Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Youtube RSS

Archive for Category : Issues: Race Hustling


George Will Schools Hilary Rosen on Voter ID Laws

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 25, 2012

Original Article - George Will Schools Hilary Rosen on Voter ID Laws

CNN political contributor Hilary Rosen got a much-needed education about voter ID laws from George Will on ABC’s This Week Sunday.

When Rosen echoed the dishonest Democrat talking point that voter ID laws are considered “under the civil rights statutes” to be voter suppression, Will smartly replied, “Let the record show that the Supreme Court, with Justice John Paul Stevens, liberal Justice writing it, said that there is no Constitutional flaw in photo ID voter laws”

GEORGE WILL: Mr. Holder himself has made himself obnoxious to Republicans by saying unlike the Supreme Court that photo ID laws constitute voter suppression. That is if you have to present when you have a photo ID, the way you have to present a photo ID to get into justice, Attorney General Holder’s justice department.

HILARY ROSEN, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Now we’re getting to the real issue. This is why Republicans don’t like Eric Holder because he has challenged voter ID laws under the civil rights statutes as voter suppression rules that they are. Because he has challenged the Arizona, you know, discriminatory immigration law. Because he has refused to implement the discriminatory anti-marriage law. So, you know, Eric Holder has shown a lot of backbone in the justice department and the Republicans hate it. So, what do they do? They call for his resignation. They throw him with document requests that are impossible to respond to. They just throw more and more stuff at him to distract him from doing the things that actually the president and the people hired him to do.

WILL: Let the record show that the Supreme Court, with Justice John Paul Stevens, liberal Justice writing it, said that there is no Constitutional flaw in photo ID voter laws.

ROSEN: You know, they’re going to have to review them in the courts. Thirteen states, George, have instituted new statutes since the Republicans took over those state legislatures in 2010 purely for the purpose of limiting voting.

WILL: To legal voters.

Indeed. The purpose is to limit voting “to legal voters,” a concept liberal media members such as Rosen are offended by because it prevents Democrats from committing voter fraud.

As for Justice Stevens and the Supreme Court’s ruling on this matter, Will of course was 100 percent correct.

The New York Times reported on April 29, 2008:

The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter identification law on Monday, concluding in a splintered decision that the challengers failed to prove that the law’s photo ID requirement placed an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

The 6-to-3 ruling kept the door open to future lawsuits that provided more evidence. But this theoretical possibility was small comfort to the dissenters or to critics of voter ID laws, who predicted that a more likely outcome than successful lawsuits would be the spread of measures that would keep some legitimate would-be voters from the polls. [...]

In what the court described as the “lead opinion,” which was written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court acknowledged that the record of the case contained “no evidence” of the type of voter fraud the law was ostensibly devised to detect and deter, the effort by a voter to cast a ballot in another person’s name.

But Justice Stevens said that neither was there “any concrete evidence of the burden imposed on voters who now lack photo identification.” The “risk of voter fraud” was “real,” he said, and there was “no question about the legitimacy or importance of the state’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters.”

That liberal media members such as Rosen continue to misrepresent this matter is disgraceful.

Thankfully, there was a conservative on the panel present to set the record straight for if that weren’t the case, her totally false assertions would have gone completely unchallenged.

Bravo, George! Bravo!


Mysterious Money and Motive Behind Monster Mosque in Mufreesboro

Original Article - Mysterious Money and Motive Behind Monster Mosque in Mufreesboro

Senior members of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro inner circle: Construction planner, Essam Fathy (left), Treasurer / VP, Abdou Kattih (center) Egyptian Cleric / Spiritual Leader, Ossama Bahloul (right)


Why is it such a big deal that a Muslim community is simply trying to build a house of worship?

Let’s start with a little math. Murfreesboro, TN is located in Rutherford County which has just over 100,000 residents. According to estimates provided by the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, there are 200 to 300 Muslim families living in the area. When they announced their plans to build a 53,000 square foot mega mosque, a lot of questions came up. One subject of concern was why they needed such a huge compound for so few families. What is particularly disconcerting is that, according to their own documents (attached 2009 annual report) the ICM only has 45 active paying member families. Naturally this begs another question – who is paying for this massive compound?

And, what will it really cost to build something that looks like this, per square foot, at 53,000 square feet, when the project is completed? How many millions of dollars will these “45 active members” be coming up with – and where is all this money coming from?

PICTURED ABOVE: The first 12,000 square feet of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque

Now the question of who is paying for this Islamic compound and why is it so big, begs another question:

Why is it that after 9/11, mosque construction in America has nearly doubled?

It’s not as if the population of Muslims in America suddenly spiked – not even close. Muslims make up less than 1 percent of the United States population. So is there any logical explanation for the rapid expansion of new mosque construction?

One need only look to the history of 1,400 years of Islamic conquest to understand that according to the Hijra, the Islamic doctrine of cultural invasion, Muslims are required to build mosques following a successful attack.

But shouldn’t the Islamic Center of Mufreesboro have the right to build anyway? Is this not a right, given to all religions and protected under the First Amendment?

In order to understand what Islam is and is not, it is important to note a few basic facts. Well under 20 percent of Islamic scripture talks about religion in any way. The rest concerns itself with fighting the infidel, conquest, spreading the tyrannical Islamic political system and enforcing brutal Islamic Law (Sharia) on the non-believers.

Another glaring detail that our last few Presidents left out, when telling us that “Islam is peace” is that Islam is sort of obsessed with hating the Jews. In fact, the Prophet Mohammed had an entire Jewish tribe murdered. Here is a bit of Islamic scripture that I find to be very revealing, when it comes to “the religion of peace”:

“The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.” (Sahih Muslim, 41:6985; see also 41:6981-84 and Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:176,177 and 4:56:791)

So actually, Islam is a political and legal system with a thin veil of religious doctrine, thus giving it just enough cover to be protected by our laws, provided no one shine the light of truth and thus exposes to Americans what Islam actually is.

And the glaring fact that the Islamic scripture is a hate manifesto with a blueprint for worldwide domination of the infidel, well, who wants to confront the elephant in the room and be labeled “intolerant”? That said, until someone successfully challenges this in court, Islam has been deemed a religion in the United States, and when that premise is questioned in a court of law, Eric Holder sends officials from the Department of Justice to intervene on behalf of Islam.

However, when applying a little common sense, one can look at Islam’s place in America in the following way: “Islam” means submission. “Liberty” means you own you. Liberty is one of the major founding principles upon which America stands. Liberty and submission cannot coexist. Therefore, Liberty and Islam cannot coexist. Islam runs counter to our American values.

But the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro says it’s just a place of worship, right?

According to a passage on the ICM website from 2008, since scrubbed from the web, but preserved in the attached documents, here is what the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro website used to say about an objective of their presence, in Tennessee (before they scrubbed this from the web):

“The main focus is to insure the masjid (mosque) stronghold on our community and to expand beyond religious teachings… We must work hard so that the ICM have a prominent role in the development and progression of not only Mufreesboro, but of Middle Tennessee.”

I’m sure the mosque has a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. I guess it’s really up to you to decide for yourself, whether they mean “expand beyond religious teachings” when they explicitly say “expand beyond religious teachings”.

To put the next passage in context, know that the author of the Koran, “Prophet” Mohammed (asserting it was an angel who came to him) spoke only Arabic, and coincidentally the god he created, Allah, speaks only Arabic too. And Allah only hears prayers in Arabic. That said, the scrubbed passages from the old ICM sitego on to say:

“And to add one more, the Rutherford County school system currently offers French, Latin, German and Spanish, as a second language, to see our community work with the school board to establish a program that also offers Arabic as a second language would be a great achievement in the name of Allah.”

