Bret Baier – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.04.24
Bob Trent – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program – 2013.04.24
The Glenn Beck Program Saudi Suspect/Boston Bombing Air Date: 4-24-13.
Multiple Confirmations of Immediate Deportation of Saudi National in Boston Bombing
Saudi National and Boston Student Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi Is Being Deported
Janet Napolitano Speaks About Saudi National – TheBlazeTV – Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.04.24
Janet Napolitano refuses to answer questions about the deportation of Saudi national 04/18/13
Obama Buries Boston Massacre Saudi Connection
Saudi Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi Boston Bombing Suspect Deported–why????
Related Articles and Videos
Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment
The Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, (TIDE) is the U.S. Government’s central database on known or suspected international terrorists, and contains highly classified information provided by members of the Intelligence Community such as CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA, and many others.
There are about 745,000 names in TIDE.[1] In 2008, more than 27,000 names were removed from the list when it was determined they no longer met the criteria for inclusion. According to the FBI, international terrorists include those persons who carry out terrorist activities under foreign direction. For this purpose, they may include U.S. persons (U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents).[2] The Terrorist Identities Group (TIG), located in NCTC’s Information Sharing & Knowledge Development Directorate (ISKD), is responsible for building and maintaining TIDE.[3]
From the classified TIDE database, an unclassified, but sensitive, extract is provided to the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, which compiles the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB).
This database, in turn, is used to compile various watch lists such as the TSA’s No Fly List, State Department’s Consular Lookout and Support System, Homeland Security’s Interagency Border Inspection System, and FBI’s NCIC (National Crime Information Center) for state and local law enforcement.
Sen. Rand Paul on America’s Newsroom w/ Megyn Kelly to discuss the Brennan Filibuster – 3/7/13
Rand Paul Fires Back At Filibuster Critics, Shocks Glenn Beck With Revelation
Michelle Malkin: Did Rand Paul’s Filibuster Refurbish The Republican Party’s Tarnished Brand? 3/7/13
Sen. Paul appears on CNN’s Newsroom with Dana Bash- 3/7/2013
#StandWithRand Rand Paul Filibuster Highlights
Rand Paul Interview: Rush Limbaugh (7 March 2013)
Drone Strikes: Where Are Obama’s Tears For Those Child Victims?
Yes, Lethal Drone Attacks on Americans Are Allowed, Says Atty General
“The Obama administration believes it could technically use military force to kill an American on U.S. soil in an “extraordinary circumstance” but has “no intention of doing so,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter disclosed Tuesday.”*
It’s starting to happen. Attorney General Eric Holder says lethal drone attacks without due process on Americans while on American soil, are hypothetically legal. A surprising Republican Senator is standing against it. Do Republicans and Democrats make exceptions for their own “teams?” Cenk Uygur breaks it down.
Sean Hannity & Krauthammer Talk Excitement in GOP Grassroots on Rand Paul Filibuster & Spending Cuts
Drone Strikes on American Citizens, on US Soil. Sen. Rand Paul Talks with Sean Hannity
Reality Check: Sen. Rand Paul’s Talking Filibuster of John Brennan
Rand Paul blasted Obama for using drone strikes against American citizens
Rand Paul “Senators McCain & Graham Voted FOR Indefinite Detention Of Americans!”
What’s ‘Cooler’ Than Being ‘Cool’? Rand Paul’s Filibuster, According To Fox News’ The Five
Importing the War on Terror: Glenn Greenwald & Activist Trevor Timm on Domestic Drone Surveillance
Obama’s Chilling Secrecy, From Denying Drone Program’s Existence to Stonewalling on Legal Memos
Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs revealed over the weekend he was initially instructed to deny the existence of the Obama administration’s targeted killing program overseas. Even though the administration has since backed down from that stance, it continues to stonewall members of Congress on releasing the Justice Department memos explaining the program’s legal rationale. Unanswered questions around the program have held up the confirmation of CIA nominee John Brennan. “For a program that is so far reaching and that has so many consequences — not just in the word, but for the rule of law — the Obama administration has an obligation to be far more transparent than they’ve been so far,” says Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
US drones killed almost five thousand people
Special court to approve of killing Americans with drones?
Obama’s Kill List, Drones, & Assassinating U.S. Citizens
“…Derrick Albert Bell, Jr. (November 6, 1930 – October 5, 2011)[1] was the first tenured African-American professor of Law at Harvard University, and largely credited as the originator of Critical Race Theory. He was the former dean of the University of Oregon School of Law.
Education and early career
Born in the Hill District of Pittsburgh, Bell received an A.B. from Duquesne University in 1952 and an LL.B. from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 1957. After graduation, and after a recommendation from then United States Associate Attorney General William Rogers, Bell took a position with the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department. He was the only black person working for the Justice Department at the time.[citation needed] In 1959, the government asked him to resign his membership in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) because it was thought that his objectivity, and that of the department, might be compromised or called into question.[citation needed] Bell quit rather than giving up his NAACP membership.[citation needed]
Soon afterwards, Bell took a position as an assistant counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), crafting legal strategies at the forefront of the battle to undo racist laws and segregation in schools. At the LDF, he worked alongside other prominent civil rights attorneys such as Thurgood Marshall, Robert L. Carter and Constance Baker Motley. Bell was assigned to Mississippi, the cradle of the deep South, where racism was at its most virulent and entrenched. While working at the LDF, Bell supervised more than 300 school desegregation cases and spearheaded the fight of James Meredith to secure admission to the University of Mississippi over the protests of Governor Ross Barnett. [2]
“I learned a lot about evasiveness, and how racists could use a system to forestall equality,” Bell was quoted as saying in The Boston Globe … “I also learned a lot riding those dusty roads and walking into those sullen hostile courts in Jackson, Mississippi. It just seems that unless something’s pushed, unless you litigate, nothing happens.”[3]
Academic career
USC and Harvard
In the mid-1960s Bell was appointed to the law faculty of the University of Southern California as executive director of the Western Center on Law and Poverty. In 1969, with the help of protests from black Harvard Law School students for a minority faculty member, Bell was hired to teach there. At Harvard, Bell established a new course in civil rights law, published a celebrated case book, Race, Racism and American Law, and produced a steady stream of law review articles. As a teacher, Bell became a mentor and role model to a generation of students of color, but he played a delicate balancing act at the university. Bell became the first black tenured professor in Harvard Law School’s history and called on the university to improve its minority hiring record. But shortly after his tenure in 1971, a white university vice-president tried to purchase a house that Bell had been previously offered through the university; Bell saw this as a case of discrimination. This was the first case in which Bell’s charges of racism would mobilize his supporters, who championed his efforts to stand up for principle, and anger his detractors, who accused him of being too quick with his allegations of bigotry.[3]
Protests over faculty diversity
In 1980 Bell became the dean of the University of Oregon School of Law, becoming one of the first African-Americans to ever head a non-black law school. He resigned in 1985 over a dispute about faculty diversity.[1] Bell then taught at Stanford University for a year.
