their mission of domination of an infidel state like America ....and providing the third prong of such a collection of vermin is the South and Central American terrorist rebel groups who wish to spread their violent form of Communism northward.

As to the seriousness of all this, I want to remind everyone of the current administration leading this government - they are coddlers of the islamic terrorists and a significant ally of the radical Left but even they could not keep the FBI from moving on the evidence that they had this past week.

I believe that some of this alliance coming together at this specific point in time is due to our situation on the Mexican border - there has never been a more opportune time for the enemies of America to move terrorists, weapons and propaganda into the United States - just simply bring it all over the American/Mexican border. Think about it the next time you line up to get on an commercial airliner...as you stand there with your shoes off, your pants falling down your ankles cuz you had to take off your belt....think about the hoops you are going through to get to a family vacation or a business meeting...and then think about at that very time the hundreds of illegals streaming across the Mexican border and consider that in the middle of that line of infiltrators there are the likes of Hezbollah carrying suitcases with dirty bombs in them....with the plans to meet at the outskirts of your city with the radical Marxists of the fiber of Bill Ayers.

If you aren't shitting your pants right now, you are one ignorant SOB.

Weather Underground Redux


At a conference for the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) at Duke University in 2004, ISM operative Abe Greenhouse is reported to have said that Israel’s West Bank is the training ground for attacks and tactics to be used against the U.S. at the Mexican border. Recent events indicate that this statement may have been prophetic.

Last weekend’s raids on homes and offices of so-called “anti-war” activists in Chicago and Minneapolis highlighted the close alliance between Leftwing anti-American Marxist groups and Islamic jihadists and their collaborative efforts to destroy Israel and the United States. Clearly, the radical Left is not discriminating and will join forces with any group that shares its hatred of Israel and the United States.

The FBI raids were ostensibly based on information about the connections of those “anti-war” groups to specific Middle Eastern and South American terrorist groups such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Columbian terrorist group FARC. In addition, there were links to Hezbollah and evidence will show a link to the Zapatistas in Mexico. Apparently, there were also tips about the harboring of terrorists at a “safe house” and fundraising efforts for terrorist activities in the United States. Those raided are accused of giving material aid to terrorist groups against a Presidential directive making it illegal to do so.

One of the homes that was raided belonged to Arab American Action Network (AAAN) director, Hatem Abudayyeh, who is also an operative in the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a support arm of Muslim Brotherhood offshoot Hamas. Barrack Hussein Obama intimate and former PLO director Rashid Khalidi co-founded the AAAN. AAAN staff member Ali Abunimah, who co-founded Electronic Intifada, has been a long-time confidante meeting Barrack Obama at anti-Israel events in Chicago in the 1990’s. The AAAN receives money from the John and Teresa Kerry-funded Tides Foundation and the Woods Fund, where Obama served on the board of directors with his pal Bill Ayers, and other groups. The group works closely with the American Friends Service Committee, Amnesty International, CAIR, the Arab-American Institute, the SEIU and others.

In solidarity with the objectives of Palestinian jihadists, Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, co-founders of the radical group the Weather Underground, and CODE PINK founder, Jodie Evans and other Leftwing activists have supplied funding and support to Hamas through the Gaza flotilla operations that attempted to open the sea lanes to Gaza to smuggle weapons and ammunition to kill Israelis. This last flotilla operation was preceded by a letter in support of the “humanitarian” mission by former fellow anti-war radical John Kerry. In the 1970’s, Ayers characterized the Weather Underground as “an American Red Army” and said, “Kill all rich people. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents.” The objectives of the Weather Underground were the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat to take its place. The group was responsible for multiple bombings of banks and U.S. government buildings, including the Pentagon and the Capitol, riots, murders and other destructive acts. In an interview that Ayers gave in 2000 to the New York Times, he is reported to have said, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel that we didn’t do enough.” When asked if he would do it again, he stated, “I don’t want to discount the possibility.

Clearly, reports that the radical anti-government groups of the 60’s and 70’s disbanded following the Vietnam War are wishful thinking. They have merely reinvented themselves and intensified their efforts with the help of alliances with jihadists and Islamic terrorist groups.

