Michelle Malkin 

Lead Story

The Crashers: They came, they saw, they failed

By Michelle Malkin  •  April 15, 2010 09:56 PM

You were ready for the Tea Party saboteurs. And boy, did they fail epically. Saul Alinsky would be ashamed.

Grass-roots activists smoked out the infiltrators — and tagged them immediately.

Reader Celeste in Columbus, Ohio, sends photos of a great comeuppance. Check out the Captain Obvious crasher getting called out for attempting to paint their peaceful protest as an incitement to violence and faking a vile sign:


More members of the Crasher Corps in Sacramento via reader Rob. The red guerilla mask and sunglasses are really ingenious:

This fine fellow literally crashed the stage and was whisked away:

As for that Crash the Party loser Jason Levin, he’s been put on paid leave from his middle-school teaching job in Beaverton, Oregon, and the state education board continues to investigate:

A state board will investigate whether a Beaverton teacher was on his own time or using state resources while he organized liberals to crash Oregon tea parties.

On Thursday, Jason Levin was put on paid leave by the Beaverton School District.

Levin has gotten national attention for a “Crash the Tea Party” Web site that called for opponents to infiltrate the events and behave outlandishly. That raised suspicion he was doing political work during schools hours.

Beaverton School District spokeswoman Maureen Wheeler confirmed Levin was placed on paid administrative leave as of Thursday while they conduct an internal investigation into his actions during work time.

Behold: Self-sabotage.



Ed Frank sends video of Tea Party folks confronting an ignorant heckler trying to disrupt the D.C. Tea Party with his fantasy land chant that “no one’s raising taxes right now!” Reality check:


Save those “INFILTRATOR” signs. These people aren’t going to give up.

“We Need A lot More In Our Toolbox In Order To Deal With Angry People On The Street”: Obama’s “Consequence Management Response Force” Ready To Be Deployed Against Americans In October

“We Need A lot More In Our Toolbox In Order To Deal With Angry People On The Street”: Obama’s “Consequence Management Response Force” Ready To Be Deployed Against Americans In October

April 14th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.


The Examiner:

In October of this year, one month prior to the November midterm elections, a special army unit known as ‘Consequence Management Response Force’ will be ready for deployment on American soil if so ordered by the President.

The special force, which is the new name being given to the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry, has been training at Fort Stewart, Georgia and is composed of 80,000 troops.

According to the Army Times,

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

The key phrase is ‘may be called upon to help with civil unrest.’

This afternoon a local radio talk show host reported that he had been in contact with a member of the military. This military source stated that the armed forces have been alerted to the strong possibility that civil unrest may occur in the United States this summer, prior to the midterm elections of 2010.

The source described this as ‘our long, hot summer of discontent’ that could be eerily reminiscent of the summer of 1968 when riots broke out in many of our largest cities.

However, the summer of 2010 could well be much worse due to the players involved. In 1968 the major players were war protesters. This time, the outrage simmering beneath the surface of American society involves a broad cross-section of the heartland, and most of them are heavily armed.

It is highly unlikely that these citizens would ever initiate armed conflict of any kind. In their view, gun rights are for self-defense–and for defense against tyrannical government, which our Founders regarded as the most dangerous force on earth.

However, it has become clear that other groups may well initiate violence in order to start an ‘incident’ that would give Obama and a rogue Congress a reason to implement martial law, confiscate the citizens’ guns, enforce curfews, and suspend all future elections until such time as it is deemed ’safe’ to proceed with human liberty as encapsulated in the right to vote.

Tea Party members, for example, have been warned in recent days that members of Andy Stern’s SEIU union and members of the organization formerly known as ACORN plan to infiltrate Tea Party gatherings in order to incite some sort of incident that could result in armed conflict.

In addition, all indications point to a humiliating defeat for the Democrats and Obama in November. Not only will the House in all likelihood transfer to Republican control, but it is increasingly possible for the Democrats to lose the Senate as well.