Returning to Harvard in 1986, Bell staged a five-day sit-in in his office to protest the school’s failure to grant tenure to two legal scholars on staff, both of whom adhered to a movement in legal philosophy that claims legal institutions play a role in the maintenance of the ruling class’ position. The administration claimed substandard scholarship and teaching on the part of the professors as the reason for the denial of tenure, but Bell called it an unambiguous attack on ideology. Bell’s sit-in galvanized student support but sharply divided the faculty.[3]
Bell reentered the debate over hiring practices at Harvard in 1990, when he vowed to take an unpaid leave of absence until the school appointed a female of color to its tenured faculty.[4] At the time, of the law school’s 59 tenured professors, only three were black and five were women. The school had never had a black woman on the tenured staff.[3]
Students held vigils and protests in solidarity with Bell with the support of some faculty. Critics, including some faculty members, called Bell’s methods counterproductive, and Harvard administration officials insisted they had already made enormous advances in hiring.[3] The story of his protest is detailed in his book Confronting Authority.
To some observers, Bell’s lament about Harvard amounted to a call for the school to lower its academic qualifications in the quest to mold a diversified faculty on the campus. But Bell argued that academically able faculty were being ignored and that critics of diversity invariably underplay the value of a faculty that is broadly reflective of society, and, more importantly, that the credentials demanded by institutions like Harvard perpetuate the domination of white, well-off, middle-aged men. As he commented in the Boston Globe, “Let’s look at a few qualifications–say civil rights experience … that might allow [a chance at a tenured teaching position for] more folks here who, like me, maybe didn’t go to the best law school but instead have made a real difference in the world.”[3]
Bell’s protest at Harvard stirred angry criticism by Harvard Law faculty who called him “a media manipulator who unfairly attacked the school. Others say he has deprived students of an education while he makes money on the lecture circuit. Bell, 61, has even drawn fire from some women at Harvard, who complain that he has unfairly hijacked their issue. “This guy is a victim of his own self-delusion,” says one faculty member who asked not to be identified. “He’s an example of the Harvard syndrome: People here can say the most idiotic things, and the only reason they get into print is because they’re from the Harvard Law School.”[5]
Visiting professorship
In 1992, Bell, who had taken a visiting professorship at New York University, was formally removed from the Harvard faculty. In a speech to Harvard students quoted in the Boston Globe, Bell urged the future scholars and activists to continue the moral fights that he had championed, saying: “Your faith in what you believe must be a living, working faith that draws you away from comfort and security, and toward risk through confrontation.”[3]
Harvard ultimately hired civil rights attorney and U.S. Assistant Attorney General nominee Lani Guinier shortly after Bell left. After Bell’s two year leave of absence, Harvard refused to grant an extension and terminated his faculty position. Bell remained at NYU Law where he continued to write and lecture on issues of race and civil rights.
Academic contributions
Bell is arguably the most influential source of thought critical of traditional civil rights discourse. Bell’s critique represented a challenge to the dominant liberal and conservative position on civil rights, race and the law. He employed three major arguments in his analyses of racial patterns in American law: constitutional contradiction, the interest convergence principle, and the price of racial remedies.
Bell continued writing about critical race theory after accepting a teaching position at Harvard University. Much of his legal scholarship was influenced by his experience both as a black man and as a civil rights attorney. Writing in a narrative style, Bell contributed to the intellectual discussions on race. According to Bell, his purpose in writing was to examine the racial issues within the context of their economic and social and political dimensions from a legal standpoint.
For instance, in The Constitutional Contradiction, Bell argued that the framers of the Constitution chose the rewards of property over justice. With regard to the interest convergence, he maintains that “whites will promote racial advances for blacks only when they also promote white self-interest.” Finally, in The Price of Racial Remedies, Bell argues that whites will not support civil rights policies that may threaten white social status.
Bell was also the author of a number of books and short stories, including “Ethical Ambition” and “The Space Traders,” a science fiction story in which white Americans sell black Americans to space aliens in order to pay off the national debt.
Derrick Bell was a supporter of animal rights.[6]
Death
On October 5, 2011, Bell died from carcinoidcancer at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital, at the age of 80.[1]
Critical Race Theory (CRT) is an academic discipline focused upon the intersection of race, law and power.
Although no set of canonical doctrines or methodologies defines CRT, the movement is loosely unified by two common areas of inquiry. First, CRT has analyzed the way in which racial hierarchies are reproduced over time, and in particular, the role that law plays in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, the possibility of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination.[1]
Appearing in US law schools in the mid- to late 1980s, Critical Race Theory began as a reaction to Critical Legal Studies,[2]. Scholars like Derrick Bell applauded the focus of civil rights scholarship on race, but were deeply critical of civil rights scholars’ commitment to colorblindness and their focus on intentional discrimination, rather than a broader focus on the conditions of racial inequality.[3] Likewise, scholars like Patricia Williams, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw and Mari Matsuda
Key theoretical elements
Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic have documented the following major themes as characteristic of work in critical race theory:
A critique of liberalism: CRT scholars favor a more aggressive approach to social transformation as opposed to liberalism’s more cautious approach, favor a race conscious approach to transformation rather than liberalism’s embrace of color blindness, and favor an approach that relies more on political organizing, in contrast to liberalism’s reliance on rights-based remedies.
