Category Archives: Culture War

Culture War, Israel, Jihad, School Indoctrination, Treason, True Talking Points, Unhinged

Harvard holds conference on eliminating Jews – UPDATE Harvard: The Jewish people do not exist….

1 Comment

UPDATE – Harvard Anti-Israel Conference: The Jewish People Do Not Exist – LINK

Make no mistake, when jihadist activists team with progressives on campus have an event called “the one state solution” it means taking Israel off the map for good and the Jews with it. Antisemitism is nothing new on campus as so many including Allen Dershowitz and David Horowitz have pointed out countless times; indeed this very writer has authored at least a dozen pieces on the subject. Rarely, is such genocidal bigotry this plainly stated and in your face. Usually it is thinly sugar coated with colorful euphemisms, but upon cross examination it doesn’t take long to get to the true intent that everyone is perfectly aware of. If you have any doubts about just how bad this problem is, this video should help bring you up to speed. Keep in mind that there are very few on campus who will have the moral fortitude to stand up to this, and it has the blessings of much of the leftist elite and the Harvard administration.

Wall Street Journal:

by Professor Ruth King Wisse February 29th, 2012

Harvard’s Latest Assault on Israel

Promoting the Jewish State’s destruction at a school dedicated to ‘democratic governance.’

In 1948, when the Arab League declared war on Israel, no one imagined that six decades later American universities would become its overseas agency. Yet campus incitement against Israel has been growing from California to the New York Island. A conference at Harvard next week called “Israel/Palestine and the One-State Solution” is but the latest aggression in an escalating campaign against the Jewish state.

The sequence is by now familiar: Arab student groups and self-styled progressives organize a conference or event like “Israeli Apartheid Week,” targeting Israel as the main problem of the Middle East. They frame the goals of these events in buzzwords of “expanding the range of academic debate.” But since the roster of speakers and subjects makes their hostile agenda indisputable, university spokespersons scramble to dissociate their institutions from the events they are sponsoring. Jewish students and alums debate whether to ignore or protest the aggression, and newspapers fueling the story give equal credence to Israel’s attackers and defenders.

A featured speaker at Harvard’s conference is Ali Abunimah, creator of the website Electronic Intifada, who opposes the existence of a “Jewish State” as racist by virtue of being Jewish. A regular on this circuit, he also keynoted a recent University of Pennsylvania conference urging “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (BDS) of, from and against Israel. Ostensibly dedicated to protecting Palestinian Arabs from Israeli oppression, BDS has by now achieved the status of an international “movement,” some of whose branches exclude Israeli academics from their journals and conferences.

But the economic war on Israel did not start with BDS. In 1945, before the founding of Israel, the Arab League declared a boycott of “Jewish products and manufactured goods.” Ever since, the Damascus-based Central Boycott Office has tried to enforce a triple-tiered boycott prohibiting importation of Israeli-origin goods and services, trade with any entity that does business in Israel, and engagement with any company or individual that does business with firms on the Arab League blacklist. Although the U.S. Congress took measures to counteract this boycott, and the Damascus Bureau may be temporarily preoccupied on other fronts, the boycott momentum has been picked up by Arab students and academics.

Freedom of speech grants all Americans the right to prosecute the verbal war against Israel. But let’s differentiate toleration from abetting. Harvard may tolerate smoking, but its medical school wouldn’t sponsor a conference touting the benefits of cigarettes because doctors have learned that smoking is hazardous to health. The avowed mission of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, host of the upcoming conference, “is to strengthen democratic governance around the world by preparing people for public leadership and by helping to solve problems of public policy.” How farcical that instead of seeking to strengthen democratic governance, its students hijack its forum for “studying” how to destroy the hardiest democracy in the Middle East.

The pattern of anti-Israel attack, administrative embarrassment, Jewish confusion, and media exploitation of the story will continue until all parties realize that the war against Israel is fundamentally different from biases to which it is often compared. Once Americans acknowledged the evils of their discrimination against African-Americans, they abjured their racism and tried through affirmative action to compensate for past injustice. Arab and Muslim leaders have done the opposite. Having attempted to deny Jews their right to their one country, they accused Jews of denying Arabs their 22nd. After losing wars on the battlefield, they prosecuted the war by other means.

Students who are inculcated with hatred of Israel may want to express their national, religious or political identity by urging its annihilation. But universities that condone their efforts are triple offenders—against their mission, against the Jewish people, and perhaps most especially against the maligners themselves. Smoking is less fatal to smokers than anti-Jewish politics is to its users. Remember Hitler’s bunker.

Ms. Wisse, a professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at Harvard, is the author of “Jews and Power” (Schocken, 2007).

2012 Primary, Alarmism, Civility, Culture War, Dirty Tricks, Education, Energy Policy, School Indoctrination, True Talking Points, Unhinged

Orange County Register: As climate case melts, zealots resort to fraud

Leave a comment

OC Register:

Respected scientist admits using false identity to obtain documents from a skeptic group.

Peter Gleick, a global warming true believer and purported scientific ethics expert, has admitted soliciting, receiving then distributing confidential fundraising and budget documents from the Heartland Institute under false pretenses, all to discredit Heartland, a free-market think tank that disputes global warming alarmism.

We await determinations of whether violations of state or federal laws on wire fraud and identity theft, and perhaps other offenses, occurred. Illinois-based Heartland has called in the FBI.

Mr. Gleick admitted the scheme in which he posed as a Heartland board member to obtain confidential files and sent them to global warming blogs as if they had been leaked by an insider. He denies, however, forging an accompanying “confidential strategy memo.” Heartland says the memo is not genuine, and there are indications it may have been created on the West Coast, where Mr. Gleick is president and founder of the Pacific Institute in Oakland.

Mr. Gleick requested a leave of absence from the institute after posting his confession online, in which he said, “My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts – often anonymous, well-funded and coordinated – to attack climate science.”

Unfortunately, we are accustomed to global warming zealots making a sham of ethics as well as tarnishing science. Thanks partly to leaks of climate researchers’ emails in recent years, the global warming movement has been revealed to be a cloistered club of insiders, who bully dissenting scientists, plot to keep contrary views from being published and manipulate data.

That’s why Mr. Gleick’s antics don’t surprise us. For example, Greenpeace reportedly stole garbage from Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which also debunks global warming alarmism. The pilfered refuse showed up in media reports intended to “reveal a secret cabal I orchestrated from my basement,” Mr. Horner wrote in his book, “Red Hot Lies.”

