Be warned, this is very politically incorrect, and I will state up front that Neil is not very fair to this caller. I would not have been so short with this caller rather I would have let him speak to see if he said more things that the host could discuss. With that said Neil makes a series of points that cannot be refuted, especially about the liars. Taqiyyah is the Islamic practice of deception, which according to the Hadith has been used to advance the goals of Islam and the Umma.
Not quite my style but an interesting piece nonetheless.
This professor used liberal sources and people to decide what the liberal bias was. So this was not conservatives deciding what was liberal bias and what was not. Several studies were used and put together such as what facts were omitted, what euphemisms were used and what side did they favor, polls of the journalists themselves, prominence of ideologically charged stories etc.
One method used was to give half of a sample a free subscription to the Washington Post and the other half a subscription to the Washington Times determined by a coin flip. They went back to the families some months later and polled them on their political views to see how much they had shifted.
Dr. Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science and economics at UCLA, has spent years constructing precise, quantitative measures of the slant of media outlets. He does this by measuring the political content of news, as a way to measure the PQ, or “political quotient” of voters and politicians.
Among his conclusions are: all mainstream media outlets have a liberal bias; and while some supposedly conservative outlets—such the Washington Times or Fox News’ Special Report—do lean right, their conservative bias is less than the liberal bias of most mainstream outlets.
Groseclose contends that the general leftward bias of the media has shifted the PQ of the average American by about 20 points, on a scale of 100, the difference between the current political views of the average American, and the political views of the average resident of Orange County, California or Salt Lake County, Utah. With Left Turn readers can easily calculate their own PQ—to decide for themselves if the bias exists. This timely, much-needed study brings fact to this often overheated debate.
“I’m no conservative, but I loved Left Turn. Tim Groseclose has written the best kind of book: one that is firmly anchored in rigorous academic research, but is still so much fun to read that it is hard to put down. Liberals will not like the conclusions of this book, which in my opinion, is all the more reason why they should want to read it.”–Steven Levitt, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago, and co-author of Freakonomics.
“This book—an evolution from the pioneering article in the 2005 Quarterly Journal of Economics by Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo—uses a clever statistical technique to construct an objective measure of conservative or liberal bias in news coverage. This method and those now adopted by other serious researchers show clearly that most U.S. news outlets lean left. Most frighteningly, we learn that the media bias actually affects the ways that people think and vote.”–Robert Barro, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution.
The conclusions draw upon recent studies by some highly respected economists and political scientists. For instance, one study, conducted by Yale researchers Alan Gerber, Dean Karlan and Daniel Bergan, is akin to a biology experiment. To one set of randomly selected voters in Northern Virginia, the researchers gave trial subscriptions to The Washington Post. To another set, they gave trial subscriptions to The Washington Times. After the subsequent election, the researchers polled their subjects and found that their Post-subscribing subjects voted for the Democrat at a 3.8 percentage higher rate than did the Times-subscribing subjects. That is, the more liberal newspaper truly seemed to cause people to vote more liberally.
After aggregating the results of this and similar studies, one finds an inescapable conclusion: Newspapers, television, radio and online media are extremely influential, especially over consumers’ political views.
For example, the results imply that if the “slant quotient” of the entire media moved 34 points leftward – approximately the difference between Fox News’ Special Report and The New York Times – then the “political quotient” of the average voter would move about 24 points leftward. The latter shift is approximately the difference between the average voter in Colorado or Iowa and the average voter in Rhode Island or Massachusetts.
If the analysis is right – that media bias really does change political views so significantly – then this no doubt has some important – and largely unrecognized – consequences.
In the video they all use slogans except three who mention policy positions. [Editor’s Note: In the video one person mentions NAFTA, which is just too long and complex of an issue to tackle in this post other than to say that here is a video of Bill Clinton’s comments at the signing]
1 – The Civil Rights Act – which Democrats filibustered and Republicans voted for by an 82% margin (eventually Dems caved). Democrats filibustered (successfully stopping the bills) all of the civil rights legislation in the 1950’s all of what was overwhelmingly supported by Republicans. One look at inner cities and inner city schools which are controlled by the Democratic Party show that the party is exploiting black Americans and has no real interest in empowering them.