When it comes to applying pressure on the County to teach Arabic to the children of this area, remember that the population of Rutherford County is only about 100,000 residents. And the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, by their own count, is representing around 200 to 300 families.

So their internal documents say they want to change the local educational system. But, has the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, actually ever attempted to pressure the School Board, to practice Islamic Law in the public schools?

Click the following link to discover firsthand, how Abdou Kattih of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro is instructing t…- for its Muslim students.

Please click here and see for yourself the multipage instructions that Abdou Kattih sent the school, demanding that the schools become Sharia compliant. This “informative newsletter to distribute to the principles in the Ruthe…” was attached to an email to the School Board: From: Abdou Kattih Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:54 PM. (Feel free to download any of these documents, by the way).

ON THAT NOTE: if you have any information with regard to the mosque that you would like to provide for journalistic purposes, please join many other Rutherford County citizens by visiting www.MosqueConfidential.com as I will be very interested in receiving any and all information which you choose to divulge. I will also accept information on other Islamic organizations, anywhere in the world. Later in this brief article, you will understand why exposing the secretive practices of this mosque is so essential to protecting our American way of life.

Below are a few of the finer points, quoted verbatim with no additional language. By clicking on the link you can read for yourself where Abdou Kattih of the Islamic Center of Murfreesborois ordering the taxpayer funded school conform to Islamic Law in the following ways:

- Men and boys are always to be covered from the navel to the knee in public.

- Muslim females are required to wear loose-fitting and non-revealing clothing which includes a head covering.

- Some of the five prayers may fall within regular school hours. It takes less than 15 minutes to accomplish the prayer. It includes:

  • Washing: Before the prayer, Muslims perform a simple wash with clean water. This is normally performed in the restroom sink.
  • Prayer space and Time: During the prayer, the Muslim will stand, bow, and touch the forehead to the ground. This may be performed in any quite, clean room. Total privacy is not required.
  • Attention: During the prayer, Muslims are fully engaged and they may not respond to a conversation. Students and teachers should not take offense of the worshiper not answering their call. However, in case of an emergency, the Muslim will respond to an announcement by stopping the prayer immediately.

- Fasting students may ask to use the library instead of the cafeteria during lunch. Also they may ask to be excused from strenuous physical activities during fasting.

- Muslim boys and girls may not take same-sex communal after-sports showers without wearing appropriate covering on their bodies.

- Close contact with local Islamic centers is essential to encourage input from the Muslim community.

- In Islam, Friday is the day for the congregational worship, called Jumaha. It is an obligation that must be fulfilled, and it lasts about one hour.

- Textbooks that contribute to religious prejudice are not suitable.

- Qualified Muslim educators should participate in the textbook selection process, particularly for history, social studies and geography texts.

Who is the “Muslim Brotherhood”?

The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest Islamic organization in the world. Its most famous slogan, used worldwide, is “Islam is the solution.” As Islamic scholar, Robert Spencer points out repeatedly, in many of his public talks and books, the Muslim Brotherhood is the direct forefather of both Hamas and Al Qaeda. This organization does not go by “The Muslim Brotherhood” in America. But perhaps you may have heard of some of its front groups: Muslim Student Association, Muslim American Society, Islamic Society of North America, Islamic Circle of North America, North American Islamic Trust, International Institute of Islamic Thought, and several others. And they were all listed in this Muslim Brotherhood “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood of North America”, which states:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process”. The Muslim Brotherhood must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

HERE IS THE ORIGINAL MEMO IN ARABIC: http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/20.pdf

What does the Muslim Brotherhood have to do with the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro? Is there any evidence which connects the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro with the Muslim Brotherhood in America?

That is the million dollar question. Given all of the negative publicity focused on both the Islamic Center of Nashville and the Islamic Center of Memphis, for their connections to the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) – the question arises whether or not the Islamic Center of Mufreesboro has anything to do with NAIT at all, and if so, have they gone to any lengths to hide it? Perhaps this will become more clear as we look closer at Abdou Kattih.

Pictured Above: Muslim Brotherhood front Group, “MAS” Material photographed inside of the Islamic Center of Mufreesboro

It should be noted that there exists plenty of other Islamic educational material available at the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro that is not published by any known Muslim Brotherhood front groups. In fact, they are published by a company registered to Abdou Kattih – called “The Islamic Education and Services Institute”. They are located on Shepherd Street in Chattanooga, TN. Strangely however, what also comes up in a title search for Shepherd Street in Chattanooga is a plot of land for the Muslim Brotherhood front g…, or “North American Islamic Trust”. What is the connection between Abou Kattih and NAIT?

When looking at how elaborate the network of Muslim Brotherhood front groups is, the complexity, like a room full of mirrors – I am reminded of something. Remember when the mortgage crisis took our economy off of a cliff? It seems that even back then one was hard pressed to find an economist who could explain the relationship between fractional reserve banking and credit default swaps. I am not making any absolute statements with regard to Abdou Kattih and the Muslim Brotherhood. Just some observations and a lot of questions. Moving right along…

Who owns the plot of land that this massive Islamic facility is being built upon?

According to the attached document, the plot of land upon which the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro is building their 53,000 square foot compound is registered to Abdou Kattih. He is the registered agent on the deed of the property. This makes perfect sense, given that Abdou Kattih is also the Treasurer of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, its Vice President and the registered owner of their domain, www.ICMTN.org.

Although there are almost no pictures of Abdoulrahman Kattih on Google Images, it should be noted that he also owns at least 2 other domains: www.2muslims.com and www.2discoverislam.com both committed to the spread of Islam. As noted earlier, less than 20 percent of Islamic scripture concerns itself with matters of religion – and the rest deals with how to treat the infidel, Islamic conquest, political Islam and Islamic law – Islam is commonly referred to by Muslims as “a complete way of life”. In fact, in this document here, where Abdou Kattih demands that the local school board adopt Islamic Rules for the Muslim students in the area, he uses those exact same words himself to describe the so-called “religion” of Islam. He calls it “a complete way of life”.

What other Islamic facilities has Abdou Kattih been involved with establishing in Tennessee?

Abdou Kattih had registered another plot of land, for his Islamic Education and Services Institute in Chattanooga, with a mailbox strangely right next to an empty plot of land registered to NAIT (North America Islamic Trust).

Abdou Kattih owns “The Islamic Education and Services Institute” in Chattanooga

On Shepherd Street, adjacent to where the Muslim Brotherhood land is located.

FACT: a mailbox sits in front of an old house, in the rural backwoods of Chattnooga, TN sits next to a big, empty plot of land, registered to the North American Islamic Trust. The mailbox itself is the only listed address for the Islamic Education and Services Institute. The IESI is owned by Adbou Kattih, Vice President and Treasurer of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. Here is what his own site has to say about the IESI:

- The IESI online services receive over 50 million hits a year.

- The IESI distributed 250,000 hard copies and 1.5 million e-copies of literature about Islam.

- The IESI has hosted/sponsored over 60 lectures, exhibits, presentations or lessons.

- The IESI Donated over 2,000 books to area libraries.

According Federal prosecutors, NAIT has been named as one of many front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood in America. NAIT’sinvolvement in the largest bust of an “Islamic charity” which turned out to be funneling money to Islamic terrorist organizations, has raised more than a few eyebrows.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about NAIT, or the North American Islamic Trust, as it pertains to terrorism:

“In 2007, federal prosecutors brought charges against Holy Land Foundation for funding terrorist activities of Hamas and other Islamic terrorist organizations. NAIT was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case, along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and ISNA… NAIT is also mentioned as an allied organization in a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood internal memorandum on its US strategy


The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process”. The Muslim Brotherhood must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

It should also be noted that NAIT funds a very large percentage of new mosque construction in Am…. The doubling of mosque construction, since 9/11, has relied heavily on funds provided by NAIT, a Muslim Brotherhood front group.