Global warmists contend that Heartland and other critics secretly are funded by Big Oil and other fossil fuel interests. The irony is that the stolen Heartland documents reveal the small think tank’s budget of $6 million pales compared with the $26 billion in Obama administration stimulus funds pumped into global-warming friendly causes, plus the hundreds of millions spent annually by warmist-friendly groups like Greenpeace, World Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club.

As real life increasingly refutes the theory of global warming doom, warmists have become more shrill and desperate. Mr. Gleick’s tattered reputation is but the latest result of a movement fraught with credibility problems. Perhaps more damaging is the uncooperative climate. Despite soaring carbon dioxide emissions for 10 to 15 years, temperatures remain essentially flat or, perhaps, have even declined, depending on which standard is used.

2012 Primary, Culture War, Health Law, Obama, True Talking Points

Sandra “Three Times a Day” Fluke turns out to be a radical pro-abortion activist….

1 Comment

UPDATE – Sandra Fluke: Catholic Institutions Should Pay for My Sex Change – LINK

Sandra Fluke says that as a law student she is poor that a Catholic University or an insurance company should be forced to give her birth control for free.

Sandra Fluke says that she uses $3,000 a year worth of birth control; CNS News and others ran the numbers and concluded that she would have to have sex 3 TIMES A DAY every day to use $3,000 worth.

So our friend Rush has a little fun with that statistic and makes jokes a parodies. One of the jokes was that if she wants to have that much sex and wants others to pay for it, are we not in essence paying her to have sex? If so she should post videos.

Rick Santorum, obviously forgetting that anyone who enters the political arena is fair game for jokes from just about everyone (I bet Jay Leno had a ball with this), condemned Rush for making the joke, which obviously had a very serious point behind it, which Rick also wimped out on commenting on.

Of course contraception is free at many health clinics and state run institutions, and that includes birth control; so this has nothing to do with who is going to pay for her insatiable sex habits, rather it is about going after the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of religion and conscience. It is also an effort to close Catholic hospitals and clinics so that government can take one step closer at taking over the health care system (which Kathleen Sibelius just all but admitted that this is the administration goal). It is also important to keep in mind that the Obama Administration is trying to force Catholic institutions not just to provide free contraception, but also to provide free so called “morning after” abortion pills.

Sandra Fluke presented herself as just another average Catholic law student, but in reality she is the president of the radical pro-abortion group “Law Students for Reproductive Justice” (2). Fluke is absurd and should be called out on it.

Famed attorney Mark Levin comments:

Culture War, Editorial, Education, School Indoctrination, True Talking Points

Journal of Medical Ethics: It is ethical to murder babies after they are born

1 Comment

I will just deal with the objections right up front:

This is just two whacky professors…

No it is not. This is the Journal of Medical Ethics which is a peer reviewed publication. In order for this article to appear a committee of “medical and academic professionals” had to study the piece, find it credible and agree to publish it believing that it has academic and cultural value. Academic journals are written in part to promote each others work in the academic community; meaning that those who authored it and who decided to publish it had to believe that doing so would be accepted by their peers, good for their careers etc.

The Journal of Medical Ethics doesn’t speak for all doctors…

But it speaks for enough of them. This article will be presented as evidence in abortion and infanticide cases as a defense in the courts and in the elite media. It will be bandied about by radicalized professors on campus to indoctrinate and morally confuse students.

When the American Psychological Association (APA) published in its journal a piece that was a naked attempt to normalize pedophilia; Dr. Laura Schlessinger, many state legislatures, and even the Congress of the United States spoke out and passed resolutions against this until the APA retracted.

UK Telegraph:

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say.

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

Culture War, True Talking Points

Leftist movie critics trash “Act of Valor” for daring to show the military in a positive light

Leave a comment

Newsbusters:

The new film “Act of Valor” doesn’t accuse U.S. military members of war crimes, nor does it paint them as cold killing machines.

That simply won’t do for many film critics, who cling to the kind of anti-military movies which routinely flop at the box office. “Valor” uses amateur actors – active duty Navy SEALs – and certainly can be faulted for their flat line readings. And the episodic nature of the movie also invites fair critiques, even if it’s remarkable the cast routinely acted around live gunfire. But many critics went beyond the call of duty to smite a film that dared to show SEALs as heroes, and their efforts to stop terrorists a noble endeavor.

Time Out New York’s Joshua Rothkopf calls the film “scary,” with a “ridiculously limited view of American righteousness.”

Tampa Bay Times critic Steve Persall dubs “Valor” “a land mine movie for anyone to review who isn’t a military veteran, who hasn’t bought into the cult of warfare,” later adding “pacifists won’t be nearly as impressed.”

 

How ’bout audiences who realize terrorists are a legitimate threat, and that military intervention is often necessary to prevent them from wiping out hundreds, if not thousands, of innocents?

 

Philly.com’s David Hiltbrand seemed upset by sequences in which people responsible for the capture and torture of a CIA agent met their gruesome fate:

You watch as one of our snipers dispassionately and from a great distance lays out these scruffy untrained campesinos one after the other with graphic head shots.

So, as long as you’re a “scruffy, untrained campesino” we should give you a pass for torturing a woman. But Hiltbrand’s moral confusion intensified as the film wore on:

Near the end, the film degenerates into an extended, chaotic firefight. You know who you’re supposed to be rooting for because they’re the ones wearing uniforms, but it’s easy to lose touch with why.

 

Here’s a clue – the folks who want to commit terrorist acts are the bad guys and need to be stopped. The ones stopping them are the heroes. Now, how hard is that?

Read the rest HERE.

2012 Primary, Communications Theory, Culture War, True Talking Points

Hawkins: Five Things Children Know That Liberals Have Forgotten

Leave a comment

John Hawkins:

1) Life’s not fair. There’s probably not a kid in this country who hasn’t said, “That’s not fair,” and has heard a “Life’s not fair” in return. You could actually go farther than that. Not only is life not fair, the word “fair” is completely arbitrary and primarily dependent on whose goose is getting gored.