And there are Leftwing groups in this country that would use whatever means necessary to prevent that from happening.

ACORN has already gone underground, changing its name so as to fly beneath the radar screen. How many people will the group register to vote illegally?

And with Obama’s plan to naturalize between 10 and 20 million illegal aliens, a brand new voter base for the Democrats will be in place prior to November.

Add to this the growing unrest over continued high unemployment, the coming spike in interest rates and inflation, and the still-boiling outrage over the manner in which Obama and the Democrats shoved ObamaCare down the throats of the citizens, and all of the ingredients are present for a major F-5 tornado to sweep across the heartland.

To what extent would soldiers use deadly force during such ‘civil unrest’ should the Consequence Management Response Team be utilized? During the anti-war riots of the 1960s they killed student protesters. What about now?

The military source cited by the radio host today was asked this very question. He would merely say that the culture of the U.S. military is changing–half support Obama and the other half are dead-set against him.

His conclusion? There is no way to know for sure if they would obey an order to open fire on ordinary citizens.

The Cato Institute published this warning when the program was launched in its first phase in 2008 (the program has been updated and expanded since 2008). The Founders insisted that standing armies were never to be used against American citizens on our own soil, no matter what violations of this principle have occurred in the years following. In the spirit of the Patriots and of real journalists government must be questioned constantly and held to intense scrutiny in order to preserve liberty.



WASHINGTON (CNN) — The United States military’s Northern Command, formed in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, is dedicating a combat infantry team to deal with catastrophes in the U.S., including terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

The 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry, which was first into Baghdad, Iraq, in 2003, started its controversial assignment Wednesday.

The First Raiders will spend 2009 as the first active-duty military unit attached to the U.S. Northern Command since it was created. They will be based in Fort Stewart, Georgia, and focus primarily on logistics and support for local police and rescue personnel, the Army says.

The plan is drawing skepticism from some observers who are concerned that the unit has been training with equipment generally used in law enforcement, including beanbag bullets, Tasers, spike strips and roadblocks.

That kind of training seems a bit out of line for the unit’s designated role as Northern Command’s CCMRF (Sea Smurf), or CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force. CBRNE stands for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosive incidents.

According to Northern Command’s Web site, the CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force is a team that will ultimately number about 4,700 personnel from the different military branches that would deploy as the Department of Defense’s initial response force.

Its capabilities include search and rescue, decontamination, medical, aviation, communications and logistical support. Each CCMRF will be composed of three functional task forces — Task Force Operations, Task Force Medical and Task Force Aviation — that have individual operational focus and mission skills, the Web site says.

The Army says the unit would be deployed to help local, state or federal agencies deal with such incidents, not take the lead. The law enforcement-type training is not connected to its new mission, it says.

Use of active-duty military as a domestic police force has been severely limited since passage of the Posse Comitatus Act following the Civil War.

Bloggers are criticizing the new force, saying that because it has been training in law enforcement tactics it could be be used for domestic law enforcement.

Troops may be trained in non-lethal tactics, but they are not trained for what they may have to deal with in domestic situations, said Gene Healy, a vice president of the conservative think-tank Cato Institute.

Healy said civilian police and, if circumstances are extreme, National Guard troops under the command of state governors should keep the peace.

“Federal troops should always be a last resort, never a first responder,” he said.

Critics also point to a General Accounting Office study in 2003 that found that domestic security missions put a strain on a military stretched thin by two simultaneous wars, and that a unit’s readiness for combat is reduced if the members have to take time out to respond to an emergency at home.

The U.S. military “is not a Swiss Army knife,” ready to fight the Taliban one week, respond to a hurricane the next and put down a major political protest the third week, Healy said.

The Army says the non-lethal training is an outgrowth of missions that troops have faced around the world in recent years.

“We need a lot more in our toolbox in order to deal with angry people on the street,” said Col. Barry Johnson of U.S. Army North.