Is It Just a Coincidence That the Democrats Started Calling the Conservatives "Extremists?" Not If You Follow Alinsky's Rules #11 and #13

This article at Family Security Matters takes us behind the curtain a bit on how the Left has developed strategies to attack Conservatives and the Tea Parties as they gained total control of Congress and the White House this past year and a half...and those strategies came not from the likes of Harry Truman or Lyndon Baines Johnson...but from Communist author and revolutionary, Saul Alinsky.

Specifically, if you look at Alinsky's Rules 11 and 13, you see how much of the attack squad's unifying message was initiated:

Two rules that are coming into play this midterm election cycle are rules eleven and thirteen, what many would consider the most effective of Alinsky’s rules:

11. Push the negative...every positive has its negative; and
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.

In pushing the negative and personalizing a target – in this case the Tea Party movement – Progressive and Liberal operatives employ the tools of buzzwords and talking points. To be fair, both sides of the aisle use these tools, but a quick look at “the rules,” a book written before Lee Atwater arrived on the scene, provides conclusive evidence – in rules five and eleven – that Progressives not only own their birthright, but refined the tactic of deploying them to a level of potency not seen before in American politics.

Now, one of the things we have to keep in mind is that even though the Left has been and is in power, following the Alinsky model has not been about governing or even controlling - Alinsky is all about revolution. It's all about the end goal, it always has been.

Many of you have heard me describe the Taliban in Afghanistan as not wanting any sort of peace in Afghanistan or limited governmental role...the Taliban simply want that country back in their hands as it was before. Well, the same is true of the extreme Left in America ...they don't want some sort of Democrat control at the top of two of the three branches...hell no, they want to "transform" this country - they want to take the latest stab at Marx's form of Communism and use the "fruited plains" as the test market.

Us "extremists" that the Left has identified are not considered a hurdle or a nuisance to the Left and their agenda - oh no. We are considered the enemy, the one to topple, the one to "remove."

Constructing the Buzzword 'Extreme': Alinsky Rules 11 & 13


f you are paying attention to the politics surrounding the midterm elections – and, for the good of the country, you should be – then you have, no doubt, heard almost everyone from the Left side of the aisle using the word “extreme” where the Tea Party is concerned. To a lesser extent they use it to describe the Conservative movement as a whole but without doubt, it is the descriptor of choice when anyone of the Liberal or Progressive persuasion talks about the Tea Party. This tactic comes straight from the Progressive playbook.

I have been saying since before Barack Obama was elected president that if you want to understand the tactics being used by the Progressive Left you have to read two books: Boss by Mike Royko and Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky.


The first, Boss, examines the genesis of the Chicago Machine – Mayor Richard J. “The King Maker” Daley’s Chicago Democrat Machine – and Chicago style politics. It is important because it not only sheds light on how “The Machine” came to be, but how it operates. Barack Obama, Dick Durbin, Rahm Emanuel, Luis Gutierrez and Jan Schakowsky, to name but a few, are all products of “The Machine.” “The Machine” has been responsible for the election of every Democrat president since John F. Kennedy.

The latter, Rules for Radicals, outlines the guidelines for growing and advancing the agenda of the Progressive Left. It outlines thirteen specific rules that the Progressives commit themselves to from birth, at least that’s the way it seems. They are:

1. Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the expertise of your people.
3. Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. Develop operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. Push the negative...every positive has its negative.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.

Combined, these two books not only define the “game plan” used by the Obama campaign team to attain the White House – and the game plan they will no doubt employ during the midterm elections and the 2012 General Election, but provide an ideological window through which we can understand how the Progressives have moved everything from healthcare to the Great Society and before that the New Deal.

Two rules that are coming into play this midterm election cycle are rules eleven and thirteen, what many would consider the most effective of Alinsky’s rules:

11. Push the negative...every positive has its negative; and
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.

In pushing the negative and personalizing a target – in this case the Tea Party movement – Progressive and Liberal operatives employ the tools of buzzwords and talking points. To be fair, both sides of the aisle use these tools, but a quick look at “the rules,” a book written before Lee Atwater arrived on the scene, provides conclusive evidence – in rules five and eleven – that Progressives not only own their birthright, but refined the tactic of deploying them to a level of potency not seen before in American politics.

The word Progressives and Liberal Democrats are employing in an attempt to not only shock and frighten independent and undecided voters but to misinform and deceive the total of the American electorate, is, “extreme.” The Republicans running in the 2010 midterm elections – and especially the Tea Party-backed candidates – are, they say, “extreme.” Progressives and Liberals are banking on the probability that many will hear the label enough times that it will be believed without examination. They do so with the added benefit of having a mainstream media that is extremely (no pun intended) reluctant to questioning the claim.