2 – The Patriot Act – of which internal violations of using the act illegally have gone up exponentially under this administration. Through fast and loose “interpretation” Democrats have expanded the Act and Obama has been the worst administration when it comes to abuse of privacy rights that I am aware of.
Obama promised to put an end to warrantless wiretapping and do something about the Patriot Act. Where are the so called “far left privacy advocates” now? The Obama Administration (along with a willing Democratic Leadership in Congress) has consistently (1, 2, 3, 4, 5,) pushed for more domestic spying ability and extended the Patriot Act. More spying includes including wanting more wire taps on the internet and arguing that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in email or cell phones or… well I think you got the point. Of course who was the first TV personality to speak out on these privacy violations. Clue: He’s the new Oprah.
Now we get to ask you if Obama is spying on YOUR library book list!
3 – Because more women should be involved in politics – Wow that one is amazing. Shall we go through a list of Democrat misogyny hall of shame? While the first names that come up for sexual attacks, smears, lies, and name calling by Democrats are against Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Nikki Haley – Let us NOT forget how Hillary Clinton was mistreated by her fellow Democrats which resulted in the creation of dozens of PUMA groups and websites such as Hillbuzz. Remember how the Obama thugs used threats and in some cases physically kept Hillary delegates out of some caucuses? Remember how the Democrats “super delegates” stepped in when it looked like Hillary was going to win the nomination?
In fact Hillary Clinton’s own Communications Director Howard Wolfson said that Fox News was the only place where her campaign could get a fair shake because the Democrat Media Complex, also known as the elite media, was so grossly unfair even this web site spoke out against it.
This video is one the GOP can use, as it demonstrates that Democrat activists count on ignorance and mobocratic sloganeering.
When liberal investor George Sorosgave $1.8 million to National Public Radio , it became part of the firestorm of controversy that jeopardized NPR’s federal funding. But that gift only hints at the widespread influence the controversial billionaire has on the mainstream media. Soros, who spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush in 2004, has ties to more than 30 mainstream news outlets – including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC.
Prominent journalists like ABC’s Christiane Amanpour and former Washington Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. This despite the Society of Professional Journalists’ ethical code stating: “avoid all conflicts real or perceived.”
The investigative reporting start-up ProPublica is a prime example. ProPublica, which recently won its second Pulitzer Prize, initially was given millions of dollars from the Sandler Foundation to “strengthen the progressive infrastructure” – “progressive” being the code word for very liberal. In 2010, it also received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from the Open Society Foundations. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF website is www.soros.org. It is a network of more than 30 international foundations, mostly funded by Soros, who has contributed more than $8 billion to those efforts.
The ProPublica stories are thoroughly researched by top-notch staffers who used to work at some of the biggest news outlets in the nation. But the topics are almost laughably left-wing. The site’s proud list of “Our Investigations” includes attacks on oil companies, gas companies, the health care industry, for-profit schools and more. More than 100 stories on the latest lefty cause: opposition to drilling for natural gas by hydraulic fracking. Another 100 on the evils of the foreclosure industry.
Throw in a couple investigations making the military look bad and another about prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and you have almost the perfect journalism fantasy – a huge budget, lots of major media partners and a liberal agenda unconstrained by advertising.
One more thing: a 14-person Journalism Advisory Board, stacked with CNN’s David Gergen and representatives from top newspapers, a former publisher of The Wall Street Journal and the editor-in-chief of Simon & Schuster. Several are working journalists, including:
• Jill Abramson, a managing editor of The New York Times;
• Kerry Smith, the senior vice president for editorial quality of ABC News;
• Cynthia A. Tucker, the editor of the editorial page of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
ProPublica is far from the only Soros-funded organization that is stacked with members of the supposedly neutral press.
The Center for Public Integrity is another great example. Its board of directors is filled with working journalists like Amanpour from ABC, right along side blatant liberal media types like Arianna Huffington, of the Huffington Post and now AOL.