So, What’s The Agenda?: No Intelligence To Back Obama’s Claim Of Increased Nuke Threat From Terrorists

So, What’s The Agenda?: No Intelligence To Back Obama’s Claim Of Increased Nuke Threat From Terrorists

April 15th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.


Washington Times:

The Obama administration is warning that the danger of a terrorist attack with nuclear weapons is increasing, but U.S. officials say the claim is not based on new intelligence and questioned whether the threat is being overstated.

President Obama said in a speech before the 47-nation Nuclear Security Summit, which concluded Tuesday, that “the risk of a nuclear confrontation between nations has gone down, but the risk of nuclear attack has gone up.”

The two-day meeting concluded with an agreement by participants to take steps to prevent non-state actors like al Qaeda from obtaining nuclear weapons, either through theft of existing weapons or through making their own with pilfered nuclear material.

The joint statement called nuclear terrorism one of the most challenging threats to international security and called for tougher security to prevent terrorists, criminals and others from acquiring nuclear goods.

But Henry Sokolski, a member of the congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, said that there is no specific intelligence on ongoing terrorist procurement of nuclear material.

“We were given briefings and when we tried to find specific intelligence on the threat of any known terrorist efforts to get a bomb, the answer was we did not have any.”

Mr. Obama told reporters that there was a range of views on the danger but that all the conferees “agreed on the urgency and seriousness of the threat.”

Mr. Sokolski said the idea that “we know that this is eminent has got to be somehow informed conjecture and apprehension, [but] it is not driven by any specific intelligence per se.”

“We have reasons to believe this and to be worried, but we don’t have specific intelligence about terrorist efforts to get the bomb,” he said. “So we have to do general efforts to guard against his possibility, like securing the material everywhere.”

A senior U.S. intelligence official also dismissed the administration’s assertion that the threat of nuclear terrorism is growing.

“The threat has been there,” the official said. “But there is no new intelligence.”

The official said the administration appears to be inflating the danger in ways similar to what critics of the Bush administration charged with regard to Iraq: hyping intelligence to support its policies.

The official said one likely motivation for the administration’s new emphasis on preventing nuclear terrorism is to further the president’s goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. While the U.S. nuclear arsenal would be useful in retaliating against a sovereign state, it would be less so against a terrorist group. But if the latter is the world’s major nuclear threat, the official explained, then the U.S. giving up its weapons seems less risky.

The administration recently signed an agreement with Russia that would cut U.S. nuclear weapons and delivery systems to 1,550 warheads and 800 delivery vehicles. During the Cold War, the U.S. and Soviet nuclear arsenals both topped 10,000 warheads.

Mr. Obama said during a news conference that the summit was part of a larger effort to “pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, said he was disappointed that the summit did not do more to focus on Iran.

The nonbinding communique issued during the summit “largely restates current policy, and makes no meaningful progress in dealing with nuclear terrorism threats or the ticking clock represented by Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” Mr. Kyl said in a statement.

The new focus on nuclear terrorism emerged recently in the Nuclear Posture Review report made public last week that identified nuclear terrorism as “today’s most immediate and extreme danger.”

By contrast, the latest CIA report to Congress on arms proliferation suggested that the threat from nuclear terrorism had diminished. It stated that several terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, “probably remain interested” in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear arms “but not necessarily in all four of those capabilities.”

Additionally, the report, made public last month, said terrorists “aim to use these agents against Western targets, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

The military’s blueprint for future conflicts, “Joint Operating Environment 2010,” stated that terrorists obtaining nuclear weapons or other mass-destruction arms is a “possibility” and said a major worry is that extremists could seize power in Pakistan and gain access to its nuclear arsenal.

The Joint Forces Command report warned that devastating biological weapons attacks by nations or terrorist groups could produce “terror on the scale of a nuclear attack.”

John Brennan, the White House’s chief counterterrorism adviser, told reporters Monday that the threat of nuclear terrorism “is real, it is serious, it is growing, and it constitutes one of the greatest threats to our national security and, indeed, to global security.”

A National Security Council spokesman declined to provide further information on Mr. Brennan’s or the president’s statement that the nuclear terrorist threat is growing.