The word “extreme” is defined as:

“...exceeding what is usual or reasonable; immoderate; very strict, rigid, or severe; drastic...”

The word “extreme” defined, let’s take a look at what the Tea Party stands for; what its platform is:

1) Limited government
2) Limited and equitable taxation
3) Fiscal responsibility
4) Adherence to the constitutional process in the crafting of legislation

Where the “Young Guns” of the GOP have done a commendable job of putting together a “Pledge to America,” and whereas many Tea Party groups include addition items, almost each of the planks can be a subheading for these four general tenets.

That said, even a cursory comparison of the definition of “extreme” and the tenets of the Tea Party reveals that something isn’t quite right where calling the Tea Party “extreme” is concerned.

Limited Government
The question begs to be asked, which is more “extreme,” a larger government that employs a greater number of regulations on personal choice and the free market system; which requires an ever increasing amount of taxes for the purpose of administering programs for which they make the rules – rules that can exclude certain demographics based on race, religion or economic status, or a smaller constitutional government that provides limited but potent oversight over the citizenry and the private sector while facilitating a maximum opportunity for each and every citizen?

A larger more intrusive government has the ability to, among a plethora of other things:

▪ Limit what you can do and say

▪ Limit and control what the private sector can produce and sell

▪ Limit what you will receive in return for your taxation, i.e. Medicare, Social Security, national defense and, now, healthcare

▪ Mandate how much you will pay to the government in taxes to support entitlement programs for which you may not even be eligible

▪ Limit your protection under the law based on an ever changing set of criteria, i.e. equal protection under the law in general and equal protection under Civil Rights law to be specific.

Limited government, or government that recognizes the Charters of Freedom – The Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution and The Bill of Rights – as being created to limit the powers of government to those enumerated, avoids the frailty of the human element that allows for the creation of elitist factions, the elevation of despots and the egotism and narcissism of tyrants. It protects the people from government by limiting what government can inflict on the people.

So, which is more “extreme”?

Limited and Equitable Taxation & Fiscal Responsibility
Again, which is more “extreme,” a government that can recklessly impose a financial burden on its citizenry (read: taxation) that, in turn, facilitates the bringing about of a societal catastrophe that until now only existed in the fiction of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, or a government that is committed to operating inside a set of boundaries; the boundaries of a balanced budget derived from honest and equitable taxation of the citizenry?

A government allowed to expand beyond the boundaries of a fiscally responsible balanced budget; that can borrow from foreign nations to the point of no return; and which can expand and extend debt beyond the boundaries of future generations, is a government that possess the ability to tax the citizenry into government dependence; that can create an economic catastrophe that could damage the nation beyond recovery.

A limited government, that derives its fiscal mandate from the enumerated powers of the Constitution; that operates within the constraint of a fiscally responsible budgetary process; and that, essentially, “cuts up the credit cards,” allows for the citizenry to keep more of what they earn, which, in turn, allows the citizenry to spend, to purchase, to engage the private sector market place, thus creating competition and value in the marketplace, while fulfilling the constitutional obligation to “provide for the common defense” and “promote the general Welfare.”

Again, which position is more “extreme”?

The Constitutional Process
My wife Nancy, who literally cherishes the American Constitution and the whole of the Charters of Freedom, has said on any number of occasions that the United States Constitution is the tool, the instrument, by which opportunity for all – every man, woman and child of every race, religion and background – is possible; it is what we all have in common; the noble mechanism that binds us together and at the same time makes us unique, not only as a people, but as a system of government. To that almost perfect statement I add that it is only when we deviate from the Constitution that we affect inequity, favoritism, bias and the dangers of factionalism, corruption and tyranny of the elite.; only when politics usurps constitutional government do we get into trouble.

If we all quest for a maximum amount of freedom, if we all value liberty and the right to remain free in our choices and actions, in our lives, do we not want a government free from inequity, favoritism, bias and the dangers of factionalism, corruption and tyranny of the elite? If we recognize that man is flawed, that human nature does not always find our fellow man and/or our elected officials doing what is right, what is honest, what “promotes the general Welfare,” then our government must have boundaries that they cannot usurp. These boundaries are established in the US Constitution.

