“This is war of religion, not just a war between Arabs and Israelis…this is an Islamic war, which will end in victory only under the banner of Jihad”

“This is war of religion, not just a war between Arabs and Israelis…this is an Islamic war, which will end in victory only under the banner of Jihad”

Here is yet more indication that the war against Israel is a jihad against Israel, motivated by an antisemitism with deep, ancient roots in Islam — and thus it will not be solved by Israeli concessions, or the establishment of a Palestinian state. The one thing we can be sure of about this is that Western analysts will ignore it, as they have all the other indications of the same thing. “Calls for Jihad in a Rally of Kuwaiti Students Union: This Is a War of Religion, Not a War between Israelis and Arabs,” from MEMRITV, March 29 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The following excerpts are from a rally in which Kuwaiti students show solidarity with the Palestinian cause. The rally aired on Al-Jazeera TV on March 29, 2010.

Read complete article


VIDEO: Obama’s National Security Advisor Tells Joke Depicting Jews as Greedy Merchants…

Obama’s National Security Advisor Tells Joke Depicting Jews as Greedy Merchants


Nationally, 60% Favor Letting Local Police Stop and Verify Immigration Status

Nationally, 60% Favor Letting Local Police Stop and Verify Immigration Status

Monday, April 26, 2010

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer last week signed a new law into effect that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 60% of voters nationwide favor such a law, while 31% are opposed.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans support the law along with 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Democratic voters are evenly divided on the measure.

At the same time, however, 58% of all voters are at least somewhat concerned that “efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants will also end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens.” That figure includes 29% who are Very Concerned about possible civil rights violations.

Voter support for empowering local police comes at a time when most voters (56%) believe it is unlikely Congress will take action to gain control of the border. Only 31% say Congress is even somewhat likely to take such an action. That figure includes just 10% who believe Congress is Very Likely to act.

President Obama has denounced the Arizona law, and he and other critics of the measure see it as an incentive to push new national immigration reform legislation to supersede it.

Not surprisingly, support for the law authorizing local police to arrest illegal immigrants is a bit higher in Arizona than it is nationwide. As one of the states most impacted by illegal immigration, 70% of voters statewide favor the new law.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Brewer signed the new law in the midst of a tough Republican Primary campaign. She antagonized many Republicans early on by supporting a statewide tax increase. More recently, she has pleased many voters by finding a way for the state to sue the federal government over the new health care reform law. Eighty-three percent (83%) of Arizona voters say a candidate’s position on immigration is an important factor in how they will vote, including 51% who say it’s very important.

The measure is also having an impact on this year’s Arizona Senate race. Senator John McCain, who narrowly leads conservative challenger J.D. Hayworth in Arizona’s hotly contested GOP Senate Primary race, has come out strongly in support of the new law.

Democratic strategist Susan Estrich notes that “the federal government is supposed to secure the border. Its failure to do so effectively … invites measures like Arizona’s. … In the final analysis, the greatest threat to the rule of law is the lawlessness that leaves both desperate immigrants and desperate citizens vulnerable and afraid.”

This national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on April 22 and 23, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

The new survey results are consistent with findings conducted over many years. Three-out-of-four voters believe that the federal government is not doing enough to secure the nation’s borders. In fact, 56% believe that the policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration. Among voters who are angry about immigration, 83% are angry at the federal government. Only 12% direct their anger at the immigrants

The biggest point of disconnect between voters and the conventional wisdom in Washington, D.C. has to do with priorities. Almost always in Washington, the debate begins with a focus on how to address the status of illegal immigrants. To voters, that is a secondary concern. Controlling the borders is the top concern. That hasn’t changes since the 2006 immigration legislation collapsed when the U.S. Senate surrendered to public opinion. During that debate, a New York Times/CBS poll found that 69% believed illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported.

Other surveys have found that 73% of voters want cops to check the immigration status of all offenders during traffic stops. Sixty-seven percent (67%) also say that if law enforcement officers know of places where immigrants gather to find work, they should sometimes conduct surprise raids to identify and deport those who are here illegally.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of voters nationwide say that those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants should be punished. By a 48% to 36% margin, voters say the same about landlords who rent to illegal immigrants. Additionally, 77% of voters nationwide oppose drivers’ licenses for undocumented immigrants. That topic tripped up Hillary Clinton in a debate during the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona, created a national controversy by aggressively enforcing national immigration laws. While his efforts prompted a U.S. Justice Department civil rights investigation, the sheriff remains popular in his home state. Most Arizona voters not only support his policies, but 58% say he has been good for the state’s image. On a personal basis, Arpaio is viewed favorably by 68% of Arizona voters.