If you’re paying 35% of your income in taxes and are being told that it’s not “fair” you’re only paying that much when almost half the country isn’t paying any income tax at all, you probably disagree in the strongest of terms. On the other hand, someone making $10,000 a year might not think it’s “fair” for someone else to make so much more money than he does after taxes. If you’re a black, Harvard educated business owner with 10 million dollars in the bank, you may think it’s perfectly fair that your son gets into a college over a more qualified son of a white garbage collector because of Affirmative Action, but it’s pretty easy to see how the person being discriminated against because of his race wouldn’t feel the same way.

In other words, one person’s “fair” is another’s person’s “unfair” which can become a huge problem when the government starts defining what’s “fair” and putting the force of law behind it. Yes, some of that has to happen in order to have an orderly and law abiding society, but increasingly, what’s “fair” is becoming little more than an overbearing government and tyrannical judges abusing the law to do favors for the politically well-connected and voting blocks they think will help “their side.” No matter what they do, life will never be “fair” and trying to make it so is an inherently “unfair” exercise in utopianism that has proven to lead to considerably more misery than simply accepting that “Life isn’t fair” in the first place.

2) You can’t have everything you want. This is something most kids learn when they don’t get a pony at Christmas or when their parents take them into a dollar store and tell them they can have “two things.”

This is not a lesson liberals seem to have ever learned because their thinking is, “If it’s a ‘good idea,’ then it should be funded, regardless of what it costs, regardless of whether it’s worth the money.” It’s like liberals start with the assumption that we have infinite money and if anyone opposes spending for any reason, it must be because he’s “mean.” Did you know we actually have a higher debt load per person than Greece ($44,215 vs. $39,000), a nation that’s only being saved from default because richer countries are paying its bills? So what happens when we run out of money, go into a depression, taxes explode, and the checks from the government slow down and stop? Judging by what’s happening in Greece, liberals will start throwing Molotov cocktails in the street and blame everyone but themselves for spending the country into oblivion.

To see the other three continue reading HERE.

2012 Primary, Culture War, Education, Lies, School Indoctrination, True Talking Points

6th Circuit Court of Appeals Sides with Christian Grad Student

Leave a comment

This is where it gets interesting, according to the evidence, the textbooks the EMU used said that councilors cannot be value neutral and that values are essential to the healing process:

Defendant Ametrano, Chair of the formal review committee that dismissed Ms. Ward from the program, assigned a book as required reading in a required course Ms. Ward took from Defendant Ametrano, which states that “[i]t is now generally recognized that the therapeutic endeavor is a value-laden process and that all counselors, to some degree, communicate their values to clients,” and that “the assumption that counseling is value-neutral is no longer tenable.”

(Ex. 8 at 73.) A true and accurate copy of excerpts from this book, Becoming a Helper by Marianne Schneider Corey and Gerald Corey and published in 2007, is attached as Exhibit 8.

This book also explains that “because the values [counselors] hold cannot be kept out of their work, they should not refuse to discuss their core values.” (Id.)

Regarding values, the book further states: “In our view it is neither possible nor desirable for helpers to remain neutral or to keep their values separate from their professional relationships. Because values have a significant impact on the helping process, it is important to express them openly when doing so is appropriate.” (Id. at 73.)

As taught by the EMU counseling department in required courses, the counseling profession understands that personal values impact a counselor’s practice, and that exposing a client to your values can be an appropriate course of action in a counseling relationship.

The other textbooks used in EMU’s own courses said that referring a client is the appropriate action when a values conflict may become an issue in the client/therapist relationship.  EMU could demonstrate no rule or reason to ban or prevent Ms. Ward from asking for the referral. To be clear, in multiple instances EMU violated standard counselling practices and procedures in order to persecute Julea Ward for holding Christian beliefs.

CBN:

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of a Christian graduate student expelled from Eastern Michigan University’s counseling program after refusing to provide services to a gay client.

In 2009, EMU student Julea Ward was assigned a client seeking help with a homosexual relationship.

Believing that taking on such a case would violate her Christian convictions, Ward asked the clinic to reassign the client to another counselor — a move in keeping with the school’s counseling code of ethics.

“I explained that I was a Christian and that I could not [endorse] homosexual behavior,” Ward said.

Following a formal review hearing, EMU sent Ward a letter dismissing her from the school’s graduate program.

“Rather than allow Julea to refer a potential client to another qualified counselor — a common, professional practice to best serve clients — EMU attacked and questioned Julea’s religious beliefs and ultimately expelled her from the program because of them,” said Alliance Defense Fund Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco, who argued Ward’s case last October.

Click here to read Ward’s complaint against EMU.

The 6th Circuit sided with Ward in a sternly-worded decision being hailed by Christian groups as a victory for free speech and religious freedom.

“A reasonable jury could conclude that Ward’s professors ejected her from the counseling program because of hostility toward her speech and faith,” the appellate court wrote in its opinion Friday.

“A university cannot compel a student to alter or violate her belief systems… as the price for obtaining a degree,” the 6th Circuit wrote. “Tolerance is a two-way street.”

The court did not mince words in the ruling:

Here too, what did Ward do wrong? Ward was willing to work with all clients and to respect the school’s affirmation directives in doing so. That is why she asked to refer gay and lesbian clients (and some heterosexual clients) if the conversation required her to affirm their sexual practices. What more could the rule require? Surely, for example, the ban on discrimination against clients based on their religion (1) does not require a Muslim counselor to tell a Jewish client that his religious beliefs are correct if the conversation takes a turn in that direction and (2) does not require an atheist counselor to tell a person of faith that there is a God if the client is wrestling with faithbased issues. Tolerance is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination.

2012 Primary, Culture War, History, Reagan, Santorum, True Talking Points

Santorum, Reagan, Obama and Satan…

Leave a comment

Rick Santorum was attacked for saying that Satan has targeted America. Rick Santorum isn’t alone.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s mentor Saul Alinsky dedicated his book, “Rules for Radicals” to Satan:

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: From all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

 

Dr. Paul Kengor:

As Reagan himself put it, “We know that living in this world means dealing with what philosophers would call the phenomenology of evil or, as theologians would put it, the doctrine of sin.” Reagan dared to use the “J” word, inserting a distinctly Christian claim: “There is sin and evil in the world, and we’re enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might.”