Mr. Brennan said al Qaeda has sought a nuclear weapon for the past 15 years and that its efforts continue today.

Al Qaeda is seeking “highly enriched uranium or separated plutonium” for a weapon that would give the Islamist group “the ability not only to threaten our security and world order in an unprecedented manner, but also to kill and injure many thousands of innocent men, women and children, which is al Qaeda’s sole agenda,” Mr. Brennan said.

Al Qaeda’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons in the past have included reports that the group tried to purchase a stolen weapon in the former Soviet Union, and that it has worked with Pakistani nuclear scientists.

Former CIA Director George J. Tenet disclosed in his recent memoir that a Pakistani nongovernmental organization, Umma Tameer-e-Nau, was used as cover for a covert program to send Pakistani nuclear scientists to work with al Qaeda’s nuclear weapons team when it was granted safe haven in Afghanistan before 2001.

However, Brian Jenkins, author of the book “Will Terrorists Go Nuclear?” and a Rand Corp. adviser, said that al Qaeda in the past has been duped by supposed nuclear suppliers who initiated scams that suggest a “naivete and lack of technical capability on the part of the organization,” he said.

“We have evidence of terrorist ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons or nuclear material but we have no evidence of terrorist capabilities to do either,” he said.

In late 2001, after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, some materials were discovered in al Qaeda bases such as crude diagrams of the basic components of a nuclear bomb.

Mr. Jenkins, however, said that U.S. technical specialists concluded from the designs that al Qaeda did not have the ability to produce a nuclear weapon.

In 2002, members of al Qaeda’s affiliate in Saudi Arabia attempted to purchase Russian nuclear devices through al Qaeda’s leadership in Iran, though the transactions did not move forward.

In his 2007 memoir, “At the Center of the Storm,” Mr. Tenet wrote that “from the end of 2002 to the spring of 2003, we received a stream of reliable reporting that the senior al-Qaeda leadership in Saudi Arabia was negotiating for the purchase of three Russian nuclear devices.”

Graham Allison, a Harvard professor and author of a book on nuclear terrorism, said he agrees with the president that the threat is growing, based on North Korea’s nuclear proliferation to Syria and instability in nuclear-armed Pakistan.

“What’s new is a willingness to put the spotlight on this issue and say, ‘This is the face of nuclear danger today,’” he said.

Barack Obama Announces Historic Shift in America’s Relationship With Israel–Do you remember when Jesse Jackson said that under Obama Jews would lose all of their clout?

Thursday, April 15, 2010, 5:01 AM
Jim Hoft

Do you remember when Jesse Jackson said that under Obama Jews would lose all of their clout?
He was right.

(Top left clockwise) Barack and Michelle Obama and radical Leftist anti-Israel Professor Edward Said at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Edward Said gave the keynote speech. (Bill Baar’s West Side), Former PLO operative and close friend of the Obama’s Rashid Khalidi, Barack Obama and his racist minister Jeremiah Wright, and close terrorist friend William Ayers.

In an unprecedented move, the Obama administration said today that support of Israel will be “balanced against other US interests.”
The New York Times reported:

It was just a phrase at the end of President Obama’s news conference on Tuesday, but it was a stark reminder of a far-reaching shift in how the United States views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how aggressively it might push for a peace agreement.

When Mr. Obama declared that resolving the long-running Middle East dispute was a “vital national security interest of the United States,” he was highlighting a change that has resulted from a lengthy debate among his top officials over how best to balance support for Israel against other American interests.

This shift, described by administration officials who did not want to be quoted by name when discussing internal discussions, is driving the White House’s urgency to help broker a Middle East peace deal. It increases the likelihood that Mr. Obama, frustrated by the inability of the Israelis and the Palestinians to come to terms, will offer his own proposed parameters for an eventual Palestinian state.