If we jettison the Constitution and the limitations it mandates for our Republican form of government we literally invite the deterioration of our government by virtue of the frailties of man and human nature. If we allow elected officials to change the rules without the consent of the governed, to abandon good government for self-absorbed political opportunism, to ignore the constitutional process when it benefits their own motives and the motives of special interest factions, then are we not facilitating a catalyst for establishing legislation that promotes inequity, favoritism and bias while courting the dangers of factionalism, corruption and tyranny of the elite?

I ask, yet again, which is more “extreme,” adhering to our constitutional process or gambling with our children’s future by allowing for even the slightest possibility of tyranny in government?

The Progressives, Liberal Democrats and the operatives that work on their behalf – and even some liberal and establishment Republicans – are doing everything in their power to demonize the Tea Party. They are attempting to smear a group of people who vow to enact limited government, limited and equitable taxation, fiscal responsibility and adherence to the constitutional process, should they be elected to office. And to what end? So that we can experience more of the same tax-and-spend generated debt, more divisive and opportunistic special interest politics and more out-of-control government expansion?

The smearing of the Tea Party as “extreme” isn’t a Democrat v. Republican issue. It isn’t a Conservative v. Liberal issue. This is an issue that pits forces that would “fundamentally transform the United States of America” into a government based on Democratic Socialism, against those of us who believe that the system of government best suited to preserve individual freedoms; that preserves liberty and justice for all –regardless of race, religion or economic demographic, is found in the limited government that only the United States Constitution and the Charters of Freedom can afford.

My argument made, please, ask yourself, honestly and selflessly, which position is actually more “extreme?”

Will America's Liberty Be Forever Veiled Under Islamism?

A good piece here at Family Security Matters that shows some recent spotlight on Islamism in America and the driving force behind the proposed mosque at Ground Zero. There is one sentence in the article that refers to an attack on America's liberty by BOTH the Left and islam.

So, last night I was at a radio program where the topic came up as to whether the Left in America and the islamists here were in cohoots - it created a lively debate. My opinion on that subject is pretty simple - the Left in America and the Islamists are certainly on two different ends of the spectrum on many, many issues but the fact of the matter is that they both have a common goal....the dismantling of America's Constitution and the destruction of personal liberty in this land. So, it is my contention that the Left believes they can use the muslim movement in America to help spearhead even more political correctness and multi-cultural legislation that will eventually further their cause. And at the same time, the muslims believe they can use the Left to tear down personal liberty protections in the country and support the very instituting of sharia law.

The interesting part of this unholy alliance is this - the Left thinks they can use the islamists then funnel them into a homogenous socialistic society and for that, the Left will pay because the islamists' end game is much different than the Left's and when it comes down to the nitty gritty, the islamists are ready, able and willing to behead the Left, literally...while the Left cannot see that coming.

Ground Zero Mosque: Liberty Veiled Forever Under Islamism?


In Greek mythology, Circe was a beautiful sorceress who turned Odysseus' men into swine. With help from the god Hermes, Odysseus resisted Circe’s charms, freed his men, and lived with her for a year. The story of Circe and Odysseus had a happy ending. Their union was passionate. Their parting was amicable.

In America, the Statue of Liberty is our Circe, holding aloft the torch of freedom for those who flee servitude and degradation to live their lives unimpeded by tyrants and mobs.

In Islam, Circe (or woman) is an innately corrupting creature, the equal of dogs and monkeys, who must be covered from head to toe lest her charms lead Muslim men astray from the path of purity and righteousness and release the beast in them. It is a version of Christianity’s original sin.

Sean Hannity recently had on his TV show two guests to discuss the recent ban in France of the burqa, and its proposed ban in Belgium: Bridgette Gabriel, president of the American Congress for Truth (ACT), and author of They Must Be Stopped, and Edina Lekovic of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. It is a measure of the West‘s self-induced vulnerability, however, that all it can fear and combat are the outward manifestations of Islam. Such as the burqa. .

The French ban of the burqa, and the proposed ban of it in Belgium, may be signs of an awakening but belated concern about the incremental Islamification of Europe. But the bans do not address the essential peril posed by Islam, which is its aggressive, all-consuming ideology. The banishers are unable or unwilling to attack that ideology. They forget or ignore the fact that the religion cannot be segregated from its politics; they are one and the same. There is probable truth to Gabriel’s contention that where the burqa is worn in Western countries, that is where the “extremists” may be found. But will banning this degrading attire somehow alter the venues of alleged “extremism“ or “radicalism”? No. Islam is by its nature radical and extremist, as radical, extremist, totalitarian, anti-reason, and anti-individual rights as was Nazism. One may as well have forbidden Nazis from wearing jackboots and flaunting the swastika. Islam is Islam.