Obama seeks to ‘reconnect…young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women’ for 2010 – Ben Smith: Obama seeks to ‘reconnect…young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women’ for 2010

Main Content

Obama seeks to ‘reconnect…young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women’ for 2010 – Ben Smith: Obama seeks to ‘reconnect…young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women’ for 2010

April 26, 2010

  • 2010

See video


The Democratic National Committee this morning released this clip of the president rallying the troops, if rather coolly, for 2010. Obama’s express goal: “reconnecting” with the voters who voted for the first time in 2008, but who may not plan to vote in the lower-profile Congressional elections this year.

Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

Turning out those so-called “surge” voters — who turned out for the first time to back Obama, but who sat out gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia last year — has become the Democrats’ central pre-occupation for the midterm elections, and the new Democratic effort to nationalize the election around Obama and his agenda mark an attempt to energize those voters. 

Posted by Ben Smith 08:59 AM

Congressman charges Obama with ‘increasing danger’ in the world

Congressman charges Obama with ‘increasing danger’ in the world

By Bridget Johnson – 04/25/10 02:26 PM ET

The tone against the Obama administration over its Israel policy is sharpening on both sides of the aisle, with one Republican congressman charging that the president is “increasing danger” in the world.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a longtime supporter of Israel, said on a radio show last week that the administration’s stance on the issue — and “terrible” treatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — has been “counterproductive.”

The senator added on the Nachum Segal Show that there is an internal “battle” going on in the White House over the issue.

“One side agrees with us, one side doesn’t, and we’re pushing hard to make sure the right side wins – and if not, we’ll have to take it to the next step,” he said.

Republicans are notching up their tone over the issue, as well.

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) told The Hill that the “embarrassing and reckless” administration stances meant that President Barack Obama is “increasing danger in the world, not decreasing it.”

Price, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said he’s concerned with the White House’s “incredible disconnect between the U.S. and Israel.”

“The administration is incapable of believing that their actions can have marked consequences on the free world,” he said.

The Obama administration has taken heat from lawmakers since the row sparked by a lower-level Israeli official announcing new construction in East Jerusalem during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit there in March.

Though Netanyahu apologized for the timing, he made clear — including in a Washington speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference attended by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and scores of lawmakers — that Israel would proceed with building in the region that Palestinians want as their capital.

Netanyahu then had a meeting with Obama that was reported as terse, and interpreted by many as a dressing down of the prime minister. Netanyahu later pulled out of Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit, sending a deputy instead.

The State Department’s assertion that the relationship between the U.S. and Israel depended on the pace of Mideast peace negotiations appeared to be the tipping point for Schumer.

“That is the dagger because the relationship is much deeper than the disagreements on negotiations, and most Americans – Democrat, Republican, Jew, non-Jew – would feel that,” Schumer said. “So I called up Rahm Emanuel and I called up the White House and I said, ‘If you don’t retract that statement you are going to hear me publicly blast you on this.’”

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs battled back in Friday’s press briefing.


“We have an unwavering commitment to the security of Israel and the Israeli people,” Gibbs said. “We have said that from the beginning of this administration.”

“I don’t think that it’s a stretch to say we don’t agree with what Sen. Schumer said in those remarks,” Gibbs added.

A recent Quinnipiac poll indicated the administration could be vulnerable to calls it is not being supportive enough to Israel.

Released last week, the poll showed 42 percent of respondents saying that Obama is not a strong supporter of Israel, compared with 34 percent who disagreed. Only 16 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of independents think the president is a strong supporter of Israel, while 53 percent of Democrats do.

Respondents also said by 57 to 13 percent that their sympathies lie with Israel, and 66 to 19 percent said that the commander in chief should be a strong supporter of the Jewish state.

Price, who was supposed to speak on an AIPAC panel but had to cancel because of the concurrent healthcare bill vote that Sunday, said that while there’s always been strong bipartisan support in Congress for Israel, he’s “heartened by Sen. Schumer’s strong and accurate portrayal of what the administration’s done” and hopes the muted comments he’s heard in the House grow into a louder chorus.

Still, he said he’d be surprised if Democratic leadership attempted “to call the administration to account” on its Israel policy. “I would certainly welcome it and support it, but I’m not going to hold my breath,” he said.

Price called Obama’s worldview “very, very dangerous” and added that the president has a “naivete of the dangers of the world.”

Obama may also find the bipartisan discontent that’s growing over the speed and heft of Iran sanctions crossing over into the debate over his administration’s stance toward Israel.