NAITgets much of their money from the oppressive Islamic government of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi regime teaches hatred of Jews and hatred of America and the America way of life. When a woman is raped and dares to report it, she is often punished for the sin of “adultery”. Punishments include lashings, imprisonment, stoning or being forced to marry her rapist. This is in keeping with Islamic Rules. So too is the second class status of women, under Islamic gender apartheid.

So, is Abdou Kattih, Treasurer and VP of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, is affiliated with NAIT as suggested by the attached documents? You decide.

What else is Abdou Kattih, a man who at the very least appears to have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, doing in Middle Tennessee? What does he mean by “improve the community”?

According to the attached document, in an article written by Abou Kattih himself, the purpose of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro includes, “insuring a stronghold on the community and expanding beyond religio…” NOTE that this article has been scrubbed from the web, but is made available to you by viewing for yourself the attached documents.

Another page that was scrubbed from the web, but is available for you to review in the attached documents, is from an earlier version of the website for the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro (www.ICMTN.org) which make this statement: “All of ICM work is in line with Islamic Rules and the USA Laws”.

But how can that be? Are the “Islamic Rules” and USA Laws not sort of at odds with each other? What exactly are the “Islamic Rules”?

According to Muslims, Sharia Law (aka “Islamic Rules”) is founded on the words of Allahas revealed in the Quran, and traditions gathered from the life of the Prophet Muhammad.

Here are just a few of the “Islamic Rules” that one must consider when deciding if they are incompatible with the laws of the United States:

- Mocking or condemning the Prophet Mohammed (blasphemy) is punishable by death

- Leaving Islam (apostasy) is punishable by death

- Acts of homosexuality are punishable by death

- Non-Muslims are second-class citizens

- A man may beat his wife if she does not obey (Koran 4:34)

There’s more, but I think perhaps you might be starting to see a pattern here. It should be noted that in order to really understand Islam, all you really need to know is that the Prophet Mohammed is considered the supreme moral example and the man to be imitated. That said, here are a few points of interest, with regard to what Muslims are taught about their own prophet:

- He was a slave owner

- He had several poets beheaded for offending him

- He married a six year old girl, fondled her until she was 9, then had sexual intercourse with her

- Mohammed spread his “religion of peace” through warfare and conquest

- Mohammed was a Jew hater of the highest order. He murdered an entire Jewish tribe

But just because Mohammed terrorized the unbeliever, does that make him a “terrorist”? To those who are deeply indoctrinated into the brutal belief system of Islam, the answers vary. But to anyone with any common sense, the quite quote from Mohammed himself kind of says it all:

Bukari: V4B52N220

“Allah’s Apostle (Mohammed) said, “I have been made victorious with terror”.

Interestingly enough, an Islamic cleric once told me that the line above was “actually quite beautiful in the original Arabic”.

One might argue that September 11, 2001 – Osama Bin Laden must have been wearing his “What Would Mohammed Do?” bracelet that day, since clearly if the “prophet” were alive on that day, he most certainly would have sanctioned the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Anyone who takes the time to study what Muslims are taught about Mohammed will realize that this man was a blood thirsty tyrant and not a man of peace. Were he alive today, Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah would make him proud.

Does this high ranking official, at the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, have any plans to change our laws, rules, our way of life here in America?

Frank Gaffney, of the Center for Security Policy, released a series entitled The Muslim Brotherhood in America. His research identified in detail, a pattern based on facts which illustrates the execution of what the Muslim Brotherhood in America are calling “Civilization Jihad”. And perhaps coincidentally everything suspicious, that Abdou Kattih has written on the web is now just suddenly gone. All that remains are these documents comprised of a few screenshots – screenshots that demand answers.

According to his profile on Google + Abdou Kattih is in Murfreesbor…

Looking at the attached documents, if you scroll down to the first yellow arrow, Abdou Kattih writes:

As Muslims, we ask for a clear international law, sponsored by the United Nations, that prevents mocking religions or prophets”

Why did Abdou Kattih and his organization tell the media and the community of Murfreesboro that they just wanted to build an innocent house of worship? They didn’t mention to any of us infidels that they had plans to try to take away our right to free speech.

How could Abdou Kattih have overlooked something that important in his talking points? Was this just simply an oversight on his part? Is this, yet again, all just one big misunderstanding?

Perhaps CAIR or Loowatch.com can explain this. Or perhaps they will just once again attack me personally, with words like “bigot” and “Islamophobe”. As has been said before, and cannot be overstated, “truth is the new hate speech”.


Article by Eric Allen Bell

Eric Allen Bell is the author of “The High Price of Telling the Truth about Islam”. He is also the Director of Global Infidel TV and Mosque Confidential – a whistle blowing site for former and existing Muslims, as well as concerned citizens, to come forward with material that will expose the Muslim Brotherhood in America or other subversive Islamic activity.


Black Mob Violence Hits Nordstrom’s (Hoodie Wearing Freaks Attack!)

Original Article - Black Mob Violence Hits Nordstrom’s (Hoodie Wearing Freaks Attack!)

Black mob violence has taken on a new note in Portland, Ore. It’s not the unsuspecting passersby or the corner convenience store that’s the target here.

It’s Nordstrom’s.

Just weeks ago, a group of 10-15 hoodie-wearing blacks allegedly stole clothing and raced out of the store. Their actions were captured on video:

So far, the evidence makes it looks like just one more of the hundreds of episodes of racial lawlessness that have taken place in more than 60 cities over the last three years.

But on a local forum, the reaction gave the situation a truly unique flavor:

“As an employee of a Portland area Nordstrom I have to wonder why you think that we care?” said Jason Handleman. “Things like this make work interesting and I hold no ill-will toward anyone in this group. Our security personnel spend more time concerned with employees than clientele, and honestly most employees, at my store, would not help them if they were in an altercation.”

A Nordstrom manager did not respond to a request for comment.

But other Portland commenters joined in the forum. From an anonymous participant, “Rich white high school students wait, and grow up to flash mob our economy and legally manipulate our Congress with unregulated lobbying. They are taught by their rich white parents that they are helping grow the economy through deregulation and small government.

“Funny, the Oregonian does not report on the rich old white guys who flash mob and are hijacking our economy and schools. It’s well reported in many respected and less corporate newspapers: Guardian, BBC, Aljazeera, Le Monde, and Democracy Now.”

Nordstrom is located in the Lloyd Center mall, the site of two violent episodes over the last two years.

In April of 2011, two black men were arrested for murder after shooting into a gang of black teenagers who had just left the mall, leaving one dead.

The year before, 20 black men harassed the customer of a shoe store in the mall before shots rang out. No one was hit.

“The past two weeks have seen four shootings tied to the African American gangs, the most recent an alleged attempted murder in an athletic shoe store at the mall Wednesday evening,” said the Oregonian, in a rare admission of the race of the alleged criminals.

The Nordstrom theft was one of at least four recent “flash robs.”

In April, a mob of 20 black people chased a white couple into a convenience store. The local papers described the ensuing assault and robbery as a “fight.” The mob left when one of the employees sprayed them with “bear spray.”

All on video – almost identical to a crime from a few days before.

In June, a bigger crowd attacked an Albertson’s grocery store, following the same play book: Theft, destruction, intimidation. And no arrests, despite the video.

National Federation of Retailers says flash robs attacked one in 10 stores last year – half were hit several times.

Even so, local defenders abound: “Come on folks, they are not thugs, they are students of YOUR Public Education System,” said Rich of the Albertson’s mob in the comments section of the Oregonian.

Portland has also seen its share of public racial violence on the city’s MAX public transit system.