Edina Lekovic for the MPAC claimed she is against the burqa, too, but insisted that it is a woman’s choice to wear it. Which is balderdash. It is worn because a woman is an obedient, brain-dead manquétte, or because she is forced to by order of some cleric‘s interpretation of the Koran and Hadith (there are four main schools of Islam), or from fear of reprisal from her husband, relatives and other Muslims if she does not wear it (that, or the chador, or a veil, or some clothing that neutralizes her feminine existence). In many Islamic countries, she would risk arrest by the religious police. No woman would consciously choose to wear the suffocating, gender-obliterating, self-existence-erasing garb. There is no rational reason for any woman to parade in public looking like an inhuman blob. In all instances of its being worn, it is evidence of mindless or fear-based submission. Submission is, after all, the signature act and virtue of Islam.

Towards the end of the Hannity segment, the host brought up the subject of ImamFeisal Rauf and the Ground Zero mosque. He ran a National Republican Trust ad against the Ground Zero mosque, which CBS and NBC refused to air. Gabriel had enough time to mention that Rauf’s father was connected with the Muslim Brotherhood, the progenitor of all existing Islamic terror organizations, and that the mosque is an insult to those killed on 9/11. Lekovic claimed the mosque was inspired by a “exact opposite vision of Islam as the one that inspired the 9/11 hijackers,“ and more or less repeated Rauf’s public statements about the mosque’s purportedly benign purpose.

Hannity cited Rauf’s statements in public and from Rauf’s book, in an attempt to underscore the fact that what Islamists say in public, in English, to the West, is the exact opposite of what they really mean when addressing anyone in Arabic. Lekovic simply launched into her own panicky exhibit of taqiya, or the Islamic art of dissimulation, sanctioned by the Koran.

Allow me to quote briefly from Rauf’s Wikipedia entry:

In 1997, Abdul Rauf founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement, a civil society organization aimed at promoting positive engagement between American society and American Muslims. The organization is now headed by his wife, Daisy Khan. In 2003, Abdul Rauf founded the Cordoba Initiative, another registered nonprofit organization with offices in both New York and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. As CEO of Cordoba Initiative, Abdul Rauf coordinates projects that emphasize the bonds that connect the Muslim World and the West.

The name of his organization was carefully devised, but nevertheless is telltale. What exactly are Muslims “advancing” toward? Why do they need an organization to ‘advance“ them? Do they not now enjoy the full benefits of citizenship? What else could there be an advancement to, unless it is a Sharia-compliant America? The acceptance of primitive, Dark Age Sharia law as a multiculturalist-tolerant “coequal” of Western, objective law? Yes. Rauf’s organization is merely a smiley-face front for the conquest of America, just as CAIR and the MSA are. And Rauf himself has terrorist ties. These have been so thoroughly documented that it would be redundant to discuss them here.

What is equally telltale was Rauf’s refusal to condemn Hamas, an organization that is inspired by the “exact opposite” of what purportedly inspires Rauf.

"Look, I’m not a politician. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question," he told WABC interviewer Aaron Klein.

Asked again for his opinion on Hamas, an exasperated Rauf wouldn't budge. "I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy," Rauf said, insisting that he wants to see peace in Israel between Jews and Arabs.

And, what bonds connect the Muslim World and the West? Are they the bonds of master and slave? No such bonds ever existed or exist now -- unless we let them grow, and then they would become fetters. Hamas’s conception of peace is the nonexistence of Israel. Rauf knows this.

The West and the Muslim World are not religious, but ideological antagonists.

Disagreement exists about the Ground Zero mosque. Some of it is honest disagreement. The preponderance of evidence that cites the mosque’s actual purposeis on the side of those who oppose it. American liberty is under attack on at least two fronts: by our own government, and by Islam. Opposing the one attack to the neglect of the other still imperils us. Both attacks are of equal importance to me, posing the same mortal dangers, and both can be repelled and defeated by using the same arguments: if one opposes Islam (and Sharia law) because it violates individual rights, that is the same as opposing the government’s violation of individual rights to impose de facto socialism. (The Islamists are also enemies of capitalism, and have made no bones about it.)