Storytelling/counterstorytelling and “naming one’s own reality”–using narrative to illuminate and explore experiences of racial oppression.
Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress—criticizing civil rights scholarship and anti-discrimination law.
Applying insights from social science writing on race and racism to legal problems.
Structural determinism, or how “the structure of legal thought or culture influences its content.”
The intersections of race, sex, and class–e.g., how poor Latinas’ experience of domestic violence needs distinctive remedies.
Essentialism and anti-essentialism—reducing the experience of a category (like gender or race) to the experience of one sub-group (like white women or African-Americans).
Cultural nationalism/separatism, Black nationalism–exploring more radical views arguing for separation and reparations as a form of foreign aid.
Legal institutions, critical pedagogy, and minority lawyers in the bar.
As a movement that draws heavily from critical theory, critical race theory shares many intellectual commitments with CLS and critical theory, feminist jurisprudence, and postcolonial theory.
Recent developments in critical race theory include work relying on updated social psychology research on unconscious bias, to justify affirmative action; and work relying on law and economics methodology to examine Structural Inequality and discrimination in the workplace.[5]
Applications
Scholars in Critical Race Theory have focused with some particularity on the issues of hate crime and hate speech. In response to the US Supreme Court’s opinion in the hate speech case of R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), in which the Court struck down an anti-bias ordinance as applied to a teenager who had burned a cross, Mari Matsuda and Charles Lawrence argued that the Court had paid insufficient attention to the history of racist speech and the actual injury produced by such speech.[6] The Court has since adopted this historicist position in Virginia v. Black (2003), finding that cross burning with an intent to intimidate can be legally prohibited.[citation needed]
Critical race theorists have also paid particular attention to the issue of affirmative action. Many scholars have argued in favor of affirmative action on the argument that so-called merit standards for hiring and educational admissions are not race-neutral for a variety of reasons, and that such standards are part of the rhetoric of neutrality through which whites justify their disproportionate share of resources and social benefits.[7]
Criticisms
Many mainstream legal scholars have criticized CRT on a number of grounds, including some scholars’ use of narrative and storytelling, as well as the critique of objectivity adopted by critical race theorists in connection with the critique of merit. Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry have argued that critical race theory, along with critical feminism and critical legal studies, has anti-Semitic and anti-Asian implications, has worked to undermine notions of democratic community and has impeded dialogue.[8] Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago has “label[ed] critical race theorists and postmodernists the ‘lunatic core’ of ‘radical legal egalitarianism.’”[9] He writes,
What is most arresting about critical race theory is that…it turns its back on the Western tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative. Rather than marshal logical arguments and empirical data, critical race theorists tell stories — fictional, science-fictional, quasi-fictional, autobiographical, anecdotal — designed to expose the pervasive and debilitating racism of America today. By repudiating reasoned argumentation, the storytellers reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites.[9]
Judge Alex Kozinski, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, writes that Critical Race Theorists have constructed a philosophy which makes a valid exchange of ideas between the various disciplines unattainable.
The radical multiculturalists’ views raise insuperable barriers to mutual understanding. Consider the Space Traders story. How does one have a meaningful dialogue with Derrick Bell? Because his thesis is utterly untestable, one quickly reaches a dead end after either accepting or rejecting his assertion that white Americans would cheerfully sell all blacks to the aliens. The story is also a poke in the eye of American Jews, particularly those who risked life and limb by actively participating in the civil rights protests of the 1960s. Bell clearly implies that this was done out of tawdry self-interest. Perhaps most galling is Bell’s insensitivity in making the symbol of Jewish hypocrisy the little girl who perished in the Holocaust — as close to a saint as Jews have. A Jewish professor who invoked the name of Rosa Parks so derisively would be bitterly condemned — and rightly so.[10]
Henry Louis Gates Jr. has written a critical evaluation of CRT.[11] Gates emphasizes how campus speech codes and anti-hate speech laws have been applied contrary to the intentions of CRT theorists: “During the year in which Michigan’s speech code was enforced, more than twenty blacks were charged – by whites – with racist speech. As Trossen notes, not a single instance of white racist speech was punished.” Gates gives several further examples such as this one: “What you don’t hear from the hate speech theorists is that the first casualty of the MacKinnonite anti-obscenity ruling was a gay and lesbian bookshop in Toronto, which was raided by the police because of a lesbian magazine it carried.”
Offshoot fields
Within Critical Race Theory, various sub-groupings have emerged to focus on issues that fall outside the black-white paradigm of race relations as well as issues that relate to the intersection of race with issues of gender, sexuality, class and other social structures. See for example, Critical Race Feminism (CRF), Latino Critical Race Studies (LatCrit)[12] Asian American Critical Race Studies (AsianCrit) and American Indian Critical Race Studies (sometimes called TribalCrit).
Critical Race Theory has also begun to spawn research that looks at understandings of race outside the United States.[13]
Andrew Breitbart speaking at Tea Party rally at Independence Mall in Philadelphia in July 31, 2010
IN MEMORIAM, ANDREW BREITBART: PJTV Remembers a True Patriot and Friend
“PJTV’s Roger L. Simon, Bill Whittle, Lionel Chetwynd and Stephen Kruiser remember the energy and impact of the great Andrew Breitbart. From his internet savvy, to his willingness to battle ACORN and the left, Andrew Breitbart will be greatly missed by the PJ Media community.”
