Sunday, January 30, 2011


By Marc Chagall

In the Book of Exodus, the Jewish people, people of G-d, after many years of slavery, after G-d sending to Egypt 10 plagues, after all their troubles, were finally freed from bondage.  Today we are witnessing a modern exodus from Egypt. Not an exodus of one religious group (Although Egypt destroyed its Jewish community in the 1950s.), but of IsraelisAmericans, Europeans, and rich Egyptians.
The top shareholder in the East Mediterranean Gas Company (EMG) has fled Egypt, according to a report by the Associated Press.

Hussein Salem, a close confidant of President Hosni Mubarak and the controlling shareholder in EMG, which holds long-term sales contracts to supply natural gas to Israel, fled the capital over the weekend.

Salem was joined by dozens of other wealthy Egyptian and Arab business leaders who crowded aboard 19 private jets Saturday at Cairo Airport, an unnamed official told AP.

Most of the planes were headed for Dubai
Funny how the rich flee like rats from a sinking ship. They will be able to spend their lives in Dubai living in luxury while their nation suffers.

It took Obama a few days, but he is rescuing stranded Americans.
CAIRO -- The U.S. Embassy in Egypt on Sunday recommended that Americans leave the country as soon as possible, while other nations urged their nationals to avoid traveling to Cairo as days of protests descended into chaos, with looters roaming the streets and travelers stranded in the airport.

The Sunday morning travel warning came as uncertainty mounted over how the demonstrations that have roiled the Arab world's most populous nation will play out. Those questions, coupled with the growing lawlessness, have panicked Egyptians and foreigners alike, with thousands flocking to the airport frantically trying to secure a dwindling number of available seats. Others hopped on private jets and made their escape.

The travel warning said the Embassy will update Americans about departure assistance as soon as possible. Other nations, including China, France, Germany, Belgium and Russia have warned or advised their citizens against travel to Egypt.

The U.S. has yet to send in any special flights, and the only American carrier with direct service to Cairo, Delta Airlines, has suspended that service. Other nations, however, have flown in additional flights to evacuate their citizens as a growing number of commercial flights are either canceled, suspended or delayed because of a curfew that only leaves a few hours in which people can freely move around the city.
Egypt has shut down Al Jazeera.
Egypt has shut down the offices of Al Jazeera after the pan-Arab satellite network interviewed Muslim radicals preaching incitement against the Mubarak regime. The United States has not yet commented.

One Al Jazeera correspondent wrote on his Twitter account, "Don’t worry we’ll still report what’s happening in Egypt no matter what new restrictions they put on us." Al Jazeera's 24-hour news network has been reporting almost exclusively on the uprising in Egypt.

Full Story
Hosni Mubarak still has the support of the Egyptian military as they have tanks on the street and jets in the air.
Egypt sent its tanks into Cairo over the weekend and its fighter planes soared through the skies overhead in an effort to persuade protesters to return home.

Military helicopters hovered over the crowds and trucks of soldiers appeared in the central square of the capital where protesters continued to call for the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak.

State media reported that Mubarak held talks with top military commanders earlier in the day, as troops attempted to enforce a 4:00 p.m. curfew in a city of some 18 million people.

Hundreds of Muslim terrorists and thousands of other inmates were freed by armed gangs from jails across the capital just before dawn on Sunday. The former prisoners rushed into the city with guns, sticks and clubs, indiscriminately smashing cars and robbing people.
As long as the Egyptian military backs Mubarak, he is safe. But for how long.

What started in Tunisia, has spread to Lebanon, Jordan,Egypt, Yemen, but not to the Palestinian Authority (PA).  Though Al Jazeera has tried to formant unrest, their efforts failed miserably.  Where ever Al Jazeera has been successful, the new governments have become Islamic regimes fashioned after Iran's.  Which leads me to wonder if Iran has been planning this all along?

Egypt is falling, Jordan could be next.  Funny how Syria is calm with no rioting, no protests. But Syria is an ally to Iran.

By Findalis

Friday, January 28, 2011

Deja Vu?

By Findalis

The one difference this time is if the Muslim Brotherhood does take over Egypt, one of the first things they have announced they will do is to renege on the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, open up the border with Gaza and flood Gaza with military weapons (tanks, artillery, etc...).  I predict that the whole region will be at war by the end of the year, if not sooner.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Alice Bach of Case Western University-Professor or Propagandist?

Gary Fouse

Hat tip to Campus Watch

Campus Watch has featured an article about Case Western University Professor Alice Bach and a piece she wrote for the Huffington Post. That post is linked below. After reading it, I felt like it was old home week at UC-Irvine listening to all the Israel-haters who come to speak at our campus. I have chosen to comment on her piece, bit by bit, not because I disagree with her (which I do) rather because it calls into question whether she is shoving her bias down her students' collective throats in the classroom. In the below piece, she argues against the Dept. of Education's decision to apply Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to cover Jewish students who are victims of anti-Semitism on campus. Note the title, "Whose Land is it Anyway?"

Professor Alice Bach holds the Archbishop Hallinan Chair in Religious Studies and directs the Hallinan Project for Peace and Social Justice at a major midwestern university.

"When I read about the altered interpretation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, heralded by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), I felt the familiar cold creep of attack settling in my spine. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. A large research university, such as the one at which I teach, is the beneficiary of many funds from federal agencies, and could lose this funding if it is found that we have discriminated on the basis of race, color, or national origin, and voluntary compliance cannot be achieved. Thus, if the ZOA's report that anti-Semitism is to be an emendation to Title VI is accurate, once again we shall be in the tactical sights of the Campus Watchers. Anti-Semitism is undoubtedly despicable, but it is miserable to be subjected to false charges of anti-Semitism merely for presenting Palestinian voices."