Like ProPublica, the CPI board is a veritable Who’s Who of journalism and top media organizations, including:
• Christiane Amanpour – Anchor of ABC’s Sunday morning political affairs program, “This Week with Christiane Amanpour.” A reliable lefty, she has called tax cuts “giveaways,” the Tea Party “extreme,” and Obama “very Reaganesque.”
• Paula Madison – Executive vice president and chief diversity officer for NBC Universal, who leads NBC Universal’s corporate diversity initiatives, spanning all broadcast television, cable, digital, and film properties.
• Matt Thompson – Editorial product manager at National Public Radio and an adjunct faculty member at the prominent Poynter Institute.
The group’s advisory board features:
• Ben Sherwood, ABC News president and former “Good Morning America” executive producer
Once again, like ProPublica, the Center for Public Integrity’s investigations are mostly liberal – attacks on the coal industry, payday loans and conservatives like Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. The Center for Public Integrity is also more open about its politics, including a detailed investigation into conservative funders David and Charles Koch and their “web of influence.”According to the center’s own 990 tax forms, the Open Society Institute gave it $651,650 in 2009 alone.
The well-known Center for Investigative Reporting follows the same template – important journalists on the board and a liberal editorial agenda. Both the board of directors and the advisory board contain journalists from major news outlets. The board features:
• Phil Bronstein (President), San Francisco Chronicle;
• David Boardman, The Seattle Times;
• Len Downie, former Executive Editor of the Washington Post, now VP;
• George Osterkamp, CBS News producer.
Readers of the site are greeted with numerous stories on climate change, illegal immigration and the evils of big companies. It counts among its media partners The Washington Post, Salon, CNN and ABC News. CIR received close to $1 million from Open Society from 2003 to 2008.
Why does it all matter? Journalists, we are constantly told, are neutral in their reporting. In almost the same breath, many bemoan the influence of money in politics. It is a maxim of both the left and many in the media that conservatives are bought and paid for by business interests. Yet where are the concerns about where their money comes from?
Fred Brown, who recently revised the book “Journalism Ethics: A Casebook of Professional Conduct for News Media,” argues journalists need to be “transparent” about their connections and “be up front about your relationship” with those who fund you.
Unfortunately, that rarely happens. While the nonprofits list who sits on their boards, the news outlets they work for make little or no effort to connect those dots. Amanpour’s biography page, for instance, talks about her lengthy career, her time at CNN and her many awards. It makes no mention of her affiliation with the Center for Public Integrity.
If journalists were more up front, they would have to admit numerous uncomfortable connections with groups that push a liberal agenda, many of them funded by the stridently liberal George Soros. So don’t expect that transparency any time soon.
A small tax-exempt political group with ties to wealthy liberals like billionaire financier George Soros has quietly helped elect 11 reform-minded progressive Democrats as secretaries of state to oversee the election process in battleground states and keep Republican “political operatives from deciding who can vote and how those votes are counted.”
Known as the Secretary of State Project (SOSP), the organization was formed by liberal activists in 2006 to put Democrats in charge of state election offices, where key decisions often are made in close races on which ballots are counted and which are not.
Pay attention to this part:
Named after Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, so-called 527 political groups — such as SOSP — have no upper limit on contributions and no restrictions on who may contribute in seeking to influence the selection, nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates to federal, state or local public office. They generally are not regulated by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), creating a soft-money loophole.
While FEC regulations limit individual donations to a maximum of $2,500 per candidate and $5,000 to a PAC, a number of 527 groups have poured tens of millions of unregulated dollars into various political efforts.
SOSP has backed 11 winning candidates in 18 races, including such key states as Ohio, Nevada, Iowa, New Mexico and Minnesota.
This is where illegal and foreign money and foreign governments influence our elections. The excuse the Soros funded group uses is that it claims Republicans stole the 200 presidential election on Florida. Of course when a group of newspapers went to Florida and recounted themselves they also concluded that president Bush had won fairly.