Mr. Obama said conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure” — drawing an explicit link between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Mr. Obama’s words reverberated through diplomatic circles in large part because they echoed those of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the military commander overseeing America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent Congressional testimony, the general said that the lack of progress in the Middle East created a hostile environment for the United States. He has denied reports that he was suggesting that soldiers were being put in harm’s way by American support for Israel.

Previously on Obama & Israel:
** Obama Refuses to Dine With Jewish Leader
** Obama Won’t Allow Any Photos of Him With PM Netanyahu
** Stunner. Obama Has Refused All Israeli Military Requests Since Entering Office in 2009
** Obama Administration Denies Visas to Israeli Nuclear Scientists

Related… Yesterday, the President of the World Jewish Congress called out Barack Obama telling the president, “Appeasement does not work!” The WJC took out full page ads in the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal today criticisizing the administration’s Israel policy.

Science Czar’ Admits the Big Green Lie

‘Science Czar’ Admits the Big Green Lie

Posted By Christopher C. Horner On April 14, 2010 @ 8:33 am In Environment, News, Politics | 89 Comments

The video vault has now provided us another glimpse [1] into the fever swamp occupied by President Obama’s moonbat science czar John Holdren. Holdren of course is the man brought in to put a scientific imprimatur on the Left’s latest excuse for much of its economic agenda, wrapped as it is in the cloak of averting environmental crisis.

First, the merely good news arising from Holdren’s odious openness: it floated to the surface just in time for my new book [2] coming out Monday (but available for pre-order now, before today’s ’s Ways and Means Committee “green jobs” hearing causes a run on them! Really.). In these pages Holdren, Carol Browner and a few others receive close inspection, particularly in Chapter 3 “Van Jones Was No Accident: Obama’s Radicals” (also relevant to this discussion is Chapter 6, “Green Eggs and Scam: The Wholesale Fraud of ‘Green Jobs’”).

More on all of that, including some pretty startling internal documents, in a few days.

Now for the even better news. As detailed in “Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America [2]“, Holdren is a longtime global-cooling-then-warming alarmist who’s also on record advocating the constitutionality of sterilizing [3] the public through the drinking water supply to address the “population crisis” when it reaches the point that his kind believe is just  too much to bear.

As is also detailed, he and his ilk like to see (and shriek) crisis pretty much everywhere they look, and transparently as an excuse for their real obsession with massive government usurpations of individual liberties — or, ahem, Power Grabs [2]. So to them that point where statist seizures are urgently required is always right…about…nnnow.

Read the rest of this entry »

Obama Uses Islamic Crest For His Nuclear Summit Logo

Obama Uses Islamic Crest For His Nuclear Summit Logo

April 14th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.


GOP May Do Their Job And Block Federal Power Grab Being Disguised For Sale To Public As “Wall Street Reform”

GOP May Do Their Job And Block Federal Power Grab Being Disguised For Sale To Public As “Wall Street Reform”

April 14th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.


WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican leaders, responding to growing resistance in their party to a financial regulations overhaul being pushed by President Obama, are considering ways to potentially block the legislation if it makes it to the Senate floor without more bipartisan input.

The options being discussed include sending a letter to the Democratic leadership signed by all 41 Republican senators threatening to unify against the legislation, Dow Jones reports. The GOP has enough votes to mount a filibuster.

The latest developments come on a day when the White House and congressional Republicans sparred over how to protect taxpayers against “too big to fail” financial institutions, sharply disagreeing on whether legislation backed by Obama would leave the government on the hook for bailing out firms whose failure might threaten the economy.

Obama, meeting with House and Senate leaders of both parties, insisted on a tough bill, specifically singling out oversight of previously unregulated financial instruments. How to regulate these products, known as derivatives, has become the latest point of friction between Democrats and Republicans.

Senate Republicans met later Wednesday night to discuss their “overwhelming opposition” to the Democrats’ handling of the bill, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota told Dow Jones. “What we would like to do is have a seat at the table.”

As the Senate prepares to begin debate in less than two weeks on legislation revamping regulation of the financial industry, the question of bailouts has elevated the sharp partisan differences over how to respond to the 2008 crisis that caused a near meltdown on Wall Street.