In January of this year, a 14-year old white girl was beaten down by three black women while about a dozen other black people took videos, shouted racial epithets, and encouraged the assault.

Four people were arrested, including a mother of two of the assailants. The mother was convicted of giving police false information while trying to hide her daughters.

Despite the video evidence, the district attorney declined to file hate-crime charges.

When a local TV station went to a community college to do a news story featuring a class discussing hate crimes, at least one of the students said the decision was fine with her because all involved were “brats” and besides, she did not see what happened before the video was taken. The white girl may have provoked it, said the student.

In June, four black people were arrested for assaulting a police office at a MAX station.

The most recent attacks are also the largest – and to some the most troubling.

It was just three months ago the Oregonian, reporting on a police shooting in Laurelhurst Park, assured their readers the park was otherwise safe.

“Laurelhurst, a neighborhood of stately homes surrounding one of Portland’s loveliest park lakes, is better know for its seasonal tree colors than for violent crime,” said the paper.

“Fern Wilgus, Laurelhurst Neighborhood Association’s public safety chairwoman, said the tennis court area has attracted sporadic fights and robberies over the years.”

But never mind about that. The paper’s willingness to minimize the racial violence seemed similar to how a social work characterized dozens of violent episodes in Philadelphia, some involving more than 1,000 black people: “That’s just kids blowing off some steam.”

And of course there was the homosexual rape in Laurelhurst park following a carjacking that began after a Latino man got lost near Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Two of the three attackers were identified as black.

Still, people seemed surprised when in June, a group of 150 black people – described by the newspapers as drunken teenagers – assaulted several people in the park, robbing at least one of them.

The newspaper – and the TV broadcast – may have shied away from describing the attackers, but the Internet site of a local TV station was a little more revealing:

“Both fights involved groups of black teenagers randomly attacking people in the park.”

The following night, a group of 20 to 30 black people, came upon three people on a tennis courts at the park: “Some of the teens began throwing bottles onto the court and calling out to them. They said the teens then began fighting with them.”



“Anti-Racism” Ad Campaign Called ‘Racist’ by Critics (Attack Whitey…AGAIN)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

Original Article - “Anti-Racism” Ad Campaign Called ‘Racist’ by Critics (Attack Whitey…AGAIN)


A billboard from the Un-Fair campaign started in the city of Duluth, Minnesota. (unfaircampaign.org)


A controversy over an anti-racism campaign some local critics say is itself racist is roiling the Iron Range city of Duluth, Minn.

The Un-Fair Campaign addresses what it calls ‘white privilege’ with billboards, posters and online videos assigning guilt to people with taglines like, “Is white skin really fair skin?” and “I am a white man. That’s unfair.” The ads are plastered across a city where 90 percent of the population is Caucasian.

The campaign aims to “raise awareness about white privilege in our community, provide resources for understanding and action, and facilitate dialogue and partnership that result in fundamental, systemic change towards racial justice,” according to its website.

A coalition of co-sponsors including the City of Duluth, the University of Minnesota-Duluth, the NAACP, League of Women Voters and the YWCA hopes the effort will “result in fundamental, systemic change towards racial justice.”

But some critics in the region say the ads make a blanket generalization of all white people.

“You can’t open a discussion on race and hope to see it move in a positive direction when you raise the topic by stereotyping an entire race,” Phil Pierson wrote on the Facebook page he started and dubbed STOP Racist Unfair Campaign, started by local resident Phil Pierson.

“It will be perceived as biased and accusatory. Instead of spreading love and togetherness, it spreads animosity and hate, teaches a new generation to point fingers and focus on the color of our skin instead of the idea that we’re all human, and we’re all in this together,” Pierson added.

His group is trying to have the billboards removed from city streets and has petitioned the Duluth Human Rights Commission, one of the sponsors of Un-Fair to end the campaign.

The university released a statement Friday saying that, thought it supported the principles of the campaign, it found the advertisements “divisive” and questioned the “creative strategy.”

“UMD expressed displeasure to the partnership that the PSAs were aired without a chance for our review,” the statement said. “We will continue to discuss our concerns with the partnership and will require review of all future campaign materials and efforts to ensure they foster constructive dialogue and do not alienate people in our community.”

The university also stressed that it is one of 18 community partners in the campaign, not the sole sponsor.

“As a community, we believe it is critical to have a serious discussion about diversity and racial equity,” the university said. “Duluth has had a difficult and long history of challenges regarding racial equity and justice that we have not entirely overcome.”

The campaign’s legality has also been called into question for any possible taxpayer dollars from the city and the university has been used for funding.

An official from Mayor Don Ness’ office told FoxNews.com that City hall has thrown the support behind the campaign but is not providing any funding.

A representatives the Un-Fair campaign did not immediately return requests for comment.

The city of Duluth, located on the shores of Lake Superior, is considered one of the least diverse city’s in America. Reports suggest that the campaign was started in an effort to change the racial make-up in Duluth as studies show that more diverse cities across the country are seeing better economic growth.

The city currently has other pressing issues: Damage from the worst flooding in its history has caused an estimated $80 million in damage just to the city’s public infrastructure. The flooding has left huge sinkholes, washed out dozens of roads and forced hundreds of people from their homes.


CNN Allows Immigration Activist to Pose As ‘Undocumented College Student’

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

Original Article - CNN Allows Immigration Activist to Pose As ‘Undocumented College Student’

Click Image Above To View Video

Meet Mayra Hidalgo. She was introduced yesterday to the CNN viewing audience as a “student” who happened to question Gov. Mitt Romney after his speech to Latinos in Florida. She made for great television for CNN because Ms. Hidalgo asked Romney to explain his position on illegal immigration and the DREAM Act. When the governor would not pander to her, she bolted to the nearest camera crew she could find to explain how terrified she was for her future if Romney were elected. CNN more than obliged. CNN actually reported on Hidalgo twice yesterday, each time referring to her merely as an “undocumented college student.”

A little digging has revealed that this isn’t the first time CNN has obliged Ms. Hidalgo. In fact, a few months ago, she was not just a student in the crowd at an event. A few months ago, CNN profiled her as the poster child for the DREAM Act.

Once again, CNN sympathized with an illegal immigrant supporting the largely Democratic-sponsored DREAM Act. Anchor Brooke Baldwin on Tuesday hailed “DREAMer” Mayra Hidalgo who blistered Republicans for their rigidity on immigration.

Baldwin let Hidalgo air this message to certain Republican candidates: “Do you even have a heart?” The immigrant directed her ire at Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney for saying an illegal immigrant would have to serve in the military to earn citizenship. “You’re messing with people’s lives,” she ranted.

A little more digging reveals Hidaglo describes herself on her Twitter profile as an “Immigrant rights organizer,” and she is called here a DREAM Act activist. In fact, Ms. Hidalgo, whom CNN referred to in January as a “college student” in fear of deportation – and then yesterday as a “college student” who confronted Gov. Romney – actually works for a Washington DC lobbyist.

After being asked if Romney might have suspected she was ambushing him, she told Political Pulse that she works for DRM Capitol Group, a Washington-based lobbying group that appears to exist specifically to push for the DREAM Act, according to the group’s website. In fact, DRM’s website statement about Romney includes this sentence: “Undocumented youth will escalate our actions against Mitt Romney until he supports the President’s new immigration policy.”

CNN got duped into covering this woman, multiple times; or else they knew very well that she was an activist and purposely hid the fact to paint her as “just a college student” in fear of Gov. Romney’s policies. Either way, CNN has some explaining to do.