The Bully! Pulpit Show: Mark Joseph interviews Andrew Breitbart
Andrew Breitbart at The Heritage Foundation
Andrew Breitbart: Father, Husband, Patriot, Warrior
Tribute to Andrew Breitbart 1969-2012
Andrew Breitbart Big Government
Gone Without a Clue: The Suspicious Death of Andrew Breitbart
Andrew Breitbart – From Mindless Liberal to Conscious Conservative
Rush Limbaugh remembers Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)
CNN: Arianna Huffington remembers Andrew Breitbart
Michael Savage on the Passing of Andrew Breitbart – (Radio Commentary Aired on March 1, 2012)
Glenn Beck Discusses Andrew Breitbart’s Death P1
Glenn Beck Discusses Andrew Breitbart’s Death P2
Glenn Beck Discusses Andrew Breitbart’s Death P3
Alex Jones – Andrew Breitbart Mysteriously Dies Before Releasing Damaging Obama Video
Is This What Killed Andrew Breitbart? The CIA Heart-Attack Gun
Last Interview with Andrew Breitbart
Peter Schiff’s interview with Andrew Breitbart (May 23, 2011)
Cenk Uygur interviews Andrew Breitbart
Andrew Breitbart on his Legacy “I want the left to know they screwed with the wrong guy!”
Dylan Ratigan Interviews Andrew Breitbart
Andrew Breitbart’s epic interview on MSNBC
On March 1, conservative activist, blogger and new media publisher, Andrew Breitbart, collapsed and died of an apparent heart attack shortly after midnight while walking near his home in Westwood, California. A bystander saw him collapse and called paramedics. They rushed him to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, where he was declared dead. The Los Angeles Coroner’s Office will be conducting an autopsy.
Breitbart spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference 2012 on Feb. 10, where he made a surprise announcement about videos he claimed to have of Barack Obama from his college days:
“This election we are going to vet him from his college days to show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008. The videos are going to come out and the narrative is going to come out. That Barack Obama met a bunch of silver ponytails in 1980s, like Bill (Ayers) and Bernadine (Dohrn), equally radical, who said one day we would have the presidency, and the rest of us slept as they plotted, and they plotted, and they plotted and they oversaw hundreds of millions of dollars in the Annenberg Challenge and they had real money, from real capitalists. …Then they became communists. We got to work on that. That is a parenthesis. Barack Obama is a radical, we should not be afraid to say that! Okay? And Barack Obama was launched from Bill and Bernadine’s salon. I’ve been there.”
Breitbart’s entire CPAC 2012 speech can be viewed on YouTube.
Andrew Breitbart at CPAC 2012 02102012 – FULL SPEECH
Andrew Breitbart Just Another Weird Death
Did OBAMA KILL Andrew Breitbart?
Obama’s Black Reparations and Redistributing The Wealth Scandal–The Pigford Fraud
Pigford: Claimants Win. Lawyers Win. You Lose
Andrew Breitbart on the Pigford story, part 1
Andrew Breitbart on the Pigford story, part 2
Andrew Breitbart ~ Part 7 of 8
Andrew Breitbart ~ Part 8 of 8
Glenn Beck -SHIRLEY SHERROD Obama Fired Her for being Black
Andrew Breitbart’s epic interview on MSNBC
Shirley Sherrod: the FULL video
Andrew Breitbart: Glenn Beck “Screwed the Pooch”
CNN: 2010, Andrew Breitbart defends Sherrod video
Michael Savage interviews Andrew Breitbart on Shirley Sherrod Controversy Part 1
Michael Savage interviews Andrew Breitbart on Shirley Sherrod Controversy Part 2
Michael Savage interviews Andrew Breitbart on Shirley Sherrod Controversy Part 3
Michael Savage talks to Andrew Breitbart about the Shirley Sherrod Controversy Part 4
Michael Savage talks to Andrew Breitbart about the Shirley Sherrod Controversy Part 5
Michael Savage talks to Andrew Breitbart about the Shirley Sherrod Controversy Part 6.
Michael Savage talks to Rep. Steve King about the Shirley Sherrod linked Pigford Affair
For 10 years Breitbart had been an editor of the Drudge Report website and researcher for Arianna Huffington who he helped launch The Huffington Post web publication.
Breitbart published his own websites breitbart.com and a video blog breitbarttv.com and the “bigs” websites–Big Government, Big Hollywood, Big Journalism and Big Peace.
His Big Journalism website posted on May 28, 2011, a sexually explicit photo of New York Rep. Anthony Weiner. The congressman had sent a 21-year-old college student a link to the photograph. On June 8, 2011, Brietbart reported that Weiner has sent other photos. Weiner resigned from Congress on June 21, 2011.
Weiner Takes on Blitzer over Weinergate
Breitbart at Rep. Weiner’s press conference
Dennis Miller Interviews Andrew Breitbart About Anthony Weiner And The Jokes Came Naturally
Weiner apologizes to wife, family and Andrew Breitbart
In 2009 Breitbart and his Big Government website assisted in the demise of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Videos of Hannah Giles, who posed as a prostitute, and James O’Keefe, her boyfriend, meeting with ACORN staff in several offices were aired on both the Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity television shows and Fox News. ACORN was subsequently liquidated in November 2010.
PJTV: How Breitbart Conquered ACORN (and the MSM)
Barack Obama – ACORN Will Shape My Domestic Policy
Glenn Beck 20090910 Part 1/4
Glenn Beck 20090910 Part 2/4
Glenn Beck 20090910 Part 3/4
Glenn Beck 20090910 Part 4/4
Much More Footage From The ACORN Prostitution Slavery Sting In Baltimore MA
Hannah Giles Interviewed on Red Eye
Glenn Beck – Hannah poses as a prostitute to ACORN worker
Hannity Interviews Couple Behind ACORN “Pimp And Prostitute” Video
Sean Hannity with Hannah Giles, Andrew Breitbart discuss ACORN
Sean Hannity, Hannah Giles and Andrew Breitbart discuss ACORN San Diego undercover operation
Sean Hannity, Hannah Giles and Andrew Breitbart discuss ACORN San Bernadino
Michael Savage Interviews Andrew Breitbart on ACORN Investigation -(Part 1 of 2)- September 18, 2009
Michael Savage Interviews Andrew Breitbart on ACORN Investigation -(Part 2 of 2)- September 18, 2009
Death Of A Breitbart
He wrote a weekly column for the Washington Times and his work was also published by the National Review Online, the Weekly Standard Online and the Wall Street Journal.