Note at the outset that Bach's paper is loaded with labels. The first one she uses is "Campus Watchers", a reference to the blog, Campus Watch, which has featured her article. It also strikes me as strange that she would deny civil rights protection to a particular group. Would she also object to protections against African-Americans on the basis that those who may disagree with, say, affirmative action, would be falsely labeled as "racists" as well as those who complain about illegal immigration as being anti-Hispanic?

"I've endured such false charges previously. They are wretched to live through, intimidating, and hostile to a culture of free academic inquiry. Palestinian aspirations for freedom are intentionally suppressed through falsified and misleading accounts and negative comments about pro-Palestinian classes and lectures. After some anonymous threats delivered by late-night phone calls to my home, the University gave me added security protection, and had plain-clothes security sitting in the audience as well as uniformed people at events. However, none of the leading administrators ever attended one of the events that caused the threats."

I am not accusing Ms Bach of being anti-Semitic in any way-or being a self-hating Jew if she is Jewish. (I don't know or care. It's a term I don't use to begin with.) If she has received threats, that is regrettable. I have seen many of her opinion speak at UC-Irvine, and they never needed any police protection. The ones who do are those who would dare speak on a campus with opposing views. Just ask David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes or Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren.

"ZOA president Morton Klein notes schools could lose funding under the new US Department of Education interpretation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act "if they do not protect students from anti-Semitic harassment, intimidation, and discrimination." Provided in the ZOA press release is a letter dated October 26, 2010 from Russlynn Ali, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education, stating that "anti-Semitic harassment can trigger responsibilities under Title VI. While Title VI does not cover discrimination based solely on religion, groups [such as Jews] that face discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics may not be denied protection under Title VI on the ground that they also share a common faith."'

I would argue that Russlyn Ali had to be dragged into applying Title VI protections to Jews. It was the DOE-OCR 's position during the ZOA complaint against UC-Irvine a few years back that Title VI did not apply to Jews. I would also say that I have no problem with a school losing federal funding when it hosts speakers like Amir Abdel Malik Ali or Mohammed al-Asi, who make a habit of railing against Jews in their speeches. If a Mohammed al-Asi can stand on a campus and tell a crowd that "you can take the Jew out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the Jew", I would take away federal funding too.

"How many professors will decide it's not worth the trouble to challenge the narratives of the well-organized Hillel, AIPAC, ZOA, Campus Watch, and other right-wing, pro-Israel groups that descend upon those who teach interpretations different from the Israeli hardline? Where will the line be drawn between criticism of Israeli policy and genuine anti-Semitism? Will it be deemed anti-Semitic for a Palestinian to assert that he regards Israel as an illegitimate state because it stole his family's land, ethnically cleansed him, and refuses to extend equal rights to those Palestinians who remain? Some expansive definitions of anti-Semitism regard such talk as a textbook case of anti-Jewish bigotry. The Jewish pro-Palestinian speakers I have hosted were called self-hating Jews, and the non-Jewish speakers were identified by the Hillel-led group as anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, and worse. It's absurd, but true, and could be coming soon to a campus near you."

Note the labels; well-financed, right-wing, hardline, ethnically-cleansed. I would also note that Ms Bach should hardly consider Hillel to be her enemy. They are one of several Jewish organizations that have failed to stand up to anti-Semitism on many campuses. She also tells us that she hosts pro-Palestinian speakers (Yes, many of them are, indeed of Jewish origin). My question is whether she hosts them in forums and seminars or in her classroom.

"For most of my academic career, I have believed that controversy in the classroom eventually leads to a stronger community. Silencing conflict through a bland insistence upon political correctness confirms the fear that controversy is both uncomfortable and to be avoided at all costs. Students may love Kermit's lament that it is not easy being green, but it is far tougher to hear from a classmate that it is not easy being brown."

Here she pretty much confirms that she brings her views into the classroom (which I studiously do not).Is she serious when she says that political correctness lies on the other side (from her views)? C'mon! Political correctness is solidly on the pro-Palestinian side in virtually all universities. And here we go again with the "brown" line. Is she trying to insert race into the argument in an effort to win sympathy from other "brown people"? Political correctness is also constantly trying to make white people (and students) feel guilty about past acts of racism toward "brown people". It is part and parcel of the post-colonial line that dominates discourse on campus.

"On the plane home from my usual summer trip to the West Bank, I thought about the struggles Palestinian students and faculty have at the West Bank's Birzeit University in getting to school when the Israelis set flying checkpoints. I thought of the younger kids aimlessly playing in grim refugee camps, although they are refugees in their own land. I decided to challenge my undergrads to struggle through the subtleties of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Having taught and survived the backlash against feminist and multicultural perspectives, I knew most of the challenges of teaching against the grain."

I'm not sure what that has to do with protecting Jewish students on campus from anti-Semitism other than the Israel-Palestinian conflict has stoked much of this atmosphere, and if she wants to spend her summers on the West Bank, she is free to do so. Personally, I'll opt for a German beer garden. Here again, however, she exposes herself as someone who brings her personal views into the classroom. Here again, she drags in topics that are unrelated (feminism, multiculturalism). Teaching against the grain? Hardly.

"Thus, I offered a course entitled "Whose Land is it Anyway?," which was rife with the pitfalls of politics, religious tensions, and realities of the Occupation that had never been offered at my university. Contemporary politics are not of great interest in this midwestern research university in which the majority of students focus on the hard sciences and engineering. Although we have a Jewish Studies minor, we do not at this time teach Arab history, culture, or literature."

What? Does she think her class (es) are somehow unique on a university campus? Middle East studies across the nation are dominated by the pro-Palestinian perspective. The "realities of the Ocuupation"? Fair and balanced? I doubt it.