Both sides were testing populist messages, seizing on public disdain for big financial institutions. The White House argued opposition to the bill amounted to support for Wall Street banks; Republicans countered that the Obama-backed bill would perpetuate bailouts for Wall Street firms rather than end them.

Obama, speaking briefly to reporters before the closed meeting began, said he was “absolutely confident that the bill that emerges is going to be a bill that prevents bailouts. That’s the goal.”

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner later said that the cost of taking down large failing financial institutions will be borne by big banks, not taxpayers. The House and Senate bills call for funds, financed by large financial institutions, to cover the costs of liquidating firms deemed too large to go through bankruptcy proceedings. Republicans have argued that the funds would not be sufficient and that taxpayers could still be on the hook to pay to deal with giant failures. They also argue that emergency loan authority by the Federal Reserve could also amount to a financial bailout.

The give-and-take, which officials said was more heated in public than in private, set the terms for the final debate on yet another of Obama’s priorities. The president is hoping the Senate acts quickly and passes a bill that can be easily reconciled with legislation that passed the House in December. But Democrats need at least one Republican to overcome procedural hurdles and the looming question was whether the administration and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would simply seek to pick off Republican senators or build a coalition through bipartisan negotiations.

Reid signaled Wednesday that he was ready to proceed quickly. Reid had initially planned to bring the bill up the week of April 26, but officials said Wednesday that he now might seek to begin debate next week.

Asked after the White House meeting whether it was time to abandon efforts to negotiate with Republicans, Reid said: “We’re going to move on the bill very quickly. They can offer all the amendments they want on the floor.”

Sen. Christopher Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, agreed to meet again with the committee’s top Republican, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. Aides said Dodd, D-Conn., believed he and Shelby could add language to the bill that would address the bailout question without fundamentally altering the bill.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., a banking committee member who has negotiated with Dodd, said the rhetoric over potential bailouts had become overheated. “The fact is,” he added, “I think we could fix those in about five minutes.”

Earlier, Dodd angrily accused Republicans of “political chicanery” and appeared on the verge of abandoning talks.

“My patience is running out, my patience is running out,” he said from the Senate floor. “I’m not going to continue doing this if all I’m getting from the other side is the suggestions somehow that this is a partisan effort.”

Aides said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell in the meeting urged Obama not to cut off bipartisan talks. Afterward, McConnell still insisted that the Senate bill “will lead to endless taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street banks.”

That was the message McConnell delivered earlier Wednesday on the Senate floor — the second such attack on the bill in as many days. He said the White House plans the same approach on financial reforms that it took on health care: “Put together a partisan bill, then jam it through on a strictly partisan basis.”

White House economist Austan Goolsbee dismissed the GOP objections as “totally disingenuous.”

“Bailouts are forbidden,” he said in an interview. “There will only be wipeouts. They (the banks) will clean up the messes. If somebody fails, they’re done — they’re toast. The management is fired. They’re broken up or sold off or liquidated.”

Goolsbee added the GOP broadside was “pretty cheeky of the Republican leadership,” and an effort to divert attention from its efforts to stop regulation of the derivatives market. “They’re trying to dramatically weaken and put loopholes into that derivatives regulation,” he said.

Republicans think they continue to score huge points with voters by opposing the health care overhaul that narrowly passed Congress with no GOP votes. They are taking a similar approach on financial regulations.

The White House says GOP lawmakers are using campaign strategist talking points to label the legislation as a bank bailout, regardless of the truth.

“Mitt Romney Mitt Romney-Sarah Palin in 2012? You betcha! OR Palin-Romney

 “Mitt Romney Mitt Romney-Sarah Palin in 2012? You betcha!

By Edward Mason, Hillary Chabot and Jessica Van Sack

Thursday, April 15, 2010 – Updated 1h ago

E-mail   Print   (179) Comments   Text size   Share   Buzz up!Conservative superstar Sarah Palin opened the door yesterday to joining forces with Mitt Romney for a 2012 White House run – a hot ticket that has some Republicans licking their chops at the prospect of unseating President Obama.