Reagan’s speech came at 3:04 p.m. on March 8, 1983 in the Citrus Crown Ballroom at the Orlando Sheraton Twin Towers Hotel. The audience was the National Association of Evangelicals. He began by thanking all those present for their prayers, saying that their intercession had “made all the difference” in his life. He cited his favorite quote from Lincoln, about being driven to his knees by the conviction he had nowhere else to go. He then commended the role of religious faith in American democracy. “[F]reedom prospers only where the blessings of God are avidly sought and humbly accepted,” Reagan maintained. “The American experiment in democracy rests on this insight.” He said the discovery of that insight was the “great triumph” of the Founders. Indeed it was.

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.

2012 Primary, Budget, Culture War, Education, Mitt Romney, True Talking Points

Romney ads blast Santorum for supporting “No Child Left Behind”, but Romney supported it too (video)

Leave a comment

The “No Child Left Behind Act” has been a colossal failure. While the testing in the act did indeed give is a better idea of just how bad public schools are failing our children, it made the problem worse because school districts and teachers started teaching the test, and thus weren’t truly educating. This is something I have seen first hand.

Teaching is a missionary vocation. When the federal government and/or a bureaucratic and/or a union mentality is introduced that kills the missionary attitude and spirit. This is why our current public school model is failing more than it is succeeding.

2012 Primary, Budget, Culture War, Dirty Tricks, Obama, Treason, True Talking Points

Obama to cut healthcare benefits for active duty and retired US military, no cuts for government unions

Leave a comment

Obama’s new proposed budget, which has no chance of passing, not only proposed giving $800 million to the Muslim Brotherhood, he wants to slash medical benefits for retired and active duty military. The military likely will not vote for Obama and the government unions will; it is just that simple.

Washington Free Beacon:

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

Many in Congress are opposing the proposed changes, which would require the passage of new legislation before being put in place.

“We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population,” Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a Republican from California, said in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more.”

Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

2012 Primary, Culture War, Mitt Romney, Obama, True Talking Points

Mitt Lied: Romney did require Catholic hospitals to provide morning-after pills

Leave a comment

Via Pundit and Pundette [Great work in finding this evidence P & P – Editor]:

The Boston Catholic Insider provides a detailed timeline that refutes Romney’s assertions about a Massachusetts morning-after pill mandate:

No, absolutely not. Of course not.
There was no requirement in Massachusetts for the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims. That was entirely voluntary on their part. There was no such requirement.

BCI finds the opposite to be true. Their synopsis:

In 2005 Romney vetoed a bill to provide access to the so-called “morning-after-pill,” knowing his veto would be overridden, but months later, he decided Catholic hospitals did have to give the morning-after pill to rape victims. Key points to note:

  1. Romney had publicly claimed the bill did not apply to private religious hospitals
  2. He reversed his own July 2005 veto against abortifacients by signing an October bill seeking a federal waiver to expand distribution of Plan B abortifacients.
  3. On December 7, 2005, Romney’s Department of Public Health said that Catholic and other privately-run hospitals could opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections
  4. On December 8, 2005 Romney reversed the legal opinion of his own State Department of Public Health, instructing all Catholic hospitals and others to provide the chemical Plan B “morning after pill” to rape victims.  He was quoted as saying, ““I think, in my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide  information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a  victim of rape.”

Please note the principled leadership shown by Romney here. For it, against it, rinse, repeat.

BCI’s conclusion:

When Romney was asked in the debate if he had required Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims and had infringed on Catholics’ rights, he responded, “No, absolutely not. Of course not.” That was untrue.

When Romney said “for the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims…was entirely voluntary on their part”, that was also untrue.

For him to suggest to the citizens of the United States on national television that Cardinal O’Malley and the Catholic Church would “voluntarily” provide morning-after pills is an egregious misrepresentation of Catholic Church teachings and an egregious misrepresentation of what actually happened in this situation.

BCI hopes that the media and other candidates call him out on this.

It’s a matter of public record. Not only did Romney destroy conscience protections, a la the Obama administration, but he lied outright about it as recently as two days ago. This should disqualify him as a serious candidate.

Culture War, Editorial, True Talking Points

Anti-conservatism is anti-intellectualism

Leave a comment

A good friend of mine sent me a link to a piece that contained every bigoted false claim in the book that progressive secular leftists use to smear traditionalists, Jews and Christians. Of course, only those who aren’t aware of history and the use of such smears, which are nothing more than discredited cliches, actually believe such nonsense. My friend asked me, “Does part of conservatism stand against reason in the sense of being simply anti-intellectual?”.

To answer my friend’s question I said, “Let me be clear; anti-conservatism is anti-intellectualism”. Why?

American Conservatism demands that we look at our history and traditions to use them as a guide. To ascertain works and what doesn’t in order to have the happiest and healthiest society we can while recognizing that man’s nature is flawed and that society will never be perfect.

Leftists, by and large, believe that rationality must be imposed from above.  They believe in a rule of the elite (oligarchy) over the “ignorant masses”. The believe that freedom leaves too much to chance. This kind of thinking is what our Founders, Alexis de Tocqueville and traditional American conservatives would call out as tyrannical. The progressive secular left believes that our traditions, Biblical codes, and history are merely mysticism (anti-intellectualism); thus they believe that 6,000 years of human experience means nothing now that they are here to enlighten us.

The left even rejects Aristotle’s Law of Identity, they believe that truth is fungible, relative to ones own ideology,  and that there are no truths that are self evident.

The left pushes for top down government and central planning for our economy and society, a plan and philosophy that has failed every time it has been tried; often with massive bloodshed to boot. Even in cases where there was not much bloodshed there was still a large amount of human suffering. We see this in Western Europe even now, and we see more suffering here at home as a result of our own dabbling in leftism.

We have seen study after study show that people are more free and have more wealth when they live in a society with the the Judea/Christian ethic.

Those who push Marxism/Leftism/Utopianism/Socialism/Communism/Progressivism or whatever one may wish to call it are selling a defective product and use deceptive advertising to sell it.

2012 Primary, Culture War, History, Santorum, True Talking Points

Jeff Bell: Social Conservatism Wins Elections in Key States

Leave a comment

Who is Jeff Bell?

Mr. Bell, 68, is an unlikely tribune for social conservatism. His main interest has always been economics. He was “an early supply-sider” who worked on Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaigns of 1976 and 1980 and Jack Kemp’s in 1988. In 1978 he ran an anti-tax campaign for the U.S. Senate in New Jersey, defeating Republican incumbent Clifford Case in the primary but losing to Democrat Bill Bradley.