Breitbart wrote two bestsellers, “Hollywood, Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon — the Case Against Celebrity,” in 2004 and “Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World,” in 2011. He recently wrote a new conclusion to “Righteous Indignation” where he said:
“I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and—famously—I enjoy making enemies.
Three years ago, I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who linked to stuff on a very popular website. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for what I believe in. I’ve lost friends, perhaps dozens. But I’ve gained hundreds, thousands—who knows?—of allies. At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night.”
The Politics of Hollywood with Andrew Breitbart
Andrew Breitbart — Media War
Breitbart was 43 and is survived by his wife, Susie Bean, daughter of actor Orson Bean, and four young children.
[Raymond Thomas Pronk is host of the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Wednesdays and author of the companion blog www.pronkpops.wordpress.com]
Background Articles and Videos
PART 1 Glenn Beck – Soros puts “hit” on Beck – 10-20-2010
PART 2 Glenn Beck – Soros puts “hit” on Beck – 10-20-2010
FOX News:Judge Napolitano Talks Ron Paul,Mitt Romney,Rick Santorum on Freedom Watch
Ron Paul on Freedom Watch w/ Judge Nepalitano (1-5-12)
SA@TAC – Taking the ‘Neo’ Out of ‘Conservative’
SA@TAC – The End of Right-Wing Progressivism?
SA@TAC – No Excuse: Mitt Romney’s Case for American Empire
SA@TAC – Newt Gingrich is Not a Conservative
SA@TAC – Compassionate Conservative Rick Santorum
Mitt Romney takes Iowa, Who will take New Hampshire? The Progressives!
SA@TAC – Daniel McCarthy on Neoconservatism
An interview with The American Conservative Editor Daniel McCarthy on the state of the American Right in 2010 and how the neoconservatives turned the GOP into the “War Party,” corrupting, devaluing and damaging conservatism for most of the decade prior.
SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’
Libya and Syria: The Neocon Plan to Attack Seven Countries in Five Years
GBTV: Progressives in the Republican party
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 1
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 2
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 3
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 4
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 5
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 6
Making Sense of the Conservative Movement
What’s the Modern Definition of a Conservative?
Movie Magic Crippled Conservatives
The Bulwarks of the Conservative Movement
Progressives have taken over the Republican Party as they did the Democratic Party.
Romney, Gingrich, Santorium and Perry are big government progressives that try to fool the American people into believing that they are conservatives that support limited government.
All four “talk” conservative while they “walk” progressive and expand the size and scope of Federal and state governments.
What is even worse is all four are also neoconservatives that want the United States to police the world and empire or nation build abroad–spread progressivism over the entire world–with an interventionist aggressive foreign policy!
The neoconservatives want war with Iran and Syria.
Progressives want government intervention at home and abroad.
Do not let the so-called “conservative” talk radio show hosts fool you that they favor one of the Republican progressive candidates as their “conservative” choice.
None of the Republican progressive candidates are either conservative libertarians or conservative traditionalists, they are big government Republican neoconservative progressives.
The Republican progressives want to make the American people dependent upon war.
The Democratic progressives want to make the American people dependent upon welfare.
Both political parties are running budget deficits exceeding $1 trillion and will never run balanced budgets or pay off the national debt.
The American people pay the bills in taxes, inflation, damaged bodies and their lives.
Only the American people can stop Republican and Democratic progressives.
Keep in mind that most of the media are either Democratic or Republican progressives including many of the so-called “conservative” talk radio show hosts.
Many of these talk radio show hosts are neoconservative progressives that support Romney, Gingrich, Santorium and Perry.
These talk radio show hosts fear that the American people are starting to wake up to the fact that all four Repubican presidential candidates that they support and praise are neoconservative progressives.
This includes Bennett, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt, Levin, Medved and Ingraham.
The American people are reading and discovering that Republican candidates are big government neoconservative progressives and not conservative libertarians or conservative traditionalist.
Do not be fooled by either the Republican neoconservative progressive candidates nor your favorite talk radio show hosts.
I have been in the conservative movement since Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964.
I am a classical liberal or what in America is called a libertarian.
I identify my political philosophy as classical liberal or traditional libertarian or simply conservative.
SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’
I have read and reread the works of Smith, Burke, Bastiat, Say, Menger, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Sowell, Rand, Rothbard, Nock, Nash, Kirk and many others.
For many years I voted the lesser of two evil progressives by voting for Republican candidates that I knew were neither libertarians nor traditional conservatives.
Only one President, Ronald Reagan, was a conservative libertarian, but he was a disappointment for he failed to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government.
I am no longer a Republican, but an independent.
Life is too short and I have wised up.
I will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils for the simple reason it is still evil.
The only Republican presidential candidate that is clearly not a progressive but a classical liberal or traditional libertarian is Ron Paul.
The only Republican presidential candidate that wants to decrease the size and scope of the Federal government, balance the Federal budget, bring the troops home and eliminate the progressive income tax, IRS, Federal Reserve System, and many government departments, agencies and programs is Ron Paul.
The only way to stop the progressives of both political parties is to vote for candidates that truly believe in the Constitution and limited government.
This will take decades to accomplish and another political party with the financial backing of the American people.
Progressives control both political parties, media, professions, colleges, unions, and most large businesses.
It will not be easy, but it can be done over time.
Do not be fooled by the neoconservatives who are actually right-wing progressives who left the Democratic Party.
Now and in the future I will not support or vote for any Republican or Democratic candidate for any public office that is a progressive or neoconservative.