Supreme Court: After Health Care Ruling, Court Must Rule Against Affirmative Action

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

Original Article - Supreme Court: After Health Care Ruling, Court Must Rule Against Affirmative Action

Another blockbuster case will follow the Supreme Court ruling on the health care law known as Obamacare. Next term the court will hear Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. The court should tell universities they must stop judging applicants by the color of their skin and national origin.

Two policemen talk in front of the US Supreme Court in Washington June 18. A ruling in the landmark US health care case (Obamacare) is expected soon. Op-ed contributors Roger Clegg and Joshua Thompson discuss a blockbuster case the court will hear next term that affects ‘the health of our multiracial society.’


The US Supreme Court will soon decide one of the most consequential cases in years – the challenge to the new federal health care law, often known as Obamacare.

But right behind it comes another blockbuster case.

Next term the court will hear Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Health is still the issue – but this time, it’s the health of our multiracial society. Will the public sector – and public universities in particular – finally move beyond a fixation with race, and start treating all people as individuals, not color-coded statistics?

At UT-Austin, admissions directors favor the race-based spreadsheet approach. Race is a criterion in undergraduate admissions – with favoritism for African-Americans and Hispanics – in an effort to achieve a pre-determined mix, or “diversity.” Abigail Fisher, a white female, was denied admission, and she’s suing because she was not evaluated on an equal basis with applicants from other backgrounds.

The court was correct to take this case. It needs to clarify, once and for all, whether the need for “diversity” justifies universities treating individuals differently because of their race.

When the court last considered this issue, in a pair of University of Michigan cases in 2003, it struck down racial preferences in one case but narrowly upheld them in the other. In the latter, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor warned, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary…”

So the court was – rather oddly, to be sure – announcing only a temporary waiver of students’ right not to be discriminated against on the basis of skin color and what country their ancestors came from. Since a third of the time allowed for in Justice O’Connor’s projection has passed, it makes sense for the court to revisit the matter.

Studies provide ample evidence that universities are not weaning themselves away from this discrimination. To the contrary: A study last fall of the University of Wisconsin by the Center for Equal Opportunity found the most pronounced undergraduate admissions discrimination the center had ever seen. Recent studies show that law school discrimination at UW and elsewhere is severe, too. Studies of medical school admissions have reached the same conclusion.

At one time, affirmative action was designed to benefit African Americans recently subjected to Jim Crow, over whites who had been the segregated system’s beneficiaries. But now, more and more, it is Asians (our fastest growing ethnic group) who are discriminated against in favor of Latinos (our largest minority). At the University of Texas, for instance, in 2009, admitted Asians had an average SAT score 197 points higher than the average score for admitted Hispanics.

As for the “diversity” rationale, it is becoming more and more problematic to justify using race and ethnicity as a proxy for people’s perspectives and experiences – or to identify students from disadvantaged backgrounds. There are of course many white and Asian students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and many African Americans and Latinos who do not.

In fact, a frequently cited pro-racial preference book – “The Shape of the River” by William G. Bowen and Derek Bok – acknowledged that 86 percent of the African American students admitted to the schools it surveyed (selective colleges and universities using affirmative action) had “middle” or “high” socioeconomic status. Only 14 percent came from “low” socioeconomic backgrounds.

Even if there are some marginal educational benefits for students from greater “diversity,” they are few and thin compared to the substantial costs – costs, that is, from institutionalizing racial discrimination that must be borne by society as a whole, the universities, and the students themselves.

For example, empirical evidence has come to light that among the victims of admission preferences for blacks and Latinos are…blacks and Latinos. That is, by mismatching students and institutions, students are set up for failure. A study by UCLA Law School Professor Richard Sander found there would be more African Americans in the legal profession if affirmative action weren’t routing students to schools that aren’t a good academic fit – and from which, too often, they don’t graduate.

The use of racial preferences is simply wrong, for a host of reasons, including: It is personally unfair; it can stigmatize the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers, and themselves, as well as future employers, clients, and patients; it compromises the academic mission of the university; and it gets states and schools involved in unsavory activities like deciding which racial and ethnic minorities will be favored and how to establish group membership.

One constant is that racial preferences remain very unpopular. A recent Rasmussen poll found 55 percent of Americans saying they were against “affirmative action” in college admissions, with only 24 percent for, and 21 percent undecided. If the question had been about “racial preferences” – a less ambiguous term – presumably the survey would have shown even greater unpopularity.

The face of America is changing, and it is untenable to be sorting Americans by skin color in a nation that is becoming more and more multiracial and multiethnic.

The justifications for such discrimination have grown weaker, and the costs more apparent. And many Americans, to their credit, are fed up with it. The Supreme Court should rule in favor of Abigail Fisher and tell universities that they must stop judging applicants by the color of their skin and their national origin: The nation’s long-term health demands it.

Roger Clegg is president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, and Joshua Thompson is an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation. In the Fisher case, the Pacific Legal Foundation has filed an amicus brief, which the Center for Equal Opportunity joined, urging the Supreme Court to outlaw race-based preferences and discrimination in university admissions.


‘Outrageous & Ugly’: Russell Simmons Compares Prominent Jewish Leader to Farrakhan

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

Original Article - ‘Outrageous & Ugly’: Russell Simmons Compares Prominent Jewish Leader to Farrakhan

Russell Simons Compares Abraham Foxman to Louis Farrakhan

Hip-hop Mogul Russell Simmons created a firestorm after making a comparison between Anti-Defamation League president Abraham Foxman and the Minister Louis Farrakhan. Foxman is calling the comparison, which occurred this week while Simmons was in Jerusalem for the Israel Presidential Conference, “outrageous and ugly.”

During his now-contentious remarks, Simmons defended the friendship he has with Farrakhan and dismissed the radical faith leader’s comments on Jews. In drawing his comparison, the business leader claimed that Foxman has alienated African Americans just as Foxman has purportedly alienated Jews.

While Foxman is outraged by the incident, some are coming to Simmons’ defense, claiming that the mogul was joking around in making the statement. Rabbi Marc Schneier, who co-founded the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding with Simmons, claims that he saw the mogul wink when he was making the comments and that they were made in jest.

Russell Simons Compares Abraham Foxman to Louis Farrakhan

“I find it sad that Abe would expend so much time and energy in attacking Russell Simmons, who is one of the greatest friends of the Jewish people and a tireless advocate of the state of Israel,” Schneier apparently told JTA following the incident.

But Foxman remained frustrated by the comments. It is interesting to note that the ADL leader has praised Simmons publicly before for his engagement with Jews and his outreach to bridge divides between African Americans and the Jewish people.

“What’s surprising is that Simmons did it in Jerusalem,” Foxman said. “What’s disappointing is that someone who has a history of having a blind spot to one of the most vociferous and ugly anti-Semites would be given a platform in Jerusalem. And what’s outrageous is how divisive and ugly his attack on us was. And, finally, what’s shocking is that his colleague and partner, Rabbi Marc Schneier, stood by in silence.”

Read more about the debate here.


EU Should ‘Undermine National Homogeneity’ Says UN Migration Chief

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012

Original Article - EU Should ‘Undermine National Homogeneity’ Says UN Migration Chief

Peter Sutherland
Peter Sutherland’s global migration forum brings together 160 nations to discuss policy

The EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states, the UN’s special representative for migration has said.

Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.

He also suggested the UK government’s immigration policy had no basis in international law.

He was being quizzed by the Lords EU home affairs sub-committee which is investigating global migration.

Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.

He told the House of Lords committee migration was a “crucial dynamic for economic growth” in some EU nations “however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states”.

‘More open’An ageing or declining native population in countries like Germany or southern EU states was the “key argument and, I hesitate to the use word because people have attacked it, for the development of multicultural states”, he added.

“It’s impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them. Just as the United Kingdom has demonstrated.”

At the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice”

Peter Sutherland UN special representative for migration

The UN special representative on migration was also quizzed about what the EU should do about evidence from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that employment rates among migrants were higher in the US and Australia than EU countries.

He told the committee: “The United States, or Australia and New Zealand, are migrant societies and therefore they accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others.

“And that’s precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.”

Mr Sutherland recently argued, in a lecture to the London School of Economics, of which he is chairman, that there was a “shift from states selecting migrants to migrants selecting states” and the EU’s ability to compete at a “global level” was at risk.

‘No justification’In evidence to the Lords committee, he urged EU member states to work together more closely on migration policy and advocated a global approach to the issue – criticising the UK government’s attempt to cut net migration from its current level to “tens of thousands” a year through visa restrictions.

British higher education chiefs want non-EU overseas students to be exempted from migration statistics and say visa restrictions brought in to help the government meet its target will damage Britain’s economic competitiveness.

But immigration minister Damian Green has said exempting foreign students would amount to “fiddling” the figures and the current method of counting was approved by the UN.

Committee chairman Lord Hannay, a crossbench peer and a former British ambassador to the UN, said Mr Green’s claim of UN backing for including students in migration figures “frankly doesn’t hold water – this is not a piece of international law”.

Mr Sutherland, a former Attorney General of Ireland, agreed, saying: “Absolutely not. it provides absolutely no justification at all for the position they are talking about.”

‘UK support’He said the policy risked Britain’s traditional status as “tolerant, open society” and would be “massively damaging” to its higher education sector both financially and intellectually.

“It’s very important that we should not send a signal from this country, either to potential students of the highest quality, or to academic staff, that this is in some way an unsympathetic environment in which to seek visas or whatever other permissions are required… and I would be fearful that that could be a signal.”

Mr Sutherland, who has attended meetings of The Bilderberg Group, a top level international networking organisation often criticised for its alleged secrecy, called on EU states to stop targeting “highly skilled” migrants, arguing that “at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice” about whether to come and study or work in another country.

Mr Sutherland also briefed the peers on plans for the Global Migration and Development Forum’s next annual conference in Mauritius in November, adding: “The UK has been very constructively engaged in this whole process from the beginning and very supportive of me personally.”

Asked afterwards how much the UK had contributed to the forum’s running costs in the six years it had been in existence, he said it was a relatively small sum in the region of “tens of thousands”.


Barack Obama: Our First Gay-Female-Hispanic-Asian-Jewish President!

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 22, 2012


ORIGINAL LINK - Barack Obama: Our First Gay-Female-Hispanic-Asian-Jewish President!

Newsweek’s cover this week declares that Barack Obama is the “First Gay President,” playing on the reader’s knowledge that Obama isn’t himself gay, but his support for same-sex marriage earns him an honorary rainbow halo. The headline obviously calls back to 1998, when Toni Morrison declared Bill Clinton the first black president in The New Yorker, which at the time was edited by current Newsweek editor Tina Brown. “Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas,” Morrison wrote, laying out the formula for how to declare a President has attained the identity of someone else through actions and behaviors. Newsweek‘s cover has been called “controversial” and “pretty shocking,” but it’s merely the most recent in presidential firsts that weren’t for the country’s actual first black president.

First Female President: Perhaps Newsweek should have been more specific and declared Obama the “first lesbian president’ because the magazine’s already given him the honor of womanhood. During the 2008 campaign, Martin Linski wrote, “Obama doesn’t play the sax. But he is pushing against conventional—and political party nominating convention—wisdom in five important ways, with approaches that are usually thought of as qualities and values that women bring to organizational life.” The headline? “Obama: First Female President?”
In June 2010, The Washington Post‘s Kathleen Parker took the question mark out of the way. “Obama: Our first female president,” her headline declared. Her column made the case that his crisis management style was more typically female.

First Jewish President: Like this week’s issue of Newsweek, New York magazine went big on their Morrison reappropriation. Former White House counsel Abner Mikva told John Heilemann “When this all is over, people are going to say that Barack Obama is the first Jewish president.” The magazine made it their cover.
First Asian-American President: In 2009, the AFP ran with the headline, “Obama the first Asian-American president?” As evidence, the article notes that in his first hundred days, “Obama appointed a record three Asian-Americans cabinet members and quickly focused his attention across the Pacific. He invited Japan’s prime minister as his first guest and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to Asia on her maiden trip.”
First Hispanic President: Geraldo Rivera spoke in March 2009 about the hopes the Hispanic community had for Obama’s immigration policies, alleging “Barack Obama is the first Hispanic president the same way Bill Clinton was the first black [one].”
George W. Bush, the only other president since Clinton, received comparatively few honorifics. Writing in Foreign Policy Suhail Khan did once write, “If Clinton was, as the author Toni Morrison once quipped, America’s first black president, Bush was, at least momentarily, the country’s first Muslim president.” (Those on the far right who would give Obama that title should take note.)
But Obama’s received the bulk of it. Perhaps that’s because he did set an historic first as the first black president, Clinton be darned. Obama’s supporters often see what they want to see in him. Just consider how many interpreted his “evolving” stance on gay marriage to be (as it eventually was) a closeted support. We love to break barriers in America, but we only get the chance every four years, so in the meantime, we work with the male Christian president we’ve got.
Newsweek‘s headline quickly grabbed the attention it was obviously seeking, but given this list, maybe we shouldn’t have been surprised by it. Expectations were high that editor Tina Brown would do something typically attention-grabbing to mark this occasion, but this effort seems, well, cliché. It wasn’t going to be long before someone outed our first black, female, Jewish, hispanic, Asian-American president as gay.

David Duke Endorses Leading New York Democrat

Original Article - David Duke Endorses Leading New York Democrat

The Democratic Party is facing an awkward problem Thursday because white supremacist David Duke has endorsed a leading candidate in the Democratic Party’s primary race for a New York House seat.

Duke says he’s endorsing Charles Barron, the leading candidate for the 10th district primary on June 26, because of their shared emnity toward “zionists.”

Barron is an African-American city politician who has been slammed as an anti-white racist and as a Jew-hater. However, he’s already got the endorsement of the retiring Democratic congressman, Rep. Edolphus Towns.

If Barron wins the June 26 primary, he’s a shoo-in for election in November because the district is overwhelmingly Democratic.

His election would be unnerving for many Democrats, including Jewish Democrats. Recent polls say that traditionally high support among orthodox Jews for the Democratic Party is declining toward 50 percent.

Duke’s endorsement of a Democrat also muddies routine claims by progressives that many conservatives and libertarians are motivated by racism. GOP supporters say their beliefs are motivated by American idealism and old-style liberal ideas of tolerance and freedom.

In recent days the Democratic establishment, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, has reacted to Barron’s advance by supporting his rival, Hakeem Jeffries, a state assemblyman.

Duke is a famous racist who ran as a Democrat and as a Republican in multiple Louisiana races during the late 1980s and early 1990s.

He now portrays himself as a supporter of “diversity,” and as a non-violent proponent of laws that encourage whites and African-Americans to live separately.

“In an election of limited choices, I think Charles Barron is the better choice [because] there is no greater danger facing the United States of America and facing the world than the unbridled power of zionist globalism,” Duke declared in a June 21 video.

The video appears on his website, whose banner declares, “For Human Freedom and Diversity.”

Duke, who was once a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and who established the National Association for the Advancement of White People, decried Barron’s support for affirmative action, and his controversial statements that endorse violence against whites.

“I certainly disagree with Barron’s extreme racist, even violently, anti-white rhetoric,” he said, while blaming “Jewish extremists” for racial divisions.

African-Americans and whites “want the same thing — they want the right to associate together in their schools and communities,” he said.

Duke did not explain how the law should treat blacks and whites who wish to live in an area dominated by the other group, or how the segregationist policies would be enforced.

But the real enemies, he said, are “zionists,” meaning Jews.

They “want constant conflict between the two groups so they can use a divide and conquer strategy to rule over us all.”

Jews, and “the international robber-zio-banks… [and] the zionist clubfed,” he said, are “the ultimate real enemies of both our peoples.”

This article has been updated to reflect that Hakeem Jeffries is a state assemblyman, not a New York City councilman.


Black Leaders’ Vendetta Against Israel

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 21, 2012

Original Article - Black Leaders’ Vendetta Against Israel

We are currently witnessing the sharp rise of a strong anti-Semitic movement among the Western black elite. The leaders of the American Jewish community, who embraced an ultra-liberal agenda, have in the past worked with the black leaders of the civil rights organizations, like the late Martin Luther King, who was very sympathetic to Jewish concerns and to Israel. But now there is a strong pro-Islamic movement among American blacks, sympathetic to the Arabs, whose participation in the slave trade is overlooked.

Alice Walker, author of “The Color Purple,” just recently refused to authorize a Hebrew translation of her prize-winning book, saying that “Israel is guilty of apartheid and persecution of the Palestinian people, both inside Israel and also in the Occupied Territories.” Not only did Walker support the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, but she also said that Israeli policies are “worse” than the segregation she suffered as an American youth and said South Africans had told her it was worse than Apartheid.

A complete list of the Afro-American personalities who have embraced an anti-Israel stance is long and exhaustive.

Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor in Chicago, his spiritual father, his guide, his model, compared Israel to Nazi Germany and called the Jewish State a “deformed modern apartheid.” Andy Young and Jesse Jackson reached out to Yasser Arafat’s terrorists and Reverend Jesse Jackson even said that then-Senator Barack Obama, if elected president, would lessen the influence of, quote, “Zionists” on US foreign policy. Gerald Lenoir, executive director of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, an education and advocacy group, declared that “as an African-American who was a leader in the U.S. anti-apartheid movement, I see the separate and unequal treatment of Palestinians as a form of apartheid and a crime against humanity.” An Afro-American icon like the writer Toni Morrison charged Israel with “the liquidation of the Palestinian nation,” while Archbishop Desmond Tutu repeatedly condemns “Israel’s apartheid” and recently penned an article in The Tampa Bay Times where he descended into rank anti-Semitism: “The Jews are a peculiar people. They can’t ever hope to be judged by the same standards which are used for other people.”

The new black anti-Semitism finds expression not only in the “Zionism is Racism” indictment, but the further indictment of the Jewish State as “the new apartheid.” In the hands of the black leaders, apartheid has become the most powerful term for demonizing Israel, since it evokes the precedent of sanctions against the white regime in South Africa.

Anyone who has lived in both apartheid South Africa and Israel knows that the analogy is immoral and wicked. Apartheid was a system of governance where a white minority subjugated the black population and the “superior” whites could not mingle with or even sit on a bench with the “inferior” black peoples. In Israel, Jews and Arabs share public spaces, buses and schools. In Israel all citizens – Jew and Arab alike – are equal before the law.

Israel has no Population Registration Act, no Group Areas Act, no Mixed Marriages and Immorality Act, no Separate Representation of Voters Act, no Separate Amenities Act. Israeli Arabs sit in the Supreme Court, even the most anti-Jewish Arab parties belong to the Israeli Parliament, there are Arab cabinet ministers. In all of Israel’s hospitals, Jewish and Arab doctors and nurses work side by side treating Arab and Jewish patients.

International pressure, boycotts and sanctions on South Africa’s apartheid government eventually played a major role in ending its power. Now, in the name of the apartheid charge, the black leaders have convinced city councils, universities, churches and food co-ops in Europe and in the United States to boycott Israel’s goods. This horrible falsehood should not be dismissed as a bad joke. It can be a nightmare for the Jewish people. The apartheid ideology dictates that all the Israeli land must be returned to Islamic rule, by force if necessary.

Do these black leaders remind us of the NY Crown Heights pogrom? It erupted in August 1991, when a Jewish driver in the motorcade of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson accidently ran over Gavin Cato, a seven-year-old child of Guyanese immigrants. Rumors that the boy had been deliberately killed because of his black race quickly spread. Jews were beaten by Afro-American rioters and a Jew was stabbed to death. A band of Black radicals led by Al Sharpton, Sonny Carson and Alton Maddox, notorious for fomenting inter-group hatred, fanned the flames of anti-Semitism among their fellows. Sharpton organized marches through the Jewish third of the neighborhood saying “diamond dealers” (the Jews) were responsible for the death of Cato. That’s why in 2011 a Long Island panel on the riots, after a Jewish protest, was postponed for the inclusion of Sharpton.

Ten years after the Crown Heights pogrom, under the new black apartheid analogy, the World Conference against Racism, held by the United Nations in Durban in 2001, was transformed into a racist conference against Israel and the Jews. In the same city where President Mbeki held his festival of victory against the real apartheid, another death sentence was passed for the Jews. Several weeks later, the Second Intifada broke out in Israel. 1,500 Jewish civilians have since been killed in suicide attacks and shootings; 10,000 have been wounded. Many black leaders were involved in the Durban proto-Nazi saga.

In 1948, except for a few isolated voices, African American opinion was overwhelmingly sympathetic toward the new Jewish State. Ironically, Martin Luther King Jr. on March 25, 1968, addressed the Rabbinical Assembly, saying, “I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security.” Now Martin Luther King’s horrible heirs are directing their anti-Semitic vendetta against the Israelis.


Scumbag Chris Matthews Slimes GOP as Racist for Going After Holder: An ‘Ethnic’ ‘Stop-and-Frisk’

Original Article - Scumbag Chris Matthews Slimes GOP as Racist for Going After Holder: An ‘Ethnic’ ‘Stop-and-Frisk’

Liberal MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews on Tuesday slimed the House GOP investigating Attorney General Eric Holder as racist, insisting that the possible contempt charges over Fast and Furious had an “ethnic” feel. Using charged, racial imagery, Matthews demonized, “Is this sort of stop-and-frisk at the highest level? Go after the attorney general, get him to empty his pockets, stand in the spotlight.”

The Hardball host, who had previously been ignoring the Fast and Furious scandal, changed course and portrayed the whole thing as a bigoted witch hunt. Talking to former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, Matthews speculated: “I don’t want to start too much forest fire here, but it is my instinct: Is this ethnic, Mr. Mayor?” [See video below. MP3 audio here.]

The left-wing journalist weirdly speculated as to Congressman Darell Issa’s motives: “If he can humiliate this guy, if he can get to him, he’ll be a big star in the Republican caucus. He’ll be Dick Nixon.”

Congressman Richard Nixon became a “star” in 1948 by exposing communist spy Alger Hiss. Hiss, of course, was very guilty. So, perhaps this is not the best metaphor for Matthews to use.

Showing just how little he had covered Fast and Furious, Matthews asked Wade Henderson of the Leadership Council, “Explain Fast and Furious.” His viewers could be forgiven for not knowing anything about it.

A transcript of the June 19 segment can be found below:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Up next, when Republicans won control of the House of Representatives, their real prize, of course, was the subpoena power. They have got it and they are using it to go after the attorney general. Is this sort of stop-and-frisk at the highest level? Go after the attorney general, get him to empty his pockets, stand in the spotlight as long as they can and see if anything happens? That’s ahead.

MATTHEWS: That was the House Oversight Committee chair, Darrell Issa, behaving in his usual way, two weeks ago hammering Attorney General Eric Holder for not turning over documents related to the so-called Fast and Furious campaign, the flawed gun tracking operation carried out by the ATF. Shortly after that, Issa set a vote to hold Holder in contempt of court, or contempt of Congress rather, for tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Holder and Issa just wrapped up a meeting, by the way, a few moments ago, after which Issa says he’s still waiting for the documents he wants and hopes to get them tonight, or wants to get them tonight. Willie Brown is a former mayor of San Francisco, former speaker of the California House, and Wade Henderson is the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Let me go to Wade first because I want to understand is there any reason why we should put any trust in the good intentions of Darrell Issa here?
WADE HENDERSON (Leadership Council): None at all, Chris. Chairman Issa is pursuing a politically motivated witch hunt that’s designed to discredit the Justice Department and to force Attorney General Holder to resign. He’s using Fast and Furious as the vehicle to pursue that witch hunt. But the truth is, nothing could be further from the factual bases for him making the assertion about Holder’s lack of cooperation.

MATTHEWS: You know, when I look at this, Willie Brown, Mayor Brown, I just look at it- and I don’t mean to use this term too much- but it’s almost like a stop-and-frisk. Here’s a chance to humiliate a distinguished member of the United States government, the attorney general- and everybody knows- close friend of the president’s. It’s a surrogate operation. If he can humiliate this guy, if he can get to him, he’ll be a big star in the Republican caucus. He’ll be Dick Nixon.

WILLIE BROWN (Former mayor of San Francisco): That’s what he thinks, but obviously, that will not be the case, Chris. There are too many Republicans, I think, that are responsible and responsible enough to know that you’re, you don’t go down the road that he’s going down in terms of contempt of a cabinet member. You just don’t do that unless it’s similar to what occurred with reference to the Bush administration when two members were cited in some manner or another for doing what they did of his staff. After that, there’s nothing that you can justify such conduct. Other than the fact that you’re leading kind of a lynch-like mob.

MATTHEWS: Well, let’s got to some of the things that Issa before he even heard of this case. He was looking for a case. He said when he got, before he even took the oath for this Congress, Issa, the congressman look what he said. November 8th, 2010, before he took the oath, I want seven hearings a week times 40 weeks. He didn’t say what they were for. I’m just going to have lots of hearings. He also said — what’s your jurisdiction? He said “we own everything.” This is megalomania.

HENDERSON: Chris, you know, Attorney General Holder testified at least eight times before Congress. He has turned over thousands of pages of testimony. He is the only attorney general that actually appointed an inspector general or referred a matter to an inspector general for review, and he ended the program which was the subject of controversy. Rather than investigating, for example, Attorney General Mukasey, who started the actual program under debate, it was called Operation Wide Receiver, Mukasey has not been before the committee, we’ve had no discussion or with ATF officials, who were involved. It was A.G. Holder who actually disciplined some of the ATF officials who were involved. So the truth is this isn’t about the facts regarding Fast and Furious. This is about creating a climate where the A.G. is going to be discredited and will resign.

MATTHEWS: You know, I worked on the Hill. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Willie Brown. You know, you are not supposed to make the come ad hominem comments about someone else. You saw the tape where he makes fun of Attorney General Holder by you are not my kind of witness. You are not a good witness. What’s this? You get to be the teacher and you get to reprimand the student? I mean, the kind — I have never seen it aimed at a cabinet member before.

BROWN: It really means you should not be given any opportunity to exercise power. Chris, when you receive the mantle of leadership on the power side, it automatically imposes up on you a higher level of responsibility than this congressman seems to be able to discharge. He’s got to be somewhat of an embarrassment to his colleagues just by his heavy handedness.

MATTHEWS: Let me — I want to you take — give us a narration here. Darrell Issa, the attorney general, what’s been going on here? How long has this been building?

HENDERSON: This has been building for months. As you pointed out, Darrell Issa was determined almost from the outset of him holding the gavel that he was determined to hold one member of the administration in some degree of difficulty because of their actions. He focused on Fast and Furious. Obviously this was-

MATTHEWS: Explain Fast and Furious.

HENDERSON: Fast and Furious was a gun-walking program where guns were purchased in the United States, taken across the border back to Mexico, and distributed by individuals who had no license or right to purchase –

MATTHEWS: And the idea was to track them.

HENDERSON: We were tracking those guns to find out where they went and hoped to buy the purchaser — to get the purchaser as well as the recipient. It was started under the previous administration. General Mukasey actually had Operation Wide Receiver which was the precursor of Fast and Furious. It ended up with in the depth of officials who were involved with the U.S. government and ATF official, I believe, was killed. But this was a terrible operation. It should never have taken place. Much to his credit, Attorney General Holder ended the program, he disciplined ATF officials who were involved. He convened and — inspector general to take a look at the issue. He testified over eight times with the Congress and he’s provided thousands of documents-

MATTHEWS: And your theory is with this guy Darrell Issa, his goal is to push this further into rub the guy’s face into it.

HENDERSON: Absolutely. And to force the attorney general to resign as a discredited official. Now, here’s what’s ironic — there has never been an attorney general held in contempt of Congress. There’s never been a vote by the House of Representatives on the contempt citation. To do it now against Eric Holder is to ignore all the facts of the case and to use a fiction to promote this kind of political agenda and I hope that both members of the Democratic Party as well as Republicans will see this for what it is.
MATTHEWS: I don’t want to start too much forest fire here, but it is my instinct: Is this ethnic, Mr. Mayor?

BROWN: I think it has some ethnic flavor to it. It will be interrupted by some in that vein.

BROWN: And you have to be careful you don’t give the opportunity to make that case factually and what Darrell Issa is doing is — has given some individuals the opportunity to make that case and to compare it to a stop and frisk.
MATTHEWS: Well, I just did it because — it smells like it to me and I think there is a disdain on the part of some Republican, not all. Certainly not Boehner. But some of them down in the rank and file, red hot end of the team, that do talk down to the president and his friends absolutely.


Mont. GOP Displays Bullet-Riddled ‘Obama Outhouse’ (F’ing AWESOME!)

Original Article - Mont. GOP Displays Bullet-Riddled ‘Obama Outhouse’ (F’ing AWESOME!)

A bullet-riddled outhouse labeled “Obama Presidential Library” containing a fake birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama and graffiti that read “For a Good Time” and a reference to first lady Michelle Obama was on display at the Montana Republican Convention in Missoula.

The display on Saturday also contained “For a Good Time” references to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.S. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, her name circled in red.

The display was parked outside Missoula’s Hilton Garden Inn that drew some 500 convention goers.

The convention also includes a raffle for a shotgun, shovel and duct tape, a reference to shoot, shovel and shut up involving the illegal killing of wolves or federally protected species such as grizzly bears.


MSNBC Host: 9-11 Gave America PTSD… ‘Muslim Terrorists’ Were An ‘Imagined Racial Enemy’ for White America (Video)

On Monday, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry made some startling accusations. Harris-Perry told her audience that 9-11 gave America PTSD. She added that Muslim terrorists were an imagined racial enemy for “whie America.”

It’s whitey’s fault.


The Blaze reported:

Wow. She may even out-crazy Michael Moore.
Congratulations MSNBC. You’ve got a real jewel there.


The Angry Black Man – Whatever Happened to Common Sense? (Video Awesomeness)

Buy the Book “Whatever Happen To COMMON Sense”

Website: http://www.whateverhappentocommonsense.com
Twitter: Commonsense39

Crush Marxism!
Shop And Support Us!
Join The Fight!
Boycott General Foods!

Boycott The Home Depot!

Take The Traditional Marriage Pledge!

Defend Marriage and Stop President Obama's Unconstitutional Power Grab

Join The NRA and Get $10 off a Yearly Membership!
Twitter Feed
Follow @wewintheylose (19863 followers)
Welcome , today is Tuesday, June 26, 2012