If we are addressing sentient beings whose minds are open to reason, they would concur with the corollary. If Sharia law is repugnant to American values for that reason, why should not secular socialism/fascism be equally repugnant? Switch the subjects around and ask the same question. The same argument can be made against Obamacare and similar legislation, such as financial reform, environmental regulations, and so on, as against all the totalitarian attributes of Islam.

The hypothetical victory of men of reason and advocates of individual rights that saw the retreat of statism might lay the groundwork for repelling the incursions of Islam. But, how long would it take to achieve such a victory? A generation or two? In the meantime, Islam would be “advancing” in this country. It is no coincidence that the left has allied itself with Islam and is friendly to any force that would vanquish its political institutions and Americans alike.

Defenders of the mosque backers’ alleged property rights must concede that our situation is absurd and unprecedented: We are burdened with a government whose current stewards have a ravenous appetite for power, and who seem to not mind the incursions being made in this country by a rival ideology, because that incursion will also help to dissolve the country they hate and wish to “remake” as a “people’s republic.” Which one do we take up intellectual arms against first? This column has written with equal fervor about Obama and his policies as well, as it has against Islam and the Ground Zero mosque and the horrors of its own.

How, then, should one weigh the parallel evils? In both the short and long runs, which phenomenon poses the most immediate peril to American liberties? Should we suffer incremental impoverishment from socialism and fascism, or should we suffer the risk being maimed or murdered by a car bomb and have the American population at large become fair game for activist and intimidating domestic jihadists, as the Europeans are?

I can understand Leonard Peikoff’s caveat during his recent podcast on the Ground Zero mosque, that his calm delivery should not be mistaken for disinterestness or distance from the subject. I do not think he ever imagined that the U.S. would descend to such an ignominious state and that the culture would become so irrational that it would defend its destroyers.

From my perspective, the insinuation by stealth and “tolerance” under the auspices of multiculturalism of Sharia law poses just as much a “clear and present danger” to me as the machinations of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al. to transform this country into one big prison of indentured servants to the state.

I reject with equal passion the prospect of Circe (or the Statue of Liberty) draped in a burqa, just as I reject the prospect of Barack Obama dressed as Uncle Sam.

What Happens When Conservatives and Republicans LOSE the 2010 November Elections?

For those of you stopping by this story who seek 20 or 30 links to foretelling news stories concerning this topic, you might as well just keep on moving because there aren't any here. This is from the hip...and the gut.

I'm going to pose a few questions here and then expound on the possible results of answers to them. It ain't gonna be pretty and for those conservatives that have their rose colored glasses stapled to their heads regarding the upcoming November congressional and senate elections, you might want to pass by this article or be prepared to see those glasses turn a lot darker in shade.

The first question is this:

Considering all of the hype about polling numbers for Barack Hussein Obama and the contested Senate and House races, considering all of the banter on right wing radio...what do you think will happen to the conservative spirit if, in November, the Democrats, the Left, succeed in holding both the House and Senate?

I know, I know ...you haven't seen that question asked much but I truly hope you can see what it would do to America, if it happens...because it is what the Left, the Communists, are counting on. You see, in my eyes, if those elections go the wrong way and you listen closely, you will hear the heart and soul sucked out of every conservative in this Land. You will see American patriots gnash their teeth, shake their fists in anguish and look to Heaven with scorn. We have the November elections in the bag, right? Well, perhaps. But just think about it for a minute - think about how you will feel, personally, when you see the Democrats in total power for another two years.

Now, following up on that thought (horrifying as it is), let's point out the other anguish that will result of failed elections in November.

If the Democrats dominate the November elections and retain the power, how many of you will feel confident that Barack Hussein Obama will definitely NOT be reelected in 2012?

Well, if the Dems win in November, then, unless you are an idiot or an ostrich with your head in the sand, you better consider that Obama's reelection is a distinct possibility. We have to understand something in this war between the Right and the Left, between Patriots and Communists, between good and evil. And that is, the enemy from the Left HAS to crush the American spirit of rebellion - it needs to dismantle the cowboy heart of the Wild West - it needs to have American patriots more willing to turn their guns on their own temples than any government security force. The Left simply needs to crush your spirit. And they are banking on November 2, 2010.