Even now his day job is to advocate for the gold standard at the American Principles Project. But he’s been interested in social issues since the 1980s, when “it became increasingly clear to me . . . that social issues were beginning to be very important in comparison to economic issues,” in part because “Reaganomics worked so well that the Democrats . . . kind of retired the economic issues.”

Jeff Bell:

Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues in his forthcoming book, “The Case for Polarized Politics,” has a winning track record for the GOP. “Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964,” he observes. “The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.”

The Democrats who won, including even Barack Obama in 2008, did not play up social liberalism in their campaigns. In 1992 Bill Clinton was a death-penalty advocate who promised to “end welfare as we know it” and make abortion “safe, legal and rare.” Social issues have come to the fore on the GOP side in two of the past six presidential elections—in 1988 (prison furloughs, the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU) and 2004 (same-sex marriage). “Those are the only two elections since Reagan where the Republican Party has won a popular majority,” Mr. Bell says. “It isn’t coincidental.”

Even without immediate gains among minority voters, Mr. Bell sees social issues as the path to a GOP majority in 2012. They account for the George W. Bush-era red-blue divide, which Mr. Bell says endures—and, he adds, red has the advantage: “There was one state in 2000 that Bush carried that I would say was socially left of center, and that was New Hampshire,” the only state that flipped to John Kerry four years later. “By 2004, every state—all 31 states that Bush carried—were socially conservative states.” Those states now have 292 electoral votes, with 270 sufficient for a majority.

By contrast, not all the Kerry states are socially liberal. “The swing vote in the Midwest is socially conservative and less conservative economically,” Mr. Bell says, so that “social conservatism is more likely to be helpful than economic conservatism.”

The roots of social conservatism, he maintains, lie in the American Revolution. “Nature’s God is the only authority cited in the Declaration of Independence. . . . The usual [assumption] is, the U.S. has social conservatism because it’s more religious. . . . My feeling is that the very founding of the country is the natural law, which is God-given, but it isn’t particular to any one religion. . . . If you believe that rights are unalienable and that they come from God, the odds are that you’re a social conservative.”

Read more HERE.

2012 Primary, Culture War, Israel, Jihad, True Talking Points

Hareetz: The strange illness of Jewish anti-Semitism

Leave a comment

This is a very important read. This problem of leftist Jews being reflexively anti-Semitic to rabidly so is something that this writer has witnessed first hand, mostly from radicalize academics and students. I am glad that more and more people are speaking out against this problem as I have witnessed these people act as if they are a defense attorney for genocidal jihadists. The people who I have seen with this problem seem irrational to the point of mental illness.

Hareetz:

Diagnosis

The 1930s Labor Zionist leader Berl Katznelson asked “Is there another People on Earth so emotionally twisted that they consider everything their nation does despicable and hateful, while every murder, rape, robbery committed by their enemies fill their hearts with admiration and awe?”

This is Jew Flu – the virus of Jewish Anti-Semitism, and its Jewish Anti- and Post-Zionist mutations, afflicting a small but inordinately loud minority of Hebrews.

Its modern symptoms are a rejection of Israel’s identity as a Jewish state and a dismissal of its right to defend itself militarily, while embracing the goals of its nihilistic Arab enemies. Those infected with the virus wildly inflate Israeli sins real or imagined, while excusing or rationalizing Palestinian anti-semitism and outrages against Jews.

Those afflicted with Jew Flu often view the notion of Peoplehood as an artifice, which implies a rejection of Jewish national self-determination and acceptance of the 90-year-old Palestinian Arab contention that Jews are not a nation but merely members of a religion, and as such don?t merit a national home of their own.

Is Jew Flu a bona-fide illness? Michael Welner, a psychiatrist at New York University, suggests that Jewish Anti-Semitism is akin to a personality disorder, enabling a person to “derive some psychological benefit from this pathological thinking.”

What causes Jew Flu? Harvard psychiatrist Kenneth Levin argues for twin culprits: so-called ‘Stockholm Syndrome’, where “population segments under chronic siege commonly embrace the indictments of their besiegers however bigoted and outrageous”, as well as “the psychodynamics of abused children who blame themselves for their situation and believe they could mollify their tormenters if they were ‘good’.”

Julie Ancis, a psychology professor at Georgia State University says that it isn’t “uncommon for a minority group with a history of oppression and persecution to possess internalized self-hatred regarding their cultural/religious identity.”

I’m no therapist, but that won’t restrain me from proposing my own theory for the ultimate cause of Jew Flu. More on that later.

Since the defamations of Jew Flu victims are propagated across the Internet and are extensively documented and challenged in many fine books and articles, repeating them here would be redundant.

Suffice it to say that Noam Chomsky, Daniel Boyarin, Joel Kovel, Avrum Burg, Ilan Pappe, Steve Quester, Jacqueline Rose, Tony Judt, Naomi Klein, Michael Neumann, Ben Ehrenreich, (the apparently “outed”) Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and their ilk, spout pronouncements eerily similar to the propaganda routinely ejaculated by representatives of Fatah, Hamas or Hezbollah.

At the same time, a hearty “shout out” is due those who have made it their business to forcefully rebut the Jewish defamers, including Andrea Levin, Edward Alexander, Alan Dershowitz, David Solway and others. Those interested in a quick and free primer on Jew Flu should download Alvin Rosenfeld’s UJA-sponsored brief, “Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism”.

History

Jew Flu, of course, isn’t new: It has lurked in our midst for millennia. Jews collaborated with Greeks, Romans and Inquisitors; Bolshevik self loathers displayed savagery towards their brethren; their prophet Karl Marx was described by author Rafael Patai as the “most influential of Jewish self haters”, who thought “Israelite faith” most repugnant, and whose rabid anti-Semitism was attributed by the historian Simon Dubnow to “the natural hatred of the renegade for the camp he deserted.”

Incredibly, certain young Jews in Weimar Germany, members of a certain Association of National-German Jews were sufficiently maddened by Jew Flu to attempt to “identify and ingratiate (themselves) with the Nazi Party”.

Jew Flu developed its anti-Zionist strain in the decades preceding the creation of Israel: renowned philosopher Martin Buber of Hebrew University and others actually justified the Palestinian Arab pogroms of 1921, 1929 and the late 30s, urging that desperate Jewish holocaust refugees be permitted to enter Palestine only with Arab permission.

In 1944, and with the destruction of European Jewry proceeding apace, Lessing Rosenwald, the President of the American Council for Judaism equated the ideal of Jewish Statehood with the concept of a racial state “the Hitlerian concept”.