But let me tell you what wasn’t fair. It wasn’t fair when Al Gore’s lawyers used a technicality to toss out military ballots in Florida. There were valid reasons why the Supreme Court ruled for President Bush in the Bush v. Gore lawsuits: the Florida Supreme Court was allowing Democrats to change the election rules on the fly during the count; and Gore’s lawyers and a partisan Florida Court wanted to allow selective recounting of discarded votes, meaning that only in areas where Gore had a substantial lead would the votes be recounted. President Bush’s team said that if there was going to be a recount it had to be all of the state and under one set of rules – and on that part of Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court agreed 7-2.
Of course Soros’ group has already stolen elections in Minnesota. USA Today, among others, report that Al Franken won his Senate seat through fraud.
Justice Department whistle blower J. Christian Adams went public after the Justice Department dismantled the integrity division of the section in charge of making sure that “Motor Voter” was enforced properly and that dead people were removed from the voter roles. The Obama Justice Department has made it clear that they will not take action in vote intimidation cases if the victims are white and/or the perpetrators are black.
How The Department of Justice Allowed Vote Fraud in Minnesota
Former Department of Justice attorney J. Christian Adams has blown the whistle on politicization within Justice in enforcing election laws, specifically the laws requiring cleaning voter rolls of the deceased and convicted felons. While the main focus of the media (such as it is) has been on the politics of the issue, Adams wants to get more of a focus on the consequences of politicization. He talks with Twin Cities talk-show host Chris Baker about the impact of this politicization in Minnesota, a subject that Minnesota Majority knows all too well. The conservative organization has spent the past 20 months attempting to get the attention of the DoJ on this very subject, to no avail:
Minnesota Majority has experienced the DOJ’s refusal to investigate these kind of cases first-hand. On November 17th of 2008 (immediately following the 2008 General Election and while the Coleman-Franken recount battle was getting underway), Minnesota Majority president Jeff Davis sent a certified letter to then Voting Section chief of the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ, Christopher Coates, requesting an investigation into apparent failures to comply with HAVA by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. No response was forthcoming.
Since the DOJ in Washington DC failed to follow up on Davis’ complaint, Minnesota Majority contacted the local FBI office and lodged the same complaint. Special Agent Brian Kinney responded and visited the Minnesota Majority office to examine Minnesota Majority’s findings. At that time, he said, “based on what I see here there is more than enough evidence to initiate an internal complaint.” He gave his assurances that he would bring the matter to the attention of his supervisors. There was no further follow-up.
By October of 2009, Minnesota Majority had compiled evidence of further violations of HAVA in Minnesota, including a finding that ineligible felons were not being detected and flagged for challenge or removal from the voter rolls. This resulted in hundreds of fraudulent votes by ineligible felons being counted in Minnesota’s 2008 election. Davis sent another certified letter to Voting Section Chief Christopher Coates. Like the first complaint from nearly a year prior, the second letter went unanswered.
Minnesota Majority’s experience supports J. Christopher Adams’ claims that the DOJ’s policy is not to pursue violations of HAVA’s anti-fraud provisions. The dismissal of the voter intimidation charges against members of the New Black Panther Party who brandished nightsticks outside a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 General Election was the last straw for Adams, who resigned in protest. He claimed that his superiors also ordered himself and other attorneys not to comply with subpoenas issued by the US Civil Rights commission, placing them in what Adams called, “legal limbo.”
Voting Section Chief Christopher Coates, who worked with Adams on the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case was demoted and transferred to a post in South Carolina earlier this year.
The Civil Rights Commission has subpoenaed Coates to testify on the matter but his DOJ employers are currently blocking his testimony.
Why would the DoJ block testimony from one of its attorneys on the internal policies of Justice?
President Obama Issues “Signing Statement” Indicating He Won’t Abide by Provision in Budget Bill
n a statement issued Friday night, President Obama took issue with some provisions in the budget bill – and in one case simply says he will not abide by it.
Last week the White House and congressional Democrats and Republicans were involved in intense negotiations over not only the size of the budget for the remainder of the FY2011 budget, and spending cuts within that budget, but also several GOP “riders,” or policy provisions attached to the bill.