"As a biblical scholar, I intended to present a foundation for the Israeli claims to the "Holy Land," and then to study the historicity of these claims. With these ancient textual claims discussed, we would move to the contemporary issues of land and border disputes. We wrestled with scholars who write against the grain: important voices arguing the case that the Israeli Occupation is in reality an ongoing Palestinian genocide, which evoked Holocaust comparisons. During the semester we grappled with the effects of the Zionist eradication of Palestinian names of towns, streets, mountains, and landscape, replacing them with biblical names. One student asked if Arabs could speak Hebrew. Another insisted that there were no such people as Palestinians."

Here we go again. "Genocide", "occupation", "Holocaust comparisons" "Zionist eradication" "no such people as Palestinians"? Could you go further into the reasoning the student used, such as the origin of the term, the history of the Palestinian nation etc? It seems obvious that in Ms Bach's class, the outcome of the discussion is pre-ordained.

"To supplement the course, I invited internationally known scholars to speak at the University about the realities of the forty-plus years of Israeli Occupation, the role of American Jews in support of Israel, the Israeli occupation forces bulldozing of Palestinian houses in the West Bank, and the illegal Israeli settlements. Class discussions remained civil and occasionally passionate, though a self-described Zionist columnist wrote a nasty piece in the student newspaper."

More labels. Her side? "Internationally known scholars". "Israeli Occupation" (occupation capitalized, no less.)The role of American Jews. Illegal settlements and the "Zionist" columnists.

"At least students are thinking about these issues, I reassured myself. But when Zionist community leaders claimed that I was striking fear into Jewish students on campus, I knew I would have to defend myself, in spite of the misrepresentations and exaggerations about the course and the speakers who had presented their views."

Yes, thinking your way. Here again is the term, Zionist" (community). It is interesting how the left uses the term "Zionist" as a sinister pejorative.

"After a campus appearance by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, coincidentally while their book was enjoying a place of prominence on the best-seller list, outraged emails poured in and late-night telephone threats began. None of the emails from colleagues were from those who attended the event. Rather they were from people I did not know personally, who excoriated me for supporting an "anti-Israel" position. Several demanded of the president that I be fired."

Here again, if Bach experienced harassment and/o r threats, I condemn that. I would also never argue that she be fired. Criticism, however, is always legitimate. (Mearshimer and Walt co-authored a book critical of Israel.)

"By the time Norman Finkelstein, Ali Abunimah, and Alison Weir had spoken here, I was told that the University had received more than 60 letters from irritated alumni, donors, and community leaders. While the administration acknowledged that I have academic freedom, they insisted that I must present "both sides" in future events. There must be no thought that I was demonizing the state of Israel. I, of course, have no problem with presenting compelling and powerful Jewish voices addressing the subjugation of Palestinians under Israeli rule. But I have no desire to use my time and energy to bring defenders of the domination of another people to campus. Certainly, I would not have worked two decades ago to bring defenders of apartheid to campus to provide "balance." It is unreasonable to ask for such balance on Israel and Palestine."

Norman Finkelstein??!! I should rest my case right here? Finkelstein is a discredited ex-professor who was canned by DePaul University because his 'scholarship" was deemed bogus. Today, he is introduced as "an independent scholar with a PhD from Princeton" as he makes the university tour on behalf of the pro-Palestinian activists. I have heard this guy speak at UC-Irvine twice. He is virulently anti-Israel and delights in insulting those with whom he disagrees or those who question his views-especially if they are young students not equipped to go toe-to-toe with him.

Here is the Wikipedia entry for Ali Abunima:

Alison Weir is an American anti-Israel activist who also makes the grand tour of university campuses. She is the creator of a movement and video called, "If Americans only knew". She has also appeared at UC-Irvine. I asked her if she were involved in other "humanitarian issues" like Darfur, Iran or anti-Semitism. She said no, only the Israel-Palestinian issue because it involves our own country.

As for bringing in Jewish voices who also condemn Israel, that is hardly providing balance. Many American Jews are against Israel. They are routinely used as window dressing to counter charges of anti-Semitism. (Finkelstein is a classic example.)

"Strikingly, a few months later, the University joined with Hillel and the Jewish Studies program to bring Harvard's Alan Dershowitz to the University, without a speaker to present the other side. Only a few weeks ago, the University joined with the same co-sponsors to bring Israeli right-winger Natan Sharansky to speak. In the University publicity about Sharansky's appearance, he was characterized as "helping people fulfill their life dreams. His story of how one person can make a difference is inspiring." The coverage in the Cleveland Jewish News did not mention Palestinians. During his US college tour, Sharansky was quoted during a speech at Stanford, "I'm ready for a Palestinian state. But only if they stop teaching their children to hate. Palestinians want to live normally, and their identity must mean something more than killing Jews," he continued. "There is no shortcut to peace. We need to build partnerships with those who want to live in peace. It will take time." This was a solo event, heavily advertised by the University (as the Finkelstein talk was not according to Hillel's own documentation) with no reactions to such statements."

I personally don't care if Ms Bach brings in opposing voices to counter her opinions. On-campus events outside of the classroom should be open to all sides and audiences can question what they say-or you can schedule a debate. I get the impression that Ms Bach got heat from Case Western because she brought in one-sided presentations to her classes. I draw a sharp distinction between the two. As for Sharansky's quoted statement, I have no quarrel with that at all. It sounds reasonable to me.

"Tired of protesting the paltry support pro-Palestinian students received from the administration and faculty on campus, while the pro-Israel group had the finances of the University and the Jewish Federation behind them, the small Students for Justice in Palestine group dissolved. It's an ironic situation since close to half of the students in the group were Jewish. There is still a Muslim student group, but these days they invite the campus to nonpolitical events. Instead of talking about their fears living in the US with Muslim being too often synonymous with terrorist, they serve falafel and hummus at their open meetings and play Arab hip-hop music."