Following remission during the post-Holocaust years, Jewry experienced a relapse of Jew Flu in the aftermath of the ’67 Six Day War. In the U.S., young Jewish radicals of the New Left branded Israel a fascist, colonial power while praising Arab countries as progressive and revolutionary – unsurprising since many were Soviet client states.

They remained largely silent as Soviet tanks crushed the 1968 Prague Spring – presumably a ‘progressive’ development.

New Left sentiments found expression in Israel even during the aftermath of the traumatic Yom Kippur War; at a Tel Aviv reception in late 1973, my mother found herself amid a chatty crowd of cocktailing cultural figures casually dismissive of their own country’s right to exist.

The infection among Israel’s cultural elites intensified through the Lebanon War and the two Intifadas that sandwiched the delusional Oslo era. As author Aharon Meged lamented in 1994, there existed “an emotional and moral identification by the majority of Israel’s intelligentsia, and its print and electronic media, with people committed to our annihilation.”

Epitomizing this “moral identification” were the certain prominent Jewish journalists who, according to Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea, crucially failed the so-called ‘lynch test’, by exhibiting an inability to ever criticize Palestinian terror, even following the widely televised gruesome execution of two Jews by a Palestinian mob in Ramallah In 2000.

Metamorphosis

It was at this time that Jew Flu claimed a childhood friend of mine. We’d come of age together in the early ’80s, like-minded Zionists, he more “Kahanish” in temperament. Immigrating to Israel the day after graduation, he’d serve in the IDF, settle in Jerusalem, marry, spawn a brood, and settle into the life of an Israeli academic, where anti Zionist stances are common and open identification as an Israeli patriot is tantamount to career suicide.

Infection struck during the Oslo years: before the millennium was out, the youthful Kahanist yeshiva boy had morphed into a militant Jewish Anti Zionist, mindlessly spouting hackneyed and malicious anti-Israel canards on leftwing and Arab websites, and regularly consorting with a posse of Arab academics in Ramallah.

This episode recalled a scene from “Radio Days”, the Woody Allen movie in which an uncle fasting on Yom Kippur indignantly watches the Jewish communists next door brazenly barbecuing. In Holiday suit he marches out the front door to scold the Reds on their evil ways, only to return shortly after chewing on a chicken drumstick, indignantly decrying religion as the opiate of the masses.

Those like my friend afflicted with Jew Flu deny their infection, contending that criticism of Israel isn’t Anti-Semitism or even Anti-Israel.

Helpfully, Natan Sharansky formulated his so-called 3D litmus test to clearly distinguish mere Israel critics from Jew Flu victims, and has allowed me to diagnose my old friend.

As it turns out, the afflicted regularly engage in at least one of the following -Demonization (comparing Israeli actions to Nazism and referring to Arab refugee camps as Auschwitz);- Double Standards (singling out Israel for human rights abuses while ignoring the blatant human rights violators such as Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestinian Authority, North Korea, Cuba, China, Myanmar etc); and Delegitimization (denying Israel the fundamental right to exist as a Jewish state)

During March 2002, Jihadist suicide murderers were exploding on Israeli buses every other day, massacring and maiming hundreds of Jews in a cascade of latter-day pogroms; savage images of Haim Nahman Bialik’s monumental poem, “City of Slaughter” blazed across the broken land.

125 Jews were massacred and hundreds were wounded by Palestinian suicide murderers that month. Yet unsurprisingly my stricken friend declined comment.

My friend seems to amuse his Arab colleagues: Appearing at a conference some years ago at Cairo’s American University, an Egyptian fellow panelist quipped to the audience that our mutual friend was “more pro-Palestinian than me – I am more pro-Israel than him.”

Incidentally, this college has since instituted a ban on Israeli academics.

At this point allow me to complicate things: It’s easy to assume that those struck with Jew Flu would be contemptuous of Jewish religious observance. They often hold Marxist views, which would imply an atheist outlook.

Yet what one should one make of my friend who performs Kiddush on Friday nights, fasts on Yom Kippur and uses two sets of dishes in his kosher kitchen? Would such Jewish customs be performed by an anti-Semite?

Knesset speaker Avrum Burg is a lifelong modern orthodox Jew, a skull capped davener whose Jew Flu was latent for years but burst out into the open when he took to smearing Israel in Nazi-like browns.

Daniel and Jonathan Boyarin are pleasant, prominent and yarmulked professors of Jewish history who don tefilin daily, daven on Shabbat and holidays and are easily mistaken in appearance for West Bank settlers.

Yet Daniel is comfortable vilifying Israel regularly as a violent outlaw state. And Jonathan admitted to me some years ago during an especially sweaty Simchat Torah “hakafa” on the Lower East Side that his views are identical if not even more radical than Daniel’s (if that was possible.)

Actually, it is interesting that the views of such radical yet observant Jews resemble the tenets of Catholic Liberation Theology. But could such a trio be accused of outright anti-Semitism?

The Burgs and Boyarins of this world have long revered another devout Jew, the departed Yishayahu Leibowitz, a renowned scholar, recipient of the Israel Prize, and editor of the Hebrew Encyclopedia, a Jerusalemite who habitually referred to drafted Israeli soldiers who happened to be defending his charmed way of life as “Judeo-Nazis”.

Was Leibowitz an anti-Semite?

Submitting their pronouncements to the Sharansky test demonstrates that even tefilin wearing, kosher food eating Kiddush reciters can speak and write like anti-Semites.

Prognosis

But back to the elusive cause of Jew Flu: what makes one Jew vulnerable and not another? Wouldn’t a far larger proportion of Jews fall prey to Jew Flu if, say, Stockholm syndrome was the culprit? Is there a prime mover, some physiological or neurological smoking gun pointing to a root cause?

There may be. David Brooks recently reported in the New York Times on research by a Haifa University team led by Reem Yahya who studied the brains scans of Arabs and Jews while showing them images of hands and feet in painful situations.

Brooks reports that “the two cultures perceived pain differently. The Arabs perceived higher levels of pain over all while the Jews were more sensitive to pain suffered by members of a group other than their own.”

This phenomenon was epitomized by Rosa Luxemburg, a prominent Bolshevik and Jew Flu victim. “I have no room in my heart for Jewish suffering,” declared Rosa the Red. “Why do you pester me with Jewish troubles? I feel closer to the wretched victims of the rubber plantations of Putumayo or the Negroes in Africa… I have no separate corner in my heart for the ghetto.”