One rider – Section 2262 — de-funds certain White House adviser positions – or “czars.” The president in his signing statement declares that he will not abide by it.
“The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch, and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority,” he wrote. “The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, and do so not only from executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it. Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President’s ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Therefore, the president wrote, “the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.”
In other words: we know what you wanted that provision to do, but we don’t think it’s constitutional, so we will interpret it differently than the way you meant it.
During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama was quite critical of the Bush administration’s uses of signing statements telling the Boston Globe in 2007 that the “problem” with the Bush administration “is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation.”
Then-Sen. Obama said he would “not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.”
The president said that no one “doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president’s constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.”
This is how some corrupt corporations make millions and scam the taxpayers. The AARP is supposed to be non profit. That means that they are not supposed to make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits, they are not supposed to be engaged in partisan politics and they are not supposed to be engaged in a huge conflict of interest. AARP has done all of this at the expense of their members and employees.
The Indiana legislature has passed a bill permitting virtual charter schools to serve students throughout the state, regardless where they live.
House Bill 1002, sponsored by Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis) and Representatives Bob Behning (R-Indianapolis), Mary Ann Sullivan (D-Indianapolis), and Cindy Noe (R-Indianapolis), allows the creation of virtual charter schools in the state with no limits on enrollment. The state’s two existing virtual charter schools are limited to 500 students.
The bill passed the state Senate by a 29 to 20 vote on April 12, and the House of Representatives passed it by a 61 to 37 vote on April 27. Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) signed the bill into law on.May 5.
“Once again, Indiana is at the forefront of a growing national movement that will ensure our students receive the quality instruction they deserve,” noted Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Tony Bennett in a press statement. “By boldly asserting every child’s right to attend a great school, the Hoosier state has taken a powerful stand in favor of equal educational opportunities for all children.”
‘High-Quality Solution’ If a student of the proposed new statewide virtual charter school previously attended a traditional public school, funds will follow the student to the virtual charter school. The range would be $4,800 to $8,400, depending on the funds allocated to the local “bricks and mortar” school system.
“This is an issue that I and many families have been advocating for years,” said Monique Christensen, president of Indiana Virtual School Families, a coalition of about 2,000 families. “Virtual schools are but one option that can provide a high-quality educational solution for kids. Not all children thrive in the standard brick and mortar environment.”
A virtual charter school enables students to access curriculum via computer rather than going to a school “building,” but many of the other educational elements are similar or superior to traditional education, said Christensen.
‘Pace Appropriate for Learning’ “Certified teachers with student/ teacher ratios similar to traditional schools oversee the schoolwork along with a committed learning coach whether it’s a parent, mentor, aunt, uncle, or someone else,” Christensen said. “Accelerated and gifted learners are able to move at a pace appropriate for their learning, and those needing remediation and extra help are able to spend the time needed in order to comprehend the material.”
Students must pass each lesson with 80 percent mastered comprehension before they are allowed to move on to the next lesson.
Even though there isn’t a traditional classroom, “teachers are in contact with their students and families frequently,” said Christensen. “Teachers often say they develop closer relationships and are in touch more with their virtual school students than they ever were in a traditional classroom through the use of phone, email, or Web cast conferences. Students also have access to their teacher and peers, as well as educational field trips, frequent social outings, and extracurricular activities.”
Students attending charter schools in Indianapolis have fared better in math and have had mixed results in other subjects compared to their counterparts in traditional schools, according to Marisa Cannata, associate director of the National Center on School Choice (NCSC) at Vanderbilt University.
‘Seeking Better Education’ Parents who move their children to virtual and brick-and-mortar charter schools seem to be pleased with the choice, Cannata added. And other parents can’t wait to make that move.
“My husband and I have begun to look into adoption and are appalled at the education choices available to our future offspring,” said Julia Porter, who lives in Warsaw, a small town in the northern part of the state.
“When looking at alternatives to schools, the closest charter school is over an hour away,” said Porter. “I feel that this virtual charter would allow for educated individuals who have children and want more for them than the community offers to seek better education. As a former New York City teacher, I see many advantages to offering this in Indiana, as Indiana offers much fewer choices to parents than larger cities.”