Good for them. Ms Bach should come out to Irvine and see the Muslim Student Union here at UCI. She should also see how feckless the Orange County Jewish Federation is as well as UCI's Hillel. Were she in Irvine, she would find very little for her side to complain about.

"It is hard not to be astonished at the melodrama of the ZOA and other organizations supporting them. They persist in their undocumented claims that Jewish students are frightened, indeed persecuted, whenever faculty members expose the realities of the Israeli Occupation, support the return to the 1967 borders of the state of Israel as stated in UNSC Resolution 242, and use terms such as ethnic cleansing. I have not seen any evidence of persecution of Jewish students on my campus or the campuses of my colleagues. In spite of the Campus Watch groups, started by Daniel Pipes, in which right-wing student informers report on "pro-Palestinian" lectures, classes, or campus events, many of us persist in trying to offer our students views other than those from Hillel, ZOA, and the newly minted Christians United for Israel (CUFI), CUFI on Campus."

Translation though all the victim tears? We try to indoctrinate students as to our view of Israel (and a myriad of other issues).

"Being a veteran of ZOA half-truths, I read their triumphant press release with suspicion and checked the Government tracking site for Congressional bills in progress to see if the new bill was a rewording of the Ali letter mentioned above. It was not. The two additions proposed in the bill touted by ZOA, sponsored by Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA), do not refer directly either to anti-Semitism or to Jewish students. The bill does indicate that schools must protect students' right to take time off for religious obligations and accommodate their dietary restrictions. While that wording would certainly include Jewish students, it would also embrace the religious obligations and dietary restrictions of all faiths. If that bill were to become law, perhaps the administration here would accommodate Muslim students by canceling required Friday afternoon classes and lunch meetings during Ramadan."

Title VI should, indeed, protect Muslim students from civil rights violations on campus, as well as any other religion. In UCI-Ext ESL classes Muslim students are excused on Friday for mid-day prayers. As for Ramadan, it is a common sense issue. Teachers are aware of the Ramadan period and that students will be fasting and maybe not at their best in class. As for turning the campus schedule upside-down to accommodate these issues and inconvenience all students, I would not go that far.

Let's cut to the chase here. professor Bach is just another in that army of American professors spread out in universities all over the country who are dedicated to de-legitimizing Israel-a process that would, in their vision, destroy Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation. It is an organized program world-wide.

Personally, I don't care about Ms Bach's personal ideology or her beliefs. She is entitled to them. Under the university code of academic freedom, I guess she has the right to shove her beliefs down her students' throats. I would never advocate that professors like Bach be fired-or harassed. It is fair, however, for us to express our own freedom of speech and expose these professors for what they are-indoctrinators. Protected or not, imposing your beliefs upon your students is unprofessional. I also have strong political beliefs and do not hesitate to express them in out-of-class forums. Yet, my students are not exposed to my beliefs in the classroom. The community and parents with kids in college have every right to know how their tuition money is being used.

As for Title VI, it is a recognition that in our universities, the one group of students who are facing the most insults and harassment are Jewish students. That is merely a reflection of what is going on world-wide-a resurgence in anti-Semitism. It may not be the case at Case Western, but it is true in many universities in the US and Canada. That is why Title VI-after a great deal of struggle by organizations like the ZOA- has now been applied to Jews.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

In Humility He Spoke

By Findalis

Book of Obama:  Chapter 12

pon the appointed time the Anointed One, Wearer of the Mantle of Power, returned to the Dome of the Capital. Dressed in the holy suit and tie, bearing upon His lapel the shield of the flag and wearing upon His face the look of contrition, He walked in to addressed the nation.

Upon arrival the assembled chapter of the Congress, the Holy Justices of the land, the members of the anointed Cabinet and guests from near and far, the Anointed One, Wearer of the Mantle of Power, spoke:
et Me first congratulate the members of the 112th Congress, the new Speaker of the House, and We send Our prayers to Our dear friend Gabby Gifford, who's empty chair reminds us of the violence of those who own guns will do.
We have not seen eye to eye these last two years.  While I have tried to steer this nation towards the European Model which is the best one.  The Republicans have tried to thwart Me.  They even were able to convince the people to turn on Me.  I have received their message.  I will enter the center.

We are one nation, one family.  We can work out our differences so long as you follow My plan and My way.  I know best, you do not.

I will not spend our money foolishly anymore, but will INVEST for the future. The future of energy. The future of education. The future of our economy. See we are not spending. We are investing. Though these investments will cost us trillions.

This not about Me, or who will win the next election (I will.), but about how I am going to get you to ignore the past two years and vote for Me in 2012.

I am poised for greatness, but are heading for failure. This is not My fault. It is the fault of our teachers, our scientist, previous Presidents. But not Me.

India and China outshine us. China is better than us in everything. I cannot compete with them. They are better in math and science. They out produce us. They own our nation. I must bow down to them.

I propose that we are having a Sputnik Moment. While the whole world is speeding ahead of us in technology, education, innovation, we lag behind. I do not spend enough on these areas. Therefore I propose that we throw away more money on these ideas. After all that is the only policy I know.

I propose that we cut discretionary spending, but only a little bit.  I want to fool the people, not actually do any cuts except for the Military. There gays can serve openly, I will remove our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan this year, and destroy all of our nukes too.

I must not hold teachers accountable for their actions in the classroom.  I put all the blame on the parents.  Nothing is the teacher's fault, there are no bad teachers, you must never fire a teacher.

I will give every person a free education. It will not teach the basics, they are not necessary. It will teach all the touchy-feely ideas My friend Bill thinks we should teach.