Which brings me to my third question:

How in the world will the Left in America possibly capture Congressional and Senate wins in November 2010?

Unfortunately, I need to ask one more question before I venture down this path - ponder it a bit before you answer. Here's the question:

Do you think, deep down, that there is a chance that the financial collapse in 2008, just prior to the election of Barack Hussein Obama, was manufactured by the Left?

Now, i'm not going to get into a four page dissertation on all of the reasons the economy collapsed and I will in no way dispute that it was coming for a long time, but what I am proposing is that the timing of the collapse WAS manufactured, it was turned on like a switch by controlling elements of Leftism in America.

In an earlier post at Holger Awakens here, I had laid out the "coincidence" of George Soros' losses at Lehman Brothers which took all attention off of Soros' activities leading up to the first domino falling in the eventual collapse. But I am here to say that the individuals and groups behind Soros, the ones that tell him when and where to take a shit in the morning, positioned everything just right in 2008 to accelerate the economy to collapse - the effect of that was to doom any chances the Right might have in the 2008 Presidential election ...and it worked. Perfectly.

So now we come to my final question:

If the Left actually did artificially accelerate the collapse of the U.S. economy in 2008 in order to see that Obama got elected, don't you think that they can artificially accelerate the RECOVERY of the U.S. economy in the late summer, early fall of 2010 in order to see that the Democrats get reelected in November?

This of course is the means to the end - the end result being the spiritual destruction of the conservatives in America and the means is a "miraculous" economic recovery starting in mid 2010. Imagine economic indicators starting to really go in the right direction in August and continuing in September. Imagine Barack Hussein Obama getting on national television proclaiming that unemployment has now fallen to 7.4% and that 6 million jobs have been created. Imagine Democrats at townhalls standing in front of flip charts that show the economic indicators going up, up, up.

Now, I don't have the specifics of just how the Leftist Central Committee of Control will pull this off - hell, if I know how to do that I wouldn't be sitting here blogging at a blog that ranks about 6 millionth at Alexa. But I am a firm believer in the thought that what can be torn down, can be rebuilt. I don't care where you are on the political spectrum but you have to admit that a Democrat campaigning on the fact that the economic recovery is underway under their leadership and that the economic collapse occurred under Bush...well, it's a powerful message.

The economy wins and loses elections for politicians. And I must remind everyone reading these words that the Communists in America, the Leftists who now control our House of Representatives, our U.S. Senate and our White House, have been after this power for over a century. The war that the Left has waged on American liberty, freedom and capitalism has been bloody and long for them. They have that power now and IF YOU THINK THE LEFT IN AMERICA IS GOING TO GIVE UP THEIR POWER TO A BUNCH OF TEA PARTIERS, YOU ARE SORELY MISTAKEN.

Believe me, the Leftists will do anything and everything to retain power - and a manufactured economic recovery, short term as it might be, will keep them in power. And when they retain power, the Right will be left with a small percentage of diehards and patriots who will never, ever give up but there will be droves....DROVES of conservatives who will make the Left very happy by simply and utterly....giving up.

Liberalism

Why Is The Left Going After Congresswoman Michele Bachmann?

Awhile back I posted here at Holger Awakens why the Left had gone after Sarah Palin with such a vengeance. And now, we see the same rabid attacks from the Left against Congresswoman Michele Bachmann from Minnesota, although many attacks started against Bachmann way back in 2008 during her reelection campaign after she had openly questioned whether Barack Hussein Obama may be "anti-American." Well, here's a partial list of Left Wing Blogs that have recently run attack posts on Michele Bachmann:

The Huffington Post

Little Green Footballs

Wonkette

Dusty Trice

DCCC

Gawker

Newshounds

Jezebel

Along with that, from the MSM, we have seen Keith Olbermann of MSNBC call Bachmann the "worst person in America" and Chris Matthews called her the "Mata Hari of Minnesota" ...oh, and how about Bill Maher...let's see what old Bill said: "this Congresswoman in Minnesota is the only person dumber than Sarah Palin."

So, I ask you...why are all of these lefty blogs and MSN pundits so obsessed with Bachmann? Last time I checked, Michele Bachmann represented a Congressional district in Minnesota that covers a more rural area of the state with the biggest city in her district having about 100,000 people. Well, the reason the Left is taking on Bachmann is the same reason they have taken on Palin - she scares them.