And then there’s the modest story Ahmad the cabbie related to me last week as we drove through Eilat-like Palm Springs: Ahmad’s brother in Nablus was employed for many years by an Israeli Jewish building contractor. When the outbreak of Intifada in 2000 permanently barred Ahmad’s brother from work in Israel, his Jewish boss continued to pay the brother’s salary for five years.

The intriguing research out of Haifa suggests that Jews may very well be inherently altruistic. But while exhibiting more sensitivity to another group’s pain is one thing, embracing the goals of people openly committed to one’s destruction is a form of madness.

So here’s my ultimate theory for the cause of this nefarious virus: Jew Flu is a condition in which being “more sensitive to pain suffered by members of a group other than (one’s) own metastasizes into a malignant emotional and moral identification with people committed to (one’s) annihilation.”

2012 Primary, Culture War, History, Santorum, True Talking Points

Dr. Mary Grabar: Teaching George Washington When Professors Aim to ‘Stop Santorum’

Leave a comment

This is one of the most important columns you may see. Read every last word.

Dr. Mary Grabar:

In an age and time when I find most of my college students unfamiliar with the story of Adam and Eve or the origin of the phrase, “judge not lest ye be judged,” I enter discussions about religion with some caution. Almost universally my students do not believe that religious belief is necessary for morality, and seem to be offended by the very concept.

But when one discusses the speeches of our earlier presidents, as I do in my composition classes, it is necessary to address religion’s role.

So last week, as we discussed George Washington’s Farewell Address, I asked students to recall the major points he made. Because several of them had already studied the speech in high school, they listed points most emphasized by teachers: his cautions about foreign entanglements, factional discord, and debt. Not many recalled his injunction to use the Constitution as a safeguard against “internal enemies.” Only one recalled his reminder about the importance of religion.

Although it does not take up much of the speech, it is an important passage, and one worth recalling in today’s age when libertarian ideals seem to motivate most college students and when many conservative pundits caution us about focusing on social issues.

But Washington reminds us, as do the other Founding Fathers, of why the Constitution is necessary in the first place.

The Constitution is structured according to a vision of mankind as inherently flawed, as marked by Original Sin. This view of human nature is what sets apart those who established the longest-lasting Constitution from the utopian idealists who see human nature as essentially good. Those human beings who are flawed by selfishness or irrationality (as they see it) can be shaped by the right social and political forces—and woe to the man who resists the efforts by the utopian theorists to make him good! We have seen that in the death tolls of such schemes.

But in Washington’s view, because character alone cannot be trusted, a division of powers helps provide checks against branches of government and of individuals. Washington echoes James Madison.

Yet, even with such multiple safeguards and a contract that stands beyond the immediate interests of parties, Washington still reminds us of the importance of religion. He calls “religion and morality” the “indispensable supports” of the “dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity.” In fact, he implies that patriotism is impossible without “these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.” It’s a sentence I emphasize. I ask students if they agree. Of course not, they almost unanimously say. One does not need to be religious to be patriotic. One does not need to believe in God to be moral.

Washington continues: “The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.”

Notice that Washington calls on the “mere politician” to respect religion and morality. Washington then claims, “A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.” (It’s no wonder that moderns who ascribe to the notion that religion is a private affair that should be divorced from political life would rather forget George Washington or wipe him from the history books.)

Furthermore, Washington maintains that morality emerges from religion, as he asks a rhetorical question: “Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?” This leads to my question of why we ask those who testify in court to place their hands on the Bible. This inspires more looks of consternation among students who have been educated in the idea that any kind of insistence on religious faith is an expression of “intolerance.”

Washington finally ends that paragraph by stating point blank, “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

That is about as unequivocal a statement as one can get.

Earlier in the speech, Washington had cautioned about regional animosities. Reminding them of the common “religion, manners, habits, and political principles” they shared, Washington encouraged citizens to adopt the identity “American”.

This is where students are apt to point out the changes that have taken place in over 200 years. The United States is no longer as homogenous as it was back then, when the vast majority of Americans belonged to various denominations of Protestantism. Students echo the standard line about “diversity” that infuses our educational establishment. They parrot the notion that it is an expression of “intolerance” to state that our nation is based upon a common moral and religious foundation of Judeo-Christian principles.

Yet, in spite of their constant exposure to “diversity” and a “globalism,” students have almost no ability to place our form of government and society into a global context. I remind students of the historical fact that Christianity introduced the notion that all people are equal in the eyes of the Creator. I ask students about our most basic laws. Why are parents who abuse or kill their children prosecuted? After all, in Greek and Roman culture, the father had the prerogative of allowing his infant child to die of exposure. Why do we take care of our elderly, even beyond the point of their “usefulness” to us? After all, Eskimos and other primitive societies, simply abandoned the weak and elderly, sending them off on ice floes. Apparently, students today don’t hear about such practices, while they are constantly bombarded about the “social injustice” of our economic system.

So, why, I ask, do our laws follow this Judeo-Christian injunction against killing? Other primitive societies, and now professors of ethics, like Peter Singer at Princeton, do not see anything unethical about killing handicapped infants.

When looks of horror register on the faces of students when I tell them about Singer’s proposal to allow parents to kill handicapped children, I tell them that their recoil at the thought of killing babies indicates the fact that even if they are not practicing Christians or Jews they have imbibed the values of a Judeo-Christian culture that values life. Those like Singer, quite significantly, begin by rejecting the Bible, which provides the premise that life is sacred.

The professor who works in a non-tenured position, as I do, broaches such topics with trepidation, lest any student (often called the “customer”) complain to the administration.

But I was pleasantly surprised when several students told me how much they had enjoyed and appreciated the discussion about religion in Washington’s speech. One, who is a Hindu, stayed after class, to tell me this.

Yet, if and when they follow today’s political debates in the news, students are likely to hear attacks upon Republican candidates’ religiosity and lack of respect for the “separation of church and state.” This is especially true about Rick Santorum who has been most outspoken about the importance of religion in public life.