I will give an almost free college education. Not just to our citizens, but to every illegal undocumented immigrant too.

In fact, to every young person listening tonight who’s contemplating their career choice: If you want to make a difference in the life of our nation; if you want to make a difference in the life of a child – become a teacher. You can never be fired.

I will not allow you to destroy the Healthcare Law.  It is My greatest achievements and will be My legacy to the nation.  Now and in the future.

Just as I have done in the White House, I will demand greater transparency for this Congress. It has worked just fine for us. This Congress will have everyone looking down on them. What bills they write. What lobbyists they see. How many earmarks they have. It will be wonderful for the people.

I will double our exports by 2014, as soon as I discover what we export. I will cut government regulation on businesses. And cut the tax rate on business.

I will balance the budget, and cut the defect.
I will restore this economy.
I will bring peace to the world.
I will make the internet faster for all.
I will bring high speed trains to every city.
I am Obama! I can do it all!

You see, I am the center.
And the multitudes listened to the speech, but for once the Anointed One did not stir the multitudes.  The speech fell flat, uninspiring.  The Messiah had lost his voice.

For upon listening to this speech it was like being sweet talked by Tiger Woods.  Neither would be believed by the listener.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Speaking of Vitriolic Speech......

Gary Fouse

In the wake of all these charges about "overheated rhetoric" and "vitriolic speech" that come from the right and supposedly led to the Tucson shooting, let's take a look at the overheated rhetoric and vitriolic speech that comes from the left.

Of course, we all know that for 8 years, George W. Bush was called everything in the book by his detractors. It began when he was accused of having stolen the election in Florida (all he really did was survive an attempt by Al Gore to steal said election.) On the day, Bush was inaugurated, his car was pelted with eggs as he was driven to the White House. He was accused of being a draft dodger by the likes of Michael Moore and Bill Maher, none of whom ever served a day in the military, reserve or otherwise. He was and is accused of orchestrating 9-11. A movie was produced entitled, " The Assassination of George W. Bush". In addition, Air America radio host, Randi Rhodes, once said on air that (they) should put Bush on a boat, sail him out on the water and do to him what they did to Fredo in "The Godfather".

"Comparing Bush and his family to the Corleones of "Godfather" fame, Air America host Randi Rhodes reportedly unleashed this zinger during her Monday night broadcast: "Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw. "

Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot."

Let's go back to Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton. During the impeachment hearings, Alec Baldwin, who knows a thing or two about over-heated rhetoric, made a spectacle out of himself when he appeared on a talk show and advocated that Henry Hyde and all his family should be killed. (Of course, it was all done in good humor.)

Don't forget the things that have been said about Dick Cheney. Left-wing radio talk show host, Mike Malloy, has said this about the former vice-president:

"I’m not going to feel anything but intense gratitude that this miserable bastard has stepped off this earthly coil. Really! And I’m sure on a much lesser scale when I die, there will be some of you right-wing flip tops who will feel the same way, I frankly don’t give a damn!

....Cheney is responsible, Cheney is a murderer, he’s a killer, he’s a torturer, he is evil personified! He is a walking mass of horror and when he’s gone this planet will be cleaner!"

(Source: Blugrass Pundit)

Today, Larry Elder, a black, conservative talk show host, told his radio audience about the time, Jeanine Garofalo referred to him as a racist, douche bag, and fascist. She, of course, is remembered for telling an MSNBC audience that President Obama;'s opponents are "straight up racists." Michael Moore also recently said that those who are against Obama's policies don't want to have a black man in the White House. Elder is not the only black conservative who gets these labels. Remember when Condoleeza Rice was referred to as an "Aunt Jemima" and "plantation house slave" for President Bush? Remember the caricatures?

And then there is your friend and mine, Keith Olbermann. Which outrageous statement should I pick out of the huge grab sack of Keithisms? I think the best is when he called tea party folks, "slack-jawed tea-baggers" with all of its sexual innuendo, which he delighted in using on air.

Talk about dishonesty, how about New York Times columnist Paul Krugman? This is a man who won the Nobel Prize for Economics, yet changes his economic theories according to who is in the White House. Krugman is quoting Michele Bachmann as saying she wants her followers to be "armed and dangerous". What she really said was that she wanted her followers to be armed with information and dangerous in debate.

Question: Who said, "God Damn America"?

a- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

b- Osama bin Laden

c- Vladimir Putin

d -Jeremiah Wright

The answer may be all four, but one is an American-Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for 20 years.

Here's another. Who said, "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun."?

a Mack the Knife

b Charles Manson

c Esteban Nunez

d Jerod Loughner

e Barack Obama

The answer is "e".

Surely by now, you have all seen the Sarah Palin maps of the USA with election targets marked in cross-hairs, right? Here it is.

Here is a map the DLC put out in 2004 using bulls'eyes.

If you want to see and hear five straight hours of vitriolic speech, just tune into MSNBC beginning with "Butter and Egg man" Ed Schultz and continuing with Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and finally Lawrence O'Donnell before finally "mellowing out" with re-runs of "Lock Up". It is five hours of repeating the same stuff over and over-attack after attack after attack.

Hypocrisy? This is not just a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The kettle isn't even black.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

America Where Is Your Shame?

By Findalis

From the Concession Stands and T-Shirts (Hat Tip to Adrienne's Corner), to the White Sweater a la June Cleaver and the Klingon War Belt worn by Michelle Obama, to the Indian Medicine Man giving a Pagan blessing to the Christian dead.  This so-called Memorial was anything but a memorial.

This was nothing less than a Democratic Pep Rally complete with the screaming, adoring crowds. Any semblance of dignity was absent from the moment this abomination was planned.

This makes me wonder what type of person raised the little bastards who attended this event?  Who dressed and acted like it was a football game.  Have they no decency?  No sense of honor?  NO SHAME?  Were they not taught proper manners?  I guess not.