As they say in Texas, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Republican Neoconservative Progressive Candidates
Party Establishment Choice: Mitt Romney
Rush Limbaugh Admits Mitt Romney is a GOP Disaster if nominated
John McCain endorses Mitt Romney for President
Mitt Romney gets Endorsement from George H.W. Bush (12-22-11)
The story of two men trapped in one body
Mitt Romney: I’m Progressive
Mitt Romney: “R” Does Not Stand for Republican
The Real Romney?
Mitt Romney on the Contract with America
See Mitt Romney Promote an Individual Mandate
Romney anti-Gingrich ad “Baggage”
Smiling (Restore Our Future)
Newt Gingrich Vs Mitt Romney 2012 Ad
SA@TAC – No Excuse: Mitt Romney’s Case for American Empire
Party Base Choice: Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich on abortion in 1991: “Relax and accept it”
Newt Gingrich: We should respect pro-abortion Republicans
Newt Gingrich: There’s plenty of room for pro-abortion Republicans
Newt Gingrich Admits He’s a Progressive in the Theodore Roosevelt Tradition
Newt Gingrich is a Progressive Rockefeller Republican
Newt Gingrich: I’m a Wilsonian
Newt Gingrich: I supported Rockefeller over Goldwater
Newt Gingrich FDR was Greatest President of the 20th Century
Newt Gingrich: Progressives took over both parties
Sean Hannity endorses Newt Gingrich
The REAL Newt Gingrich
SA@TAC – Newt Gingrich is Not a Conservative
Newt Gingrich is Toast
Neoconservative Religious Right Choice: Rick Santorium
SA@TAC – Who’s a Republican?
SA@TAC – Compassionate Conservative Rick Santorum
Santorum: pursuit of happiness harms America
Rick Santorum says he’s “proud” of his earmarks
Rick Santorum – Unelectable
Senator Rick Santoum A Big Washington Insider & Spender
Senator Rick Santorum Admits Voting for Ear Marks and The Bridge To Nowhere
Rick Santorum On Earmarks “Congress Appropriates Money! That’s What Congress Is Supposed To Do”
Rick Santorum hearts turncoat Arlen Specter
Rick Santorum on gay marriage
Rick Santorum Opposes Gay Marriage and Adoption
Santorum: pursuit of happiness harms America
Ron Paul Destroys Rick Santorum On Iran! – Iowa Republian Presidential Debate
cnn – rick santorum: barack obama’s foreign policy is appeasement
Dennis Kucinich on Santorum’s attacks on Ron Paul
Rand Paul Exposes Rick Santorum: He’s a Reckless & Trigger-Happy Big Spender
SA@TheDC – Conservatism for What?
SA@TAC – Constitutional Conservatives?
Republican Party Conservative Libertarian Choice: Ron Paul
Ron Paul – The Founders gave Government one Role: Protecting Liberty
Ron Paul Ad – Life
Thanksgiving Family Forum – Ron Paul Highlights
SA@TheDC – Conservatism for What?
Ron Paul on Iowa Caucus, Spending Cuts, Opponents
Ron Paul Ad – Plan
Ron Paul: The Economy
Ron Paul: Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney Are “Consistently Inconsistent”
Veteran Ron Paul Calls Newt Gingrich A Chicken Hawk Draft Dodger!
“Blessed are the Peacemakers:” Ron Paul’s Christian Foreign Policy
Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned
Ron Paul on Just War, War Breaking Families
SA@TAC – Ronald Reagan: Isolationist
SA@TheDC – “I Like Ron Paul Except on Foreign Policy”
Jason Lewis Bashes Gop Establishment for smear campaign against Ron Paul pt 1
Jason Lewis Bashes Gop Establishment for smear campaign against Ron Paul pt 2
Jason Lewis Bashes Gop Establishment for smear campaign against Ron Paul pt 3
SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’
SA@TheDC – “I Like Ron Paul Except on Foreign Policy”
SA@TAC – Ronald Reagan: Isolationist
SA@TheDC – Conservatism’s Future: Young Americans for Liberty
SA@TAC – Who’s a Republican?
Israel and GOP join forces to oust Obama
Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned
Conservatives and libertarians have been listening to the smear attacks on talk radio by several so-called “conservatives”, mostly neoconservatives and progressives Republicans that favor big government intervention at home and/or abroad.
They are trying to paint Paul as a racist, anti-Semite, and extremist.
Nice try, but the character and record of Ron Paul speaks for itself.
What is extremist is running deficits, where spending exceeds tax revenues, more than $1 trillion for four years in a row and not balancing the budget for another ten years. This is fiscal irresponsibility and madness. Yet this is exactly what both political parties are proposing.
Principled conservatives and libertarians are not buying this smear attack by the Republican establishment and their shills on talk radio.
The Republican Party establishment is cutting their own throats as are those talk radio hosts who lie and mislead the American people about Ron Paul.
The neoconservatives and the progressive Republican Party establishment have become the party of warmongers, not peacemakers.
The Republican Party is the party of government intervention abroad to make the American people dependent upon warfare.
The Democratic Party is the party of government intervention at home to make the American people dependent upon welfare.
Both the Democratic and Republican parties have been captured by progressive big government interventionists with the Democratic Party establishment largely socialist and the Republican Party establishment largely neoconserservatives.
Both parties have been running massive government deficits and running up the national debt to pay for their excessive welfare and warfare programs.
Just keep it up and you will destroy the Republican Party.
If the establishment does keeps it up, I would urge Ron Paul to run as an independent candidate.
I much prefer Ron Paul to win as a Republican, but the progressive and neoconservatives are revealing themselves as being neither conservative or libertarian, but big government interventionists.
As a conservative and libertarian, I will not vote for another progressive and/or neoconservative Republican including Romney, Gingrich,Perry and Santorium.
Suggest conservatives and libertarians do their own homework and research on the candidates.
Stop listening to Bennett, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and Hewitt, just to mention a few of the so-called “conservatives”.
They are really shills for the Republican Party, Republicans first, and not conservatives and/or libertarians first.
Bennett, Hewitt and Levin in particular are misleading you about Ron Paul.
“Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”
‘Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.”
~George Washington
Four Years Ago
Ron Paul Releases Presidential Exploratory Committee
Barry Goldwater, Jr. Endorses Ron Paul
Now
Ron Paul Why I Want To Be President
Ron Paul for President
Ron Paul 2012: “Freedom Is Popular” – 6 Year Old Homeschooler Knows What Liberty Means
Ron Paul To Form Presidential Exploratory Committee
Ron Paul interviewed by Stephen Colbert 4/25/2011
Ron Paul to Announce 2012 Bid
Ron Paul on The View 04/25/11
American’s Takeoff To Peace And Prosperity vs. America’s Road To Serfdom
Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama for President – Rasmussen Poll 1% Difference
CNN Downplays Ron Paul’s Electability… This Is So 2008
Thomas Woods interviews Ron Paul on Peter Schiff Show 4/20/11
My political philosophy is classical liberalism.
In America a classical liberal is commonly identified as a libertarian and occasionally a conservative.
Classical liberals or libertarians favor a government that is limited in both size and scope and takes the form of a constitutional republic.
I became a classical liberal when Senator Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964 when I read his book, the Conscience of A Conservative.
Mr. Conservative: Goldwater On Goldwater
Barry Goldwater, A True Conservative
The Conscience Of A Conservative
Freedom is the Only Solution
Ever since I have considered myself a member of the conservative movement and a traditional libertarian.
Today I am an independent and support the tea party movement and their candidates for public office.
Senator Barry Goldwater lost to President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 for the office of President of The United States.
President Johnson was largely responsible for America’s war in Vietnam, the war on poverty and socialized medicine, namely Medicare.
The Democrats lost both the war in Vietnam and the war on poverty.
Socialized medicine in the form of Medicare while still popular is running massive deficits that will only become larger as the baby boom generation turn age 65 and becomes eligible for Medicare starting in 2011.
Today Medicare is actually costing more than ten times the estimated cost when it was originally passed in 1965.
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid must be reformed and controlled and owned by the individual and not by the Federal Government.
Otherwise Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will become insolvent and the promises made to the American people broken.
I.O.U.S.A. Bonus Reel: Social Security+Medicare Projections
The Real Fiscal Cancer that will Bankrupt the United States
I.O.U.S.A. Bonus Reel: A $53 Trillion Federal Financial Hole
Baby boomers and Medicare spell rationing
Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan opposed socialized medicine and warned of its cost in 1964.
Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine
The Very Best of Ronald Reagan
The only Presidential candidate that I trust to do the right thing in addressing the above issues is Ron Paul.
The only Presidential candidate that has consistently supported a constitutional republic is Ron Paul.
The only Presidential candidate that has consistently voted for limited government in both size and scope is Ron Paul.
The only Presidential candidate that has consistently opposed government interventionism in the economy at home and nation building abroad is Ron Paul.
If you want to return the United States of America to a peace and prosperity economy with a constitutional republic, support and vote for Ron Paul.
If you want the continuation of the United States of America’s warfare and welfare economy with a collectivist tyrannical state, you will have many choices from both the Democratic and Republican parties.
I plan to support and vote for Ron Paul in 2012.
I hope and pray he gets the Republican nomination as their candidate for President of the United States of America.
I hope and pray that Ron Paul and the Republican Party choose Michele Backmann as his running mate for Vice-President of the United States.
Ron Paul / Michele Bachmann Student Town Hall @ UofMN – Sponsored by YAL – 2 of 9
The third time is the charm.
Obama and Congress to Murder More American Soldiers and Tax You for the Wars
Message for Democrats and Republicans from the Late Senator Barry Goldwater
Government is Oppression
Barry Goldwater Jr. Introduces Ron Paul
Join the second American Revolution and campaign for liberty.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
“The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon”
~George Washington
Background Articles and Videos
Ron Paul : The Drug War Has Killed More People Than The Drugs! (Part 1/6)
Ron Paul : The Drug War Has Killed More People Than The Drugs! (Part 2/6)
Ron Paul : The Drug War Has Killed More People Than The Drugs! (Part 3/6)
Ron Paul : The Drug War Has Killed More People Than The Drugs! (Part 4/6)
Ron Paul : The Drug War Has Killed More People Than The Drugs! (Part 5/6)
Ron Paul : The Drug War Has Killed More People Than The Drugs! (Part 6/6)
Ron Paul Will Rock You
Money Bomb May 5, 2011
Ron Paul Launches Presidential Campaign
“…Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, whose outspoken libertarian views and folksy style made him a cult hero during two previous presidential campaigns, will announce on Tuesday that he’s going to try a third time.
Sources close to Paul, who is in his 12th term in the House, said he will unveil an exploratory presidential committee, a key step in gearing up for a White House race. He will also unveil the campaign’s leadership team in Iowa, where the first votes of the presidential election will be cast in caucuses next year.
Paul, 75, ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, finishing with less than one half a percent of the vote. After more than a decade as a Republican congressman, Paul gave it another shot in the 2008 presidential election, gaining attention for being the only Republican candidate calling for the end to the war in Iraq and for his “money bomb” fundraising strategy, which brought in millions of dollars from online donors in single-day pushes.
Paul took 10 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses and 8 percent in New Hampshire’s primary. He finished second, with 14 percent of the vote, in the Nevada caucuses, and eventually finished fourth in the Republican nominating process with 5.6 percent of the total vote. Paul’s campaign book, The Revolution: A Manifesto also reached No. 1 on The New York Times best-seller list in 2008. …”
2012 Presidential bid: Third time could be the charm for Ron Paul
“…Republican Congressman Ron Paul is expected to announce the formation of a presidential exploratory committee on Tuesday, a key step in any bid for the White House and a third attempt for the White House from the congressman.
They say the third time is the charm, and one likely does not need to tell that to Republican congressman Ron Paul. However, on Tuesday Mr. Paul intends to announce the formation of his presidential exploratory committee, according to a National Journalreport.