As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his nuclear program are viewed by many as a direct threat to the Jewish state, Israel may find itself deciding to take unilateral military action against the Islamic Republic. This would markedly increase pressure on the White House from Congress.


More Global Warming Profiteering by Obama Energy Official

More Global Warming Profiteering by Obama Energy Official

Posted By Christopher Horner On April 26, 2010 @ 12:00 am In . Feature 01, Environment, US News | 18 Comments

Surprising documents [1] made available to this author reveal that Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi has a huge financial stake in companies likely to profit from the Obama administration’s “green” policies.

Zoi, who left her position as CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection — founded by Al Gore — to serve as assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, now manages billions in “green jobs” funding. But the disclosure documents show that Zoi not only is in a position to affect the fortunes of her previous employer, ex-Vice President Al Gore, but that she herself has large holdings in two firms that could directly profit from policies proposed by the Department of Energy.

Among Zoi’s holdings are shares in Serious Materials, Inc., the previously sleepy, now bustling, friend of the Obama White House [2] whose public policy operation is headed by her husband. Between them, Zoi and her husband hold 120,000 shares in Serious Materials, as well as stock options. Reporter John Stossel has already explored what he sees as the “crony capitalism [3]” implied by Zoi being so able to influence the fortunes of a company to which she is so closely associated.

In addition, the disclosure forms reflect that Zoi holds between $250,000 and $500,000 in “founders shares” in Landis+Gyr, a Swiss “smart meter” firm. She also still owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in ordinary shares.

“Smart meters,” put simply, are electric meters that return information about customer power usage to the power company immediately and allow a power company to control the amount of power a customer can consume. These smart meters are a central component of the Obama administration’s plans to reduce electricity consumption as part of the “smart grid.”

In a rare moment of candor, Obama “Energy Czar” Carol Browner said to US News & World Report [4] last year: “We need to make sure that …[e]ventually, we can get to a system where an electric company will be able [sic] to hold back some of the power so that maybe your air conditioner won’t operate at its peak, you’ll still be able to cool your house, but that’ll be a savings to the consumer.” (emphasis added)

Clearly, DoE funding to encourage the adoption of “smart meters” would very likely lead to much increased sales by Landis+Gyr — and a potential windfall for Zoi. But surely Zoi doesn’t participate in the relevant “energy efficiency” policy?

In fact, as a condition of her employment with the Obama administration, while Ms. Zoi maintained significant security holdings in Serious Materials and Landis+Gyr, she promised to “not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect on the[ir] financial interest” without obtaining a waiver first.

But then, if she doesn’t participate in decisions that could have a “direct and predictable effect” on her Landis+Gyr holdings and she doesn’t participate in decisions that could have a “direct and predictable effect” on her holdings in Serious Materials, it seems worth asking in which decisions she can participate.

What, precisely, is she doing on our dime, and why is she permitted to carry such obvious conflicts of interest that appear to preclude her from working on nearly any matter of substance under her purview?

Doesn’t Zoi’s involvement in these issues raise serious ethical [5] or legal [5] issues? And what happened to the high ethics and complete transparency promised by the Obama administration?

Tell Senator McCain to kill the Dodd Bill,

With Congress spending TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars and the Federal Reserve literally creating money out of thin air, it’s never been more important you and I force Senator John McCain to support Audit the Fed and oppose Senator Chris Dodd’s “Fed Empowerment” Bill.

      You see, Senator McCain is trying to play the Washington game.

      He tries to tell folks like you at home that he is a conservative by signing up as a co-sponsor of S. 604, the Senate Audit the Fed Bill.

      But actions speak louder than words.

      Demand Senator McCain prove to you he will walk the walk by killing the Dodd “Fed Empowerment” Bill and truly supporting an Audit of the Fed.

      Senator Dodd’s “Fed Empowerment” Bill eliminates Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed legislation and expands the Fed policies that wrecked our economy.

      Demand Senator McCain stand for sound money and against empowering an already out of control Federal Reserve by supporting Audit the Fed and by opposing Senator Dodd’s “Fed Empowerment” Bill.

      Call Senator McCain at (202) 224-2235 and insist he support Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed Bill and demand he oppose empowering the Fed.

      Tell Senator McCain to kill the Dodd Bill, not make “insider” fixes.

      Sign our petition below and send a message to Senator McCain that you will not tolerate empowering the Fed to plunder our dollar and loot our Treasury by being allowed to operate in secret and continuing the bailouts forever.

      Campaign for Liberty will collect all signed petitions and fax them directly to Senator McCain’s office so he can hear your voice demanding he kill the Dodd Bill and support Audit the Fed.

To sign petition see blow