From the President of the University to the students and facility present the nation and the world witnessed the full flower of bad manners.  But this is now acceptable in today's society. Get with the program we are told. We need to heal.

Sorry but that is not good enough. There are certain standards of behavior that the participants at this event did not come even close to achieving.  They did show their disrespect to the grieving families loud and clear.

We can now say loud and clearly that America has totally lost her moral compass for good.

G-d help us all.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Is the Reichstag Burning?

Gary Fouse

Within weeks of Adolf Hitler's coming to power in Germany, the Reichstag building (parliament) was set on fire late one February night in Berlin. When police responded, the only person they discovered in the building was a mentally disturbed young Dutchman named Marinus van der Lubbe. He was subsequently put on trial and executed by beheading. Since that time, there has been much speculation that the Nazis deliberately set the blaze. To this day, there has been no definite resolution of that question. Nevertheless, Hitler used the fire to lash out at his opposition, namely the Communists and the Social Democrats. An Enabling Law was passed that gave Hitler dictatorial powers in the face of this "threat". Communists, Social Democrats and other opposition figures were arrested and shipped off to concentration camps like Dachau.

I know some of my readers criticize me for often using Nazi analogies to describe current events. The question here is whether the Tucson incident will be used by government leaders, media and others to try and crack down on their opponents. (i.e. conservative pundits, tea party etc.) Is it possible that the incident in Tucson, which was carried out by an obviously mentally unstable individual whose beliefs are still cloudy, be used to put limits on our free speech and the free exchange of ideas? Or am I overstating this possibility? Let this professional English teacher make it crystal clear:


I am not suggesting for a minute that the shooting in Tucson was orchestrated by our government (like George W Bush has been accused of orchestrating 9-11). Nor am I suggesting for a minute that a round-up is coming, in which Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin tea-partiers and humble bloggers like me are about to be thrown in jail as a reaction to the Tucson incident. Yet, these figures and groups are being blamed for the actions of one demented man. These charges are not only false and unfair, but they are political as well. Am I suggesting that talk radio is going to go silent within the next few days? Of course not. But consider this.

The left's reaction to the opposition is that it is "overheated rhetoric", "racist rhetoric", violent rhetoric", etc. That is also false. Yet, we have working their ways through Congress such ideas as the "Net Neutrality law", which would get the government's foot in the door of the Internet. We have the so-called Fairness Doctrine-specifically aimed at conservative talk radio, which dominates the air waves simply because the people want to hear it and liberal talk shows consistently fall on their collective face.The aim of the government is to levy so many petty rules and regulations about "fairness" on radio stations that they would opt to leave talk radio and switch to something easier, say country music, for example,

Now we also hear the voices of politicians like Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois speaking about how free speech is being abused. In addition, left-wing writer Paul Krugman has written an op-ed in Sunday's New York Times blaming the Republicans and the right for Tucson-and Oklahoma City. His article is so absurd it doesn't merit any further response. To hear these people talk, it is free speech that is leading to things like Tucson. That is nonsense.

When the Ft Hood shooting occurred, the liberal media fell all over themselves advising us "not to rush to judgement". They tried to push the idea that Major Hasan was simply a troubled man possibly pushed over the edge by the troubling accounts he heard from soldiers returning from war. In this instance, it is precisely those same media people who are rushing to judgement even in the face of the preliminary evidence that conservative politics and criticism of the government played no role in this tragedy.

Also consider this. We have a highly politicized Justice Department under Eric Holder that pointedly turns a blind eye to the New Black Panther Party intimidating white people at a voting place in Philadelphia and the activities of George Galloway openly collecting funds for the Hamas-led government in Gaza. We have Janet Napolitano describing conservative activists, tea-partiers and returning war vets as a significant danger to national security and public safety.

However, when you look at the facts, there have been no incidents I am aware of involving violence or threats of violence at tea parties or town hall meetings. The only violent incidents were instigated by goons from the unions or others in opposition to tea parties. No talk show host or conservative politician has called for violence. Is there fierce opposition to government policies under this administration? Has there been "heated rhetoric"? Yes, but it has been done in a lawful manner.

So call me crazy if I once again drag out my tired old analogies to the Third Reich. I am not comparing this administration and its supporters to Nazis. But as you listen to the rhetoric from the Democrats and the liberal media, remember this; in the Reichstag fire, the German government took one mentally-disturbed individual and used the incident to wipe out dissent and opposition. In Tucson, we have one mentally-disturbed individual. From that, there is a move to discredit the opposition voices and perhaps silence them.

Arrests and banning of parties? No. Government infiltration, Internet neutrality legislation, and Fairness Doctrine?


Monday, January 10, 2011

Lionheart Speaks Out!

By Findalis

For those of my readers who do not know who Lionheart is:

Paul Ray is a former Drug Dealer from Luton, England who uses the Nom de Plume Lionheart .  A former drug dealer, he has turned his attention to fighting the Islamic take over of his hometown of Luton and of Great Britain. His blog, Lionheart came to the attention of both the Pakistani drug gangs and the Luton police.  The first put out a contract on Paul's life, the second arrested him for hate speech. In 2009 the charges against Paul were dropped.

At first Paul welcomed the English Defence League (EDL) into the fight against their common foe, but he cut off ties with them for various reasons.

This latest report from Great Britain concerns the EDL
The integrity of the counter-jihad movement in the West

It seems that any criticism rightly or wrongly of perceived injustices or downright serious criminal activities and their subsequent support and cover up is met with stone cold silence by the online media commentators of the Western counter-jihad movement. Either this or vocal opposition that you would dare to have an opinion and share it in a public forum that is contrary to what they want people to hear, which then singles you out to be the one in the wrong and then demeaned in the eyes of their readers.