In the classroom students are likely to hear views like those of Georgetown University Professor Jacques Berlinerblau, who charges Republicans with “secular-baiting” in his blog at the Chronicle of Higher Education. He claims Newt Gingrich pioneered the genre and Mitt Romney took it a “milestone” in its “evolution.” It is Santorum, however, whom he charges with demonizing Secularism, by reminding audiences of the atheistic nature of the “’French Revolution, moving onto the facists, and the Nazis and the communists and the Baathists.’”

Instead of considering the historical veracity of Santorum’s statement, Berlinerblau attributes nefarious and crazy motives to Santorum: “It is easy, lucrative, and even pleasurable, to pulverize sinister Secularism. It rallies the base, secures contributions, and helps conservative voters focus on demonic (i.e., liberal, Democratic) forces possessing our political system.” Running with his theory, Berlinerblau assigns an all-or-nothing faith in “divine revelation,” as if Santorum imagines he has a direct line to God. Berlinerblau then posits that religionists like Santorum might hear different things from God and thus have no basis upon which to decide policies. Such “anti-secular rhetoric,” he maintains, is “at its core . . . a demagogic evasion” (italics retained).

After he has whipped himself up to making Santorum a dictatorial theocrat, Berlinerblau concludes ominously, “Santorum and others will keep baiting secularism, and evading difficult issues, until someone stops them.”

In class, it will be worth reminding students about how the French Revolutionists and the Soviet Communists did first kill all the priests and nuns. It will be worth reminding students of the freedom voters have in drawing upon religious principles when they exercise their right to vote—in spite of many professors’ desire to simply “stop” people of religious faith, like Rick Santorum.

Culture War, Gangsta Govt, Obama, Treason, True Talking Points

Capital Bomber Doesn’t Fit the Justice Department “Profile”

Leave a comment

According to the Justice Department, Homeland Security and other parts of the Obama Administration the dangerous wild card is supposed to be a conservative, white, male, military vet who believes in the Constitution, supports conservative candidates and believes in the Bible.

But time and time again what do we see with the Fort Hood shootings, underwear bombers. the guy who tried to shoot up LA Airport, Islamic students who try to mow down Christians and Jews with their SUV, leave a bomb at Times Square, and the list goes on and on they all seem to have one thing in common; they are Muslim males.

But why is Obama’s Justice Department and Homeland Security putting out a new warning every few months claiming that one flavor of traditionalist or conservative is the latest “boogie man”?

Washington Post:

Federal authorities on Friday arrested a 29-year-old Moroccan man in an alleged plot to carry out a suicide bombing at the U.S. Capitol, the latest in a series of terrorism-related arrests resulting from undercover sting operations.

For more than a year, Amine El Khalifi, of Alexandria, considered attacking targets including a synagogue, an Alexandria building with military offices and a Washington restaurant frequented by military officials, authorities said. When arrested a few blocks from the Capitol around lunchtime on Friday, he was carrying what he believed to be a loaded automatic weapon and a suicide vest ready for detonation.

The gun and vest were provided not by al-Qaeda, as Khalifi had been told, but by undercover FBI agents who rendered them inoperable, authorities said.

They said Khalifi had been the subject of a lengthy investigation and never posed a threat to the public. On Friday afternoon, he made an initial court appearance in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, where he was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction against federal property. He faces life in prison if convicted.

Khalifi “allegedly believed he was working with al-Qaeda,” said Neil H. MacBride, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Khalifi “devised the plot, the targets and the methods on his own.”

2012 Primary, Culture War, Editorial, Egypt, Foreign Policy, Israel, Jihad, Niall Ferguson, Obama, Treason, True Talking Points

Analysis: Obama proposes $800 million in aid for the Muslim Brotherhood.

3 Comments

Had enough of this presidency yet?

Why would Obama want to fund the umbrella organization that oversees Hamas, the PLO, parts of Hezbollah and other terror organizations? The Muslim Brotherhood is who Obama helped to take over Egypt and Libya and they have been using armored military vehicles to mow down Christians and people who protest actions by the new government that Obama helped put in place. The Muslim Brotherhood has promised Sharia Law, persecution of women and swears to have war with Israel.

Obama has been arming the middle-east with weapons sales (including 125 M1 Tanks to Egypt) and now wants to hand them $800 million of your money while Americans are losing their homes. Be sure to look at the “related” section below.

Here is perhaps the world’s greatest living historian Prof. Niall Ferguson predicting what a disaster this would likely blow up into back in late February 2009 and time has proved Prof. Ferguson to be spot on:

Reuters:

The White House announced plans on Monday to help “Arab Spring” countries swept by revolutions with more than $800 million in economic aid, while maintaining U.S. military aid to Egypt.

In his annual budget message to Congress, President Barack Obama asked that military aid to Egypt be kept at the level of recent years — $1.3 billion — despite a crisis triggered by an Egyptian probe targeting American democracy activists.

The proposals are part of Obama’s budget request for fiscal year 2013, which begins October 1. His requests need the approval of Congress, where some lawmakers want to cut overseas spending to address U.S. budget shortfalls and are particularly angry at Egypt.

Related:

Islamic militants receive two-thirds vote in Egypt – LINK

AP: Egyptian Women March Against Abuse by Military – LINK

It’s official, Egypt is a disaster – LINK

Marxist Left allies with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Middle East – LINK

Carter Vouches for Muslim Brotherhood – LINK

Prof. Niall Ferguson Blasts Obama and MSNBC on Egypt – LINK

My Concerns About the Operation in Libya & Egypt – LINK

Former head of CIA “bin Laden Unit”: Libyan rebels are like the Taliban – LINK

Libya’s transitional leader says Islamic Sharia law will be the “basic source” of all law – LINK

John Kerry in Egypt meeting with Muslim Brotherhood – LINK


2012 Primary, Corporatism, Culture War, Gangsta Govt, Health Law, Obama, Treason, True Talking Points

Paul Ryan: Obama’s Attack on Catholic Hospitals A “Teachable Moment” In Progressive Philosophy

Leave a comment

This is awesome and a must see.

Paul Ryan to Laura Ingraham:

“This is what President Obama would call a “teachable moment”. The teachable moment here is when we elect a president who brings this progressive philosophy to bear to government, they decide how our rights are to be granted and given and organized. And if they clash with our first amendment right of religious freedom or something else then we know who wins in that exchange. This is much much bigger than about contraception or something like that, this is about religious freedom, first amendment rights, and how this progressive philosophy of fungible rights or a living, breathing constitution really clashes and collides with these core rights that we built our society and country around,”.