“Sounds pretty good,” Palin declared at yesterday’s Tea Party Express rally on the Common when asked about pairing up with the former Bay State governor – giving the idea a big thumbs-up as she left the stage after her headline speech.

Last night, as Palin stopped for cannoli at Mike’s Pastry in the North End, she said she was “serious” about the idea.

“I have a lot of respect for Mitt,” she told the Herald.

Asked who would be on top of the ticket, Palin roared, “Ha! I haven’t even thought that far ahead yet.”

Indeed, Palin said she hasn’t decided whether she’ll run in 2012 – with or without Romney.

Romney, a presumptive 2012 Republican presidential contender who recently embarked on a nationwide book tour, has not ruled out an alliance with Palin, the GOP’s 2008 vice presidential candidate.

respects Sarah Palin and he appreciates the contributions she makes to the party,” said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. “But his immediate focus is on helping Republicans win back the Congress in 2010.”

Some veteran political observers were intrigued by the notion of the two telegenic former GOP governors on the same ticket.

“They both have a lot they can offer a campaign,” said Douglas Lorenz, a California-based GOP consultant. “Romney has the experience as a governor and experience as a candidate for president, and when you combine that with Sarah Palin’s ability to get people motivated, that could definitely be a formidable ticket.”

Republican gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos called the matchup “the best of both worlds.”

“They both come at it from totally different parts of the spectrum,” said Mihos, who attended yesterday’s Tea Party rally. “One deals on a gut level with people and the other is highly successful on the business end of things.”

Speaking before a rapt crowd estimated at 5,000, Palin squarely targeted Democrats, pounding away at Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package. She also lobbied for domestic oil drilling.

“I want to tell ’em, ‘Nah, we’ll keep clinging to our Constitution and our guns and religion – and you can keep the change,” Palin said, later adding, “Yeah, let’s drill, baby, drill; not stall, baby, stall – you betcha.”

Meanwhile, Palin said last night she had no hard feelings about U.S. Sen. Scott Brown’s decision to skip the rally. “He was in Washington doing his job,” she said.

State Treasurer Tim Cahill, who also is running for governor as an independent, joked that a prospective alliance between Palin and Romney would “a good-looking ticket.”

Tolerating Ahmadinejad’s Jew-Hate

Tolerating Ahmadinejad’s Jew-Hate

Posted By Anav Silverman On April 14, 2010 @ 12:05 am In FrontPage | 33 Comments

Four years ago, the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust’ [1]was held in Tehran on December 11, 2006. Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister, stated at the time that the aim of the conference was to “neither to deny nor prove the Holocaust but to provide an appropriate scientific atmosphere for scholars to offer their opinions in freedom about a historical issue.”

Those who contributed to the scientific atmosphere at the conference, included David Duke, a Ku Klux Klan leader and former US state representative, Robert Faurisson, a convicted Holocaust denier from France and a number of other academic professors and educators all engaged in Holocaust Denial research and rhetoric. One such professor, Dr. Fredrick Toben, an Australian citizen, runs an Internet site vilifying Jews while promoting that Nazis did not commit the mass murder of the Jewish people. Several right-extremist politicians from Germany’s neo-Nazi NPD party were invited as well, although the German government barred them from attending.

However, the central purpose of the conference went beyond providing a friendly environment for international Holocaust deniers to share their twisted sentiments. The Iranian Foreign Minister elaborated that “If the official version of the Holocaust is thrown into doubt, then the identity and nature of Israel will be thrown into doubt. And if, during this review, it is proved that the Holocaust was a historical reality, then what is the reason for the Palestinians having to pay the cost of the Nazis’ crimes?”