This can only be described as a form of collective denial syndrome.

Its like Basil Fawlty “whatever you do, don’t mention the war”.

Many online media commentators within the CJ movement are often complaining about how the mainstream media never portray certain issues in the correct light, or are always covering up the issues they themselves are addressing, which inevitably leads to the MSM media as being labeled as biased etc

After watching things myself as an observer with his own personal interest of the CJ movement around the World, and at home with the EDL leadership, I can only come to the conclusion that many of the online commentators I have followed have absolutely no integrity, and would prefer to cover up the truth or stay silent which makes them no better than the MSM that they are so quick to condemn, and are culpable for any criminal acts they have stayed silent over. Their silence and continued support makes them no better than the criminals themselves because they are endorsing their actions by their knowing silence and continued public support.

Maybe it’s my naivety about this subject, but why should anyone in power or in control over decision making within government ever listen to the views of those within the CJ movement when they lie, cover up, and stay silent over very serious issues because it contradicts their own personal agenda.

Those in power and in control of decision making are not stupid; they have a good grasp of the facts, not the facts that are a part of the collective denial syndrome, the actual facts which inevitably determines their opinions and their actions.

Whether people like it or not there is a whole body of evidence in the public domain detailing the extreme right wing neo-nazi influence controlling the English Defence League. This take-over of the EDL happened very early on in the life of the EDL, and over time the facts have emerged, contrary to what EDL supporters have wanted to believe, so they taken the collective denial syndrome approach even in the face of over whelming evidence.

Just because “Tommy Robinson” or “Roberta Moore” tell you something doesn’t mean it is a fact or true. You have to align what they say with the evidence presented and see whether or not it holds up as the truth.

To any serious follower of the EDL movement either supporter of the cause or enemy of the cause, you will know that what they say as a presented reality and how things actually are in reality are two completely different things.

This then leads onto the question; how can anyone ever believe what they say and publicly support them?
Again, the collective denial syndrome.

This is not an anti-EDL post, this is a leadership issue over the control and direction of the EDL and has been there for some time now, concerning many within the EDL movement, past and present. The EDL movement is bigger than 2 or 3 people, it is made up of a large number of committed English/British patriots all over the country, only those 2 or 3 supported by others, have a strangle hold over the leadership so no matter what their misdemeanors are, the whole movement have to put up with it. Then the online CJ media commentators complete silence and continued support of those who have committed acts not befitting leadership that they know about means a continued endorsement of that leadership in the public eye. Thus, why should anyone in power or positions of influence ever take the EDL seriously? Other than the fact that they cost the tax payer millions and are a threat to civil order in Britain.

Smashing up your own country, lying at every opportunity, and covering up and protecting your paedophile friends is definitely not a credible organisation in my eyes, which is completely detrimental to the original aims and intentions of the movement as a whole, and makes the hard work of all those loyal committed people involved with the EDL for the right reasons, be for nothing.

Look at Snowy for instance who spent time in prison for his roof top protest who has now been expelled from the EDL, just because “Tommy” had the power to do so because him and his leadership control the online presence. Snowy’s case has its own story, but did you hear any CJ commentators stand up for him after what he did for the English cause within Britain? SILENCE

Collective denial syndrome.

As I have said, I am not anti the EDL cause, how could I be when contrary to public opinion based upon lies, I was the architect of the movement from its inception in Luton. The EDL cause is bigger than those who have a strangle hold over the leadership of the movement on the street. No matter what happens to “Tommy”, “Roberta”, “Kevin” or anyone else, the membership will still be in place and the movement will still move forward under a new leadership. Even if the EDL is banned the movement will still continue because it is a popular social movement now, comprised of a people united in a common belief and vision, only at present under this current leadership it has become an un-popular social movement to most people outside of the EDL and their collective denial commentators and you only have to look on youtube or google to see another opinion of the EDL from the outside.

This recent EDL Noncegate affair in my personal opinion is one step too far for anyone concerning this current EDL leadership, although there are still those attacking and criticsing me for daring to share an opinion on the matter, and everyone else is still affected by the collective denial syndrome.

“whatever you do, don’t mention the war”.

If this does not wake people up to reality from their denial and force them to start acting with some form of human decency and integrity, by way of publicly criticising and distancing themselves from those involved in lying to the EDL membership, and supporting and covering up for their EDL leadership friend who pleaded guilty to downloading sexually explicit images of children, then nothing will.

Continued silence means complicity in the whole affair, and means continued support in the public EDL eye of those who are guilty over the whole affair.

Of course there is the usual backtracking and lies by those involved, but it is too late, the damage has already been done because they lied to the EDL membership and covered up a very very serious criminal offence against the most innocent and vulnerable in society – Our children.

The EDL membership just do not want to believe this really happened, their friend downloading child porn, and the leadership have not helped by blaming everyone else, even the British Security Services, rather than actually admit their EDL leader owned up to his own actions, with the EDL leadership then attempting to cover it up for him.

The online counter-jihad media commentators around the world can continue to ignore this very serious event within the life of the English Defence League because it conflicts with their own personal agendas, but there are some who will not, and until justice is served for all those who know this is a step too far for anyone including “Tommy Robinson”, there will be people who will continue to raise awareness to this ongoing story and any more that unfold with this current EDL leadership.

Do not say you were not warned, when you could have acted and done what was right and spoken out but chose not to and continued in your collective denial. An open letter has been presented here on this blog asking Rabbi Nachum Shifren to make his position clear due to the fact that he is this leadership’s most high profile supporter so we would like to see his public position on the EDL Noncegate affair, and silence is not an option for him now.