Congressman Paul, active in his twelfth term as a House legislator and known for his decidedly Libertarian views, will make a third run for the White House in what appears to be shaping up to be a considerably crowded Republican presidential contest.
“Paul, 75, ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, finishing with less than one half a percent of the vote,” Cameron Joseph reported for the National Journal. “After more than a decade as a Republican congressman, Paul gave it another shot in the 2008 presidential election, gaining attention for being the only Republican candidate calling for the end to the war in Iraq and for his ‘money bomb’ fundraising strategy, which brought in millions of dollars from online donors in single-day pushes.”
Mr. Paul has been an influential voice for a new generation of Republicans in Congress, and many of his positions have been attributed to Tea Party sentiments that have managed to make their way into mainstream Republican discourse and have posed a considerable challenge to the Obama administration and the remaining Democratic majority in the Senate following the 2010 mid-term elections this past November.
“…Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria. Medicare operates similarly to a single-payer health care system.[1]
The program also funds residency training programs for the vast majority of physicians in the United States.
The Social Security Act of 1965 was signed into law on July 30, 1965, by President Lyndon B. Johnson as amendments to existing Social Security legislation. At the bill-signing ceremony, Johnson enrolled former President Harry S. Truman as the first Medicare beneficiary and presented him with the first Medicare card, and Truman’s wife Bess, the second.[2] …”
“…Costs and funding challenges
The costs of Medicare doubled every four years between 1966 and 1980.[47] According to the 2004 “Green Book” of the House Ways and Means Committee, Medicare expenditures from the American government were $256.8 billion in fiscal year 2002. Beneficiary premiums are highly subsidized, and net outlays for the program, accounting for the premiums paid by subscribers, were $230.9 billion.
Medicare spending is growing steadily in both absolute terms and as a percentage of the federal budget. Total Medicare spending reached $440 billion for fiscal year 2007 or 16% of all federal spending and grew to $599 billion in 2008 which was 20% of federal spending.[48] The only larger categories of federal spending are Social Security and defense. Given the current pattern of spending growth, maintaining Medicare’s financing over the long-term may well require significant changes.[49]
According to the 2008 report by the board of trustees for Medicare and Social Security, Medicare will spend more than it brings in from taxes this year (2008). The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will become insolvent by 2019.[49][50][51][52] Shortly after the release of the report, the Chief Actuary testified that the insolvency of the system could be pushed back by 18 months if Medicare Advantage plans that provide more health care services than traditional Medicare and pass savings onto beneficiaries were paid at the same rate as the traditional fee-for-service program. He also testified that the 10-year cost of Medicare drug benefit is 37% lower than originally projected in 2003, and 17% percent lower than last year’s projections.[53]The New York Times wrote in January 2009 that Social Security and Medicare “have proved almost sacrosanct in political terms, even as they threaten to grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run.”[54]
Spending on Medicare and Medicaid is projected to grow dramatically in coming decades. While the same demographic trends that affect Social Security also affect Medicare, rapidly rising medical prices appear a more important cause of projected spending increases. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has indicated that: “Future growth in spending per beneficiary for Medicare and Medicaid—the federal government’s major health care programs—will be the most important determinant of long-term trends in federal spending. Changing those programs in ways that reduce the growth of costs—which will be difficult, in part because of the complexity of health policy choices—is ultimately the nation’s central long-term challenge in setting federal fiscal policy.” Further, the CBO also projects that “total federal Medicare and Medicaid outlays will rise from 4 percent of GDP in 2007 to 12 percent in 2050 and 19 percent in 2082—which, as a share of the economy, is roughly equivalent to the total amount that the federal government spends today. The bulk of that projected increase in health care spending reflects higher costs per beneficiary rather than an increase in the number of beneficiaries associated with an aging population.”[55]
“…The Conscience of a Conservative is a book published under the name of Arizona Senator and 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in 1960. The book reignited the American conservative movement and made Barry Goldwater a political star. The book has influenced countless conservatives in the United States, helping to lay the foundation for the Reagan Revolution in 1980.[1]
The book was ghostwritten by L. Brent Bozell Jr., brother-in-law of William F. Buckley.[1] Bozell and Buckley had been members of Yale’s debate team. They had co-authored the controversial book, McCarthy and His Enemies, in 1955. Bozell had been Goldwater’s speechwriter in the 1950s, and was familiar with many of his ideals. The first edition, 1960, is 123 pages in length and was published in the United States. The book covers such topics as education, labor unions and policies, civil rights, agricultural policy and farm subsidies, social welfare programs, and income taxation. The book is considered to be a significant statement of politically and economically American conservative ideas which were to gain influence during the following decades.[1] …”
First let me say I am a big fan and promoter of WordPress and actually teach college students blogging and the use of WordPress.
When one of my past blog posts suddenly gets ten or more hits, I usually look at the post to see what I wrote and what videos I included.
I do this because over time a number of videos that I embed in the page may have been removed by YouTube and appear as a black sceen. I usually delete them.
Also, I may want to update and expand the post and add new tags and/or categories.
“O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).”
~Quran, 9:123
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
~Winston Churchill
American Airlines flight number 11 left gate B32 and took off from Boston’s Logan International airport at 7:59 a.m bound for Los Angeles.
At about 8:46:40 local time, all 92 passengers and crew including five Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorist hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11 were killed as it crashed into the North Tower (Tower 1) of the World Trade Center.
Then at 9:03 a.m. United Airlines Flight 175 bound from Boston’s Logan International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport crashes into the South Tower (Tower 2) killing 65 passengers and crew including five Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorist hijackers.
Shortly thereafter at 9:35 a.m. American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon killing all 64 passengers and crew including five Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorist hijackers aboard as well as 125 in the Pentagon.
The only aircraft that did not reach its intended target, the United States Capital building in Washington D.C., was United Airlines Flight 93 bound from Newark International Airport to San Francisco International Airport.
Four Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorists hijacked the plane about forty minutes into the flight. However, several passengers tried to