The following is part one of a 1985 interview with Ex-KGB officer Yuri Bezmenov. In this interview, Bezmenov outlines the four step systematic demoralization and indoctrination techniques utilized for decades against America.
The interview is prophetic, describing effects we can see all around us today.
The goal of demoralization according to the KGB: To change the perception of reality of every American so that they are unable to come to sensible conclusions for their own good and defense in spite of abundant information. To get the targets in such a mindset so that no amount of evidence will ever convince them that leftism is wrong. Pump the targets’ heads with the ideology of their enemy which the KGB has successfully done (in their point of view) to at least three generations of students with next to nothing opposing it. The demoralized either knowingly or unknowingly work towards the goals of the KGB until the real Marxists come to power.
According to the KGB, those journalists, professors, activists, union leaders, film directors and other idealistically minded Marxists who believe in the “beauty of collectivism” think that they will be coming to power; when these “useful idiots” don’t they will be the first to become disillusioned and become the revolution’s worst enemy. According to the KGB they will have to be executed because revolutionaries know how to wage a counter-revolution. They have to go because they know too much. Other useful idiots who still believe even after the revolution become disillusioned when they or their communities have to feel the boot (hence the old saying a conservative is a liberal who got mugged).
[Editor’s Note – This is why when such revolutions are complete the new Marxists who are put in charge kill the old Marxists. In almost every case of such a revolution history shows this to be true. Even Hitler had his “Night of the Long Knives” in which he killed his “brown shirts” and other revolutionaries who used violence to help him come to power. After all if they would use violence to betray their own country they would be a deadly enemy if they later turned against Hitler. As history has demonstrated, the first rule of every successful revolution is “kill the revolutionaries” This is a lesson that the KGB taught its agents. They practiced it when Stalin purged the Trotskyites.]
During the demoralization process those in influential circles who will not accept “the beauty of collectivism” will be subject to character assassination.
One of my history professors lectured about how and why great societies get conquered. Europe is being conquered right now as they will not defend their culture, their values, or even their women.
To our friends in Europe I say this, try and stop what is happening. If you cannot then come here and help us defend America or go to England and help UKIP, because if we lose freedom here as the Danes, Swedes, Germans and others have the world will be lost.
Freedom of speech and women’s rights just took a major hit in Denmark earlier today when the public prosecutor found Lars Hedegaard, the President of the Danish (and International) Free Press Society, guilty of “hate speech” under section 266b of the Danish penal code.
Hedegaard’s crime was to note “the great number of family rapes in areas dominated by Muslim culture in Denmark.”
The prosecutor’s crime is far greater. Now, courtesy of this prosecution, it is officially “racist” to tell the truth about sexual violence against women in Denmark, at least when that violence is perpetrated by Muslim fathers, uncles, or cousins.
When feminists first brought rape and incest out of the closet, we were accused of being “strident man haters,” and “crazy” as well. We learned to say: Not all men rape but all rapists are men. To our horror, we eventually discovered that women sometimes rape or sexually abuse children. They rarely rape other adults or force unwanted sex on other women outside of a prison setting.
Islam is not a race. Muslims come in every conceivable color. The Danes, the Scandinavians, all Europe has critiqued and exposed the real and imaginary sins and crimes of both Judaism and Christianity. Now, suddenly, Islam alone is to be spared such treatment.
Hedegaard has just published a book, Muhammed’s Girls: Violence, Murder and Rape in the House of Islam. I was told that my work appears throughout. Will my work someday also be considered “hate speech” or “racism”?
I stand in solidarity with Hedegaard at this awful moment. If the Danes and the Europeans do not take some very radical measures, it will be just as Bat Ye-or predicted. Post-Enlightenment Europe will no longer exist; Eurabia will.
I am ready to talk to the prosecutor to condemn this utter insanity. And so should everyone else. The real racists, the infidel-haters, the Jew-haters, the woman-haters are not being condemned. Only those who expose them are.
“If you are not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” – Malcolm X
Political Arena 