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Let the Blame Game Begin

Gary Fouse

Even while Gabrielle Giffords fights for her life, the left has already decided who is responsible for the tragedy in Tucson. At this stage, we know some details about the accused shooter, Jared Lee Loughner. It appears on the surface that he is a deeply disturbed young man who left a bizarre YouTube video that rambled about people not being literate and contained strange references to English grammar etc. If we were to make a guess, we might say he is a latter-day Mark David Chapman. His favorite books include Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. Giffords herself is a centrist who criticized the government for not securing the southern border and supports 2nd Amendment gun rights. Yet, before all the facts are in , the left-wing media, particularly MSNBC and the Huffington Post, have reached a verdict. Behind Jared Lee Loughner lie the usual suspects; the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, talk radio, Sarah Palin, the Republicans, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Fox News.

The Huffington Post is tilting starboard with all the opinions of its leftist commentators assessing blame. They even feature an "important message" from Keith Olbermann ("hat tip" to Huffpo).

Olbermann, while admitting that he once made an error in rhetoric regarding Hillary Clinton, predictably named all of his enemies in discussing the blame for the shootings in Tucson.

What's worse, it is entirely possible that come Monday, many in Congress will renew their calls for censorship on talk radio, Fox News, the blogosphere, and any disagreement with the administration's agenda (which, of course, must be racist in nature).

As is my wont, I spent most of my time yesterday following the news on Fox. There was no partisanship going on. Shepherd Smith did a professional job following the rapidly-moving news story. Everybody was hoping and praying for the recovery of all involved. Yesterday was not a day for Republicans vs Democrats, liberals vs conservatives, etc. We should have all been pulling together as decent Americans. That is what I witnessed yesterday on Fox News and on into this morning.

And lest one of my readers point it out, let me admit here that not too long ago, I posted an article on Giffords when she asked a general during hearings about what steps the military in Afghanistan was taking to reduce the carbon footprint caused by the military presence in that nation. I poked fun at her for that question and called her an "airhead". It is easy to say I wish I had those words back now. I could, of course, go back and delete that comment and hope nobody remembered it. I would rather own up to it. Is that the kind of remark that may lead a nut like Loughner to pick up a gun? I seriously doubt it, but maybe Mr Olbermann feels otherwise. The truth is that if you want to go down that road with people like Limbaugh, Palin and Beck, then Olbermann is as guilty as anyone for the incendiary things he has said about conservatives. Had Giffords been a conservative Republican, would we be condemning Olbermann for all his remarks about "slack-jawed tea-baggers"? If you want to hear angry vitriol, take the time to spend 5 hours on any one night on MSNBC listening to the same tired old theme about how racist and ignorant conservatives, Republicans and Tea-Partiers are.

We will learn more about Loughner in the days ahead, and perhaps, a link to some group may be found. The Huffington Post is already speculating about some tenuous tie to some racist group called American Renaissance. We shall see. In the meantime, no connection to any tea party, conservative talk show host or Fox News has been found. Until that occurs, the record of the tea party groups is still clean. There has been no violent incident that I am aware of carried out by the tea party groups. In fact, the only violent incidents at tea party rallies or town hall meetings that I know of were carried out by their opponents in places like Tampa and St Louis. Of course, none of that matters to partisan media hacks like Olbermann and the rest of his ilk.

One would think that in moments like this, we could all pull together instead of using a tragedy to make political points, points that-as yet- are not there.

Why don't we take a breath, let the facts come out and all join together to pray for Giffords, the other victims and their families?

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

The Saudis Caught A Mossad Agent!

By Findalis

Code Named R65 this agent was definitely from Israel. There was no denying it. His/Her ankle ring said: Tel Aviv University.
Saudi Arabian security forces have captured a vulture that was carrying a global positioning satellite (GPS) transmitter and a ring etched with the words "Tel Aviv University." They suspect the bird of spying for Israel, Maariv-NRG reported Tuesday. The GPS and ring were connected to the bird as part of an long-term project by Israeli scientists that follows vultures' location and altitude for research purposes.

The arrest of the vulture - whose identification code is R65 - comes several weeks after an Egyptian official voiced the suspicion that a shark that attacked tourists off the Sinai shore was also acting on behalf of Mossad. The incidents may reflect a growing irrational hysteria among Arabs surrounding Israel's military prowess and the efficacy of its intelligence services, possibly fueled by the Stuxnet virus' success..

Maariv said that the R65 was caught near the home of a sheikh in the community of Hayel in Saudi Arabia. The words "Tel Aviv University" etched in English on a ring clasped to its leg, and especially the transmitter, caused the finders to suspect espionage and alert the security forces.

Ohad Hatzofe, bird ecologist for the Nature and Parks Authority, said that the vulture story has been making the rounds in Arabic internet sites, including Al-Jazeera forums and Arabic military forums. "The subject is receiving great publicity and it is important that Saudi authorities understand that it is not true. There is also an international treaty of nature protection professionals, that forbids doing things like this," he added.

The researchers said that seven vultures that were marked in Israel in the last few years reached Saudi Arabia. Transmissions from four of them have ceased and they are presumed dead. One vulture - beside R65 - is still alive and flying around Saudi Arabia, after spending the winter in Sudan.
This shows the true nature of the Muslim mind.  Not a rational thought in it.  Iran executing squirrels and pigeons as Israeli spies, Egypt claiming that the Mossad is sending Sharks to kill their tourists, now vultures in the skies of Saudi Arabia.  These reports make me wonder if anyone in the Muslim world is not insane, stupid and/or stoned out of their mind!

R65 and his/her companion are the only 2 vultures left alive, 4 being killed by the Saudis. R65 has completed his/her mission in the Sudan, is still over Saudi Arabia and will next be spying on the DNC. Perhaps Nixon should have used vultures instead of plumbers.

Soaring high for the Israelis!