That argument has been reiterated time and time again by Ahmadinejad, notably in exclusive interviews he has granted with US television networks; NBC [2] and CBS [3]. In two major interviews with the American TV networks, Ahmadinejad smoothly skirted over the reporters’ questions about his Holocaust Denial, always deflecting his responses back to Palestinian issues and the State of Israel instead.

The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center [4]calls Ahmadinejad’s use of Holocaust Denial “a tool” of Iranian policy. “The Holocaust Denial campaign, as a main component of the Iranian regime’s anti-Israeli policy, is not only an expression of the hatred for Jews which is rooted in Iranian politics and society, but also a clever, well planned strategy under Ahmadinejad.” According to the IICC, Ahmedinejad uses the denial tactics to delegitimze the Zionist movement and the State of Israel as ideological and moral preparation for Israel destruction, as well as to increase Iranian influence among Palestinians while advancing Iranian aspirations for regional hegemony.

Indeed, Ahmadinjad’s repeated rhetoric in promoting the Islamic Republic’s anti-Israel agenda have been ultimately successful. Although the ‘International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust’ elicited much international condemnation in 2006, the Iranian President’s repeated hateful rhetoric cause very few to flinch in the international community today.

Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel stated back in October 2008 that Ahmedinejad’s annual appearances at the UN General Assembly demonstrates that the world has learned nothing from the Holocaust.

“Ten years ago, and less, the ruler of a country that announced its aspiration for Israel to be wiped off the map would not have dared appear and speak on the UN’s podium,” Wiesel stated in an Ha’aretz interview [5]. A few months later, at the Durban II conference, a member of Ahmadinejad’s entourage accosted Wiesel screaming at the Holocaust survivor, ‘Zio-Nazi.’ [6]

Furthermore, US President Obama’s friendly attempts to forge dialogue with Iran, while simultaneously giving Israel a cold shoulder, have scored no points with Ahmadinejad. A warm message from President Obama marking the Iranian new year was met with scorn from the Iranian leader. As reported by Reuters [7] April 3, Ahmadinejad said the note contained “three or four beautiful words” but nothing new of substance.

“What changed? Your sanctions were lifted? The adverse propaganda was stopped? The pressure was alleviated? Did you change your attitude in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine,” asked Ahmadinejad in a televised address. Iran supports Islamic insurgents targeting American troops in Iraq [8]and Afghanistan [9] both financially and militarily.

While Obama has decided to pursue new UN sanctions in response to Ahmadinejad’s continued rejections, Iran according to Ahmadinejad, could easily cope with such petroleum sanctions.

“You should know that the more hostile you are, the stronger an incentive our people will have, it will double,” he said.

Although President Obama would like to believe that he is dealing with a rational leader with whom dialogue will eventually reach, Ahmadinejad has never been one for Western rationality. After his UN speech in 2005, the Iranian president told Iran’s leading cleric Ayatollah Javadi Amoli that he sensed a light surrounding him while he was delivering his address to world leaders at the General Assembly. “For 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink. They were astonished as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic,” Ahmedinejad reportedly stated in a video made about his experience that was widely distributed across Iran, as reported by Golnaz Esfandiari in Radio Free Europe [10].

During his UN speech in 2005, Ahmadinejad called for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, who according to Muslim tradition is the final spiritual and political successor to Muhammad and savior of humankind who will return to lead an era of Islamic justice. The Iranian president has been quoted as saying that the “main mission of the revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam.”

If anything should be learned from Holocaust Memorial Day this year, it is that appeasement policies do not work with leaders like Hitler and Ahmadinjad. Seventy-two years ago, when France, Italy and  Britain’s Neville Chamberlain, agreed to the Munich Agreement with Germany, the European powers wrongly believed that the annexation of Czechoslovakia would stop the Hitler war-machine. Following this appeasement agreement, over 60 million people were killed in the Second World War, a horrific tragedy that took root when no one bothered to heed Hitler’s anti-Semitic rhetoric and tirades.

Anav Silverman is the International Correspondent for Sderot Media Center: www.SderotMedia.org.il [11].

Dispose of your fizzle material (the cartoon)