What Bachmann represents to the Left in America is simply the garlic or daylight to a vampire...in other words, Bachmann carries the message that turns the knees of any Leftist/Progressive/Liberal to jelly and that message is that of core Conservatism. Bachmann speaks continually of small government, personal liberties, the U.S. Constitution and the American Dream. Every single one of her talking points, of her positions cannot be disputed or debated by the Leftists so they resort to the all-too-typical method of the Left...personal attack.

As many of you know, most Leftists in America are extremely insecure with themselves...they suffer from a self esteem level lower than a snail's belly. At the same time, they appear to have never really matured as most human beings. Thus, you will see the Left attack Bachmann (or Palin) with insults such as "kook", "right wing extremist", "dumb", and "lunatic." I think many of us can remember when, as children, we found ourselves in an emotional situation and we lost our little tempers and lashed out at a friend or classmate and called them "fat" or "stoopid." And now we see grown men and grown women doing the same...often on national television or in widely read blogosphere writings.

So, for Conservatives out there, if you wish to see which Conservative politicians are spot on with their arguments, I suggest you focus on which politicians the Lefties like Olbermann or Matthews or DailyKos or LGF or HuffPo are berating with these childish labels and tantrum-like assaults. Those are the Conservatives that are hitting the Left where it hurts.

So, the bottom line is that when you turn on the television here over the next few days and you see a Leftist media tool ranting about Michele Bachmann's threat to not fill out her census form, don't get all upset at him/her....you can just sit back and chuckle because you are seeing a Leftist in fear, a Leftist who knows that the Truth will kill them.

I'll leave you with this thought: Can you remember any real personal attacks on Senator John McCain during the Presidential Campaign by the Left? I personally, cannot. Because John McCain never threatened them with the Conservative message. I do remember the Left personally attacking a Conservative politician years ago...his name was Ronald Wilson Reagan and this is what Christopher Hitchens had to say about him:

"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

As I said, the personal attacks are proof we are winning. Congresswoman Bachmann, please keep pissing them off.

Why Did The Left Attack Sarah Palin?

Okay, you might be thinking that it's a bit odd to be blogging about an election that ended nearly seven months ago but as many conservatives across this country struggle to find "themselves" or find their party or their movement or their cause, it seemed appropriate to point out again just WHY the Left of this country (and I include the MSM in the Left of this country) so viciously and relentlessly attacked Sarah Palin soon after she accepted the nomination of Vice President. I think it is important for everyone to think back about that time between Sarah Palin's VP confirmation and election day, November 8, 2008 and consider how many attacks were made on Sarah Palin and how many attacks were made on John McCain. I think you will agree that the attacks on Palin were about ten times (at least) those on McCain - one could even make the argument that John McCain was never really attacked.

So, just WHY did the Left go after Sarah Palin like a pack of wolves after a wounded fawn? One word holds your answer. FEAR. That's right ... Sarah Palin scared the ever-loving shit out of every serious Liberal marxist in this land. Why, you ask? Not because she was a woman, not because she was a governor, not because she was outside of the Washington's beltway...no, she scared them to death BECAUSE SHE UNABASHEDLY AND WITHOUT FEAR STATED THE BELIEFS, VALUES AND GOALS OF CONSERVATISM! That is why the Left attacked her. You see, only once before in the last 50 years has the Left in America seen an individual with the Republican tag stand up and pound away at Conservative talking points...point out Conservative values and tenets at every opportunity...voice the ideals of Conservatism without fear and that once before was when Ronald Reagan stood before them...and Reagan decimated them.

I have excerpted portions of Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention below. Look at these words. Look at what they mean. Ask yourself....did you hear this from John McCain? When HAVE you heard this from a Republican? And then ask yourself, do you still not understand why the Leftist marxists of the Democrat party and the media rushed to the scene to dismantle this woman's credibility and life? It's a simple point folks - it's not the person that strikes fear in the left, it's the message so stop looking for a new conservative leader, start looking for someone who is speaking the conservative message ...without fear. Here's the excerpts from Palin's speech found here at the BBC:

- I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.
Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.
The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.

- And in short order we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.

- I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary.

- Our state budget is under control. We have a surplus.
And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.

- While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for.

- Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big... he wants to grow it.
Congress spends too much... he promises more. Taxes are too high... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.

- How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy?