We Don’t Do Dinner with Genocide Enablers like Obama

We Don’t Do Dinner with Genocide Enablers like Obama

Or those who support infanticide while consorting with racists and anti-Semites
by Bill Levinson

We received the following from Barack Obama’s campaign:

I’m looking forward to having dinner with Dorothy, but there are still three seats left at the table. Will you be in one of them?
If you make a donation by 11:59 pm tonight, Tuesday, July 31st, you could join us for dinner very soon:

We don’t do dinner with people who are on record as endorsing genocide and infanticide while consorting with prominent racists and anti-Semites.

“It Didn’t Happen:” Democrats go soft on crimes against humanity by James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal reports,

Barack Obama’s latest pronouncement on Iraq should have shocked the conscience. In an interview with the Associated Press last week, the freshman Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate opined that even preventing genocide is not a sufficient reason to keep American troops in Iraq.

Obama, while an Illinois State Senator, orchestrated the defeat of the Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This legislation would have provided legal protection for infants that were born alive, including those delivered as the result of botched abortions. Now it is far less surprising that he is OK with genocide, because the Nazis got started on defective infants before moving on to mentally deficient adults, Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and others.

Here is what Obama said when arguing against Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act during Senate floor debate. This was legislation clarifying the terms “person,” “human being,” “child,” and “individual” in Illinois statutes included any baby born alive, no matter what gestational age or circumstance of birth:

“… I just want to suggest… that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.”

“Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.”

“I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.”

Incredible stuff. Not only did Obama make no sense, he showed just how far he would go to safeguard abortion.

The following picture pretty much speaks for itself, and it should be circulated as widely as possible. (It’s from Sharpton’s National Action Network)

For those who do not remember exactly what Al Sharpton is and what he has done, Fred Siegel’s outstanding Democrats Embrace ‘Impresario of Hatred’

It would have taken no great effort for the reporters covering the Apollo debate to have walked across 125th Street from the theater to visit Freddy’s Fashion Mart, where in 1995 eight people died in a murderous rampage inspired by Mr. Sharpton. Mr. Sharpton is best-known for the Tawana Brawley hoax, in which he insisted that a 15-year-old black girl had been abducted and raped by a band of white men practicing Irish Republican Army rituals. In fact she had made up the story to protect herself from her violent stepfather. But at Freddy’s, Mr. Sharpton was even more malevolent. He turned a landlord-tenant dispute between the Jewish owner of Freddy’s and a black subtenant into a theater of hatred. Picketers from Mr. Sharpton’s National Action Network, sometimes joined by “the Rev.” himself, marched daily outside the store, screaming about “bloodsucking Jews” and “Jew bastards” and threatening to burn the building down. After weeks of increasingly violent rhetoric, one of the protesters, Roland Smith, took Mr. Sharpton’s words about ousting the “white interloper” to heart. He ran into the store shouting, “It’s on!” He shot and wounded three whites and a Pakistani, whom he apparently mistook for a Jew. Then he set the fire, which killed five Hispanics, one Guyanese and one African-American–a security guard whom protesters had taunted as a “cracker lover.” Smith then fatally shot himself.

There was more, of course-always more. In the spring of 1989, the Central Park “wilding” occurred. That was the monstrous rape and beating of a young white woman, known to most of the world as “the jogger.” The hatred heaped on her by Sharpton and his claque is almost impossible to fathom, and wrenching to review. …Outside the courthouse, they [Sharpton and his entourage] chanted, “The boyfriend did it! The boyfriend did it!” They denounced the victim as “Whore!” They screamed her name, over and over (because most publications refused to print it, though several black-owned ones did). Sharpton brought Tawana Brawley to the trial one day, to show her, he said, the difference between white justice and black justice. He arranged for her to meet the jogger’s attackers, whom she greeted with comradely warmth. In another of his publicity stunts, he appealed for a psychiatrist to examine the victim. “It doesn’t even have to be a black psychiatrist,” he said, generously. He added: “We’re not endorsing the damage to the girl — if there was this damage.” …But the torching, so to speak, continued. In 1995-four years into the putative New Sharpton-there was another, fatal case in which Sharpton had a guilty hand: Freddy’s Fashion Mart. In Harlem, a white store owner — no, worse: a Jewish one — was accused of driving a black store owner out of business. At one of the many rallies meant to scare the Jewish owner away [can anyone say, “burning crosses meant to scare the Negro owner away?”], Sharpton charged that “there is a systemic and methodical strategy to eliminate our people from doing business off 125th Street. I want to make it clear . . . that we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.” Sharpton’s colleague, Morris Powell, said of the Jewish owner — Sharpton’s “white interloper” — “We’re going to see that this cracker suffers. Reverend Sharpton is on it.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton#Crown_Heights_Riot “A visiting rabbinical student from Australia by the name of Yankel Rosenbaum, 29, was killed during the rioting by a mob shouting “Kill the Jew.” Sharpton has been seen by some commentators as inflaming tensions with remarks such as “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house” and referring to Jews as “diamond merchants.”

Posted by Bill Levinson @ 2:20 pm |

Posted in Uncategorized. Leave a Comment »

Obama Pretends To Be A Man

Posted in Uncategorized. Leave a Comment »

Europe’s Dreaded Affliction

Europe’s Dreaded Affliction

Created 2007-08-01 09:01

Liberal politicians, like Hillary Clinton, envy Western Europe for its welfare state. They tell U.S. voters that a European-style welfare state is needed to help the poor. In reality the motives of liberal politicians are not altruistic, but egotistical. Welfare makes people dependent on the state. It is not a coincidence that liberalism and secularism are almost synonyms. Liberals want to replace God by the state.The difference between Americans and Europeans is the state-dependency of the latter. Contemporary Europe is in crisis. Its welfare systems are running out of money. Its moral and legal order is breaking down, while the influence of radical Islam is growing. Its nation-states are being undermined by the European Union. Most Europeans look on passively. After three generations of welfare dependency, they have lost the ability to take their fate into their own hands.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, North America was colonized by freedom-loving people. They had left Europe because they wanted to live according to their own conscience instead of submitting to the centralist absolutist rulers of the new age that was sweeping across Europe from the 16th century onward. Their traditions were rooted in the late Middle Ages and the Aristotelian philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, which was centered on the individual. God had called man to be free from sin, but in order to be free from sin he had to be virtuous, and in order for virtue to have any value it had to be voluntary, implying that the virtuous man had to be free in every aspect of his life, including his economic activities.

Hence the paradox came about that the civil society developing in America was, in a sense, older than the new Modern Age of the absolutist monarchs governing Europe. When Americans rebelled in 1776, they rebelled against absolutism in order to keep their old freedoms. Theirs was a conservative revolution. Europe had its own series of revolutions from 1789 onward, but these were revolutions of a different sort. They toppled the ruling absolutists to replace them by absolutists of an even more extreme form: totalitarians. These were not satisfied with controlling their subjects’ political and economic lives but also wished to control their minds and souls.

Here lies the origin of the European disease, which arose from the systematic loss of faith in the Judeo-Christian God and the Judeo-Christian moral legacy, and an increasing reliance on the state as the source of order, authority and legitimacy. That disease culminated, after causing two world wars, in the creation of the European Union (EU) as a superstate, the god to absorb all gods, with a nihilistic and atheist agenda.

The perceptive Irish philosopher (and British politician) Edmund Burke, who supported the American colonies in their dispute with King George III, noticed already at the time that the spirit of the 1789 French Revolution was totalitarian. The same secularist spirit inspired the Russian Revolution, National Socialism and European welfarism.

The British economist John Maynard Keynes, who was handed the pen to draw the blueprint of Britain’s welfare system, was very candid about the true nature of his design for society. In the preface to the 1936 German edition of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, he wrote explicitly that his “theory of [economic] output is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state” than to “conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.”

Keynes’ oft-quoted quip, “In the long run, we are all dead” was typical. It also offers a poignant resume of the contemporary “European spirit.” In a moral society people would say: “In the long run our children and grandchildren will take our place.” Europe does not particularly care about the future: It is only interested in enjoying the present. This attitude also explains why Europe’s demographics have collapsed. People who are not prepared to make sacrifices for the future do not invest in children.

This attitude has left Europe with gigantic problems: a rapidly aging population, an unsurmountable public debt, 19 million unemployed and an overall youth unemployment rate of 18 percent. While the world’s economy is booming, Western Europe’s economic growth rate is significantly below America’s (2.6 percent vs. 3.3 percent).

Turkey (5.2 percent) is doing even better. On July 22, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), Turkey’s governing party since 2002, won a huge election victory. During the past five years the country introduced pro-capitalist economic reforms, influenced by libertarian economists such as Atilla Yayla. The AKP does not stand for radical Islamism, as its secularist opponents claim, but is an anti-centralist, conservative party of moderate, but devout Muslims. According to Dr. Yayla, a free society “requires private property, free exchange, limited and responsible accountable government, freedom of expression, religious freedom including minorities and non-believers, the absence of political crimes in law, political opposition, the rule of law and freedom of association.”

European secularists do not like the AKP and prefer its secularist opponents, who wish to build a centralist, socialist Turkey where the state is god. However, as Dr. Yayla says, “Nobody can play god or hold eternal truth in his hands” – not even the state.

Turkey’s recent election results indicate that the Turkish electorate wants to avoid the European disease. Let us hope that the American people will be equally wise next year.
This piece was originally published in The Washington Times on August 1, 2007 .

Source URL:

Tax increases to pay for illegal alien health insurance

Outrage: CAIR’s war on Robert Spencer, Young America’s Foundation

CAIRing School Districts

CAIRing School Districts
by: Matt Hadro, July 30, 2007

When the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared unconstitutional the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, some Americans bemoaned the fact that their country founded upon religious freedom was fast becoming atheistic.

The same court could now be touted as an Islamic force. Atheists are no longer getting the special treatment, in certain schools anyway. Allah is “what’s up” now.

If the increasing slant by the media and special interest groups towards militant Islam today is not enough proof, several public schools throughout the nation have exposed their own thoughts on the problem. In legal war of attrition, parents of students in a California school district eventually lost authority over the education of their own children to the 9th Circuit Court.

The controversy began in the Byron Union School District. As a integral part of its World History and Geography curriculum, students were educated on the Islamic religion, using the state-adopted textbook Across the Centuries which had the students emulate a Muslim soldier on a pilgrimage to Mecca. However, the district’s curriculum furthered the religious education. The classes were required to “become Muslims” for a three-week period. Each student was forced to adopt a Muslim name and forego some delight or commodity for a day to imitate Islamic fasting on the feast of Ramadad. The classes as a whole recited daily the Muslim profession of faith “Allah is the only true God and Muhammed is his messenger.” In response to teacher prompts, they chanted “Praise be to Allah.” At the end of the time period, they critiqued the Islamic culture on their final test.

The indoctrination was ridden with controversy, and the parents’ response proved to be disbelief over the curriculum. “Way over the constitutional line,” remarked Richard Thompson, chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, of the school’s decision. Thompson continued, “public schools would never tolerate teaching Christianity in this way.”

Byron district superintendent Peggy Green retorted that “dressing up in costume, role-playing and simulation games are all used to stimulate class discussion and are common teaching practices used in other subjects as well.”

Down the coast in San Diego, Carver Elementary School extends students the privilege of a 15-minute afternoon break in classes—during a traditional Muslim prayer time, according to CNSNews.com. Last September, Carver opened its doors to nearly 100 students from a failed Muslim charter school nearby. An editorial appearing in the Investor’s Business Daily described how numerous exceptions in the school rules are now in effect to accommodate the Muslim students. Pork and other foods conflicting with the Islamic diet have been banned from the school’s cafeteria. The Arabic language has been added as a language to the school’s curriculum. Girls are even segregated in classes. “Our country has to now accommodate things that are not traditionally accounted for before,” maintained the spokesman for the San Diego chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Advocates of differing agendas have united in opinion against this front. Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, argued that the school’s favoring of one faith instead of all religions was intolerable. Richard Katskee, associated with the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, stated that the prayer time in Carver in Elementary, in general, violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. Both agreed that the school’s actions were completely unnecessary.

However, the “jihad” is gaining ground across America, not just in California. A high school in Richardson, Texas gave way to a Muslim student’s lawsuit and now allows prayer during lunch breaks and in designated areas. In Cliffside Park, New Jersey, the district allotted prayer time for a female Muslim student. Both schools, according to CNSNews.com, argued that they were “providing non-instructional time permitted by the law.”

If such is the case, the “law” according to the 9th Circuit Court could use some serious clarification, not to mention the interpretation of the establishment clause and the deliberate denial of delicious pork meat to hungry children.

Matt Hadro is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.

The NYT goes after the Chief Justice

The NYT goes after the Chief Justice

Thomas Lifson
The New York Times lavishes attention on the Chief Justice’s health condition. Fair enough, since his fall and cautionary hospitalization has been in the news. But the paper includes rather speculative information on potential side effects of  possible drugs he might take if it is determined that a regimen for epilepsy (for which diagnosis he newly qualifies) is appropriate.

the drugs can have troubling side effects, including drowsiness or insomnia, weight loss or weight gain, rashes, irritability, mental slowing and forgetfulness. Many patients can be treated with minimal side effects, doctors say, but it may take trial and error to find the right drug. [emphasis added]

Is this a push by the Times to bring up the issue of Justice Roberts’ fitness for his role at the SCOTUS? It certainly seems to be an insensitive overreaching by the paper, to say the least. Two seizures in 14 years and the paper seemingly is ready to drum him off the Court.
The paper has been much more circumspect in discussing the health of liberal justices. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 74, after all, had a cancerous growth removed from her colon in 1999 and fell asleep during a public court session. If the Times has published information on the possible side effects of medication she might be taking, it has escaped our notice.
Two SCOTUS Justices have had cancer, another has a stent to keep his artery open. The Washington Post, a liberal paper which demonstrates a level of fairness the Times has rejected, discusses covers the issue far more completely than the Times hit piece.
The Times, it appears, is on a crusade to change the composition of the court. Last week saw the publication of an extraordinary op-ed calling for the Democrats to consider packing the court – expanding the size of the Court in order to place more liberal leaning justices onto the bench.
Liberals want control of the Court because so many of their ideas are unpopular with the public, and can only be realized if imposed by judicial diktat. But attempting to define a new epilepsy diagnosis as reason to reject the services of an otherwise robust and brilliant comparatively young member of the Court is likely to be counterproductive. At least I hope so.

Obama’s erratic international stance

Obama’s erratic international stance

Thomas Lifson
Nothing is more dangerous than a naïve appeaser, other than a naïve appeaser who erratically takes rash steps in order to look tougher than he really is. Terrible, tragic events are set in motion by such threats of bluster. Tyrants are not deterred, and when the bluff is called, the erratic faux tough-guy gets into situations he is unprepared to resolve.

Barack Obama is now veering into dangerous territory with his foreign policy pronouncements. Clearly, two years in the United States Senate have not turned this former state legislator into a statesman.
His campaign, perhaps smarting from the appalling off-the-cuff commitment he made in the YouTube debate to speak personally with the leaders of North Korea, Iran and Cuba in his first year in office, has now released remarks he is scheduled to deliver this morning, apparently aimed at making him look tough. Nedra Pickler of AP reports:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
“Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.

Pakistan’s Musharraf hangs onto power by a thread. Publicly threatening to invade his country is he displeases us hands ammunition to his opponents. How, exactly, do you suppose leading members of Pakistan’s military will react to this threat? Does it make them more or less likely to be vigilant in stopping the assassins who continuously seek his death?
Remember that Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal that could fall into Islamist hands following Musharraf’s assasination.

Obama is dangerous. Make no mistake. He is not ready for the serious business of being commander in chief.

Posted in Uncategorized. Leave a Comment »

DOJ:Journalists Can Be Prosecuted for Publishing Classified Information

DOJ:Journalists Can Be Prosecuted for Publishing

Classified Information

Clarice Feldman
The Department of Justice has concluded that, while its emphasis is on prosecuting leakers of classified information, the Espionage Act does permit the prosecution of journalists who publish such information without authorization:

The espionage statutes concerning classified information could be employed against journalists who publish such information without authorization, a Justice Department official told Congress recently, elaborating on remarks made last year by Attorney General Gonzales. Those statutes, “on their face, do not provide an exemption for any particular profession or class of persons, including journalists,” wrote Matthew W. Friedrich, DoJ Criminal Division Chief of Staff, in a March 2007 response to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee that has been newly published.
He stressed that “the Justice Department’s primary focus has been and will continue to be investigating and prosecuting leakers, not members
of the press.”
But he added that “it would be inappropriate to comment on whether the Department is now considering the prosecution of journalists for publishing classified information.”

So–what’s taking them so long to do it?

CAIR threatens Young America’s Foundation over my talk tomorrow

CAIR threatens Young America’s Foundation over my talk tomorrow


Note the personal smears, the attempt to bully and intimidate, and the non-specificity of the charges against me (they can’t be specific, because I don’t say anything inaccurate about them — or about Islam or jihad).

Note also the irony: this letter comes a day after CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper slandered me on national television by ascribing to me hateful words written by someone else — which appeared on this site for about an hour, during which, lo and behold, someone at CAIR was watching.

I was speaking to Jason Mattera, a YAF official, who told me that I was scheduled to speak as planned: “CAIR can go to Hell and they can take their 72 virgins with them.”

My own reply to CAIR: remember McAuliffe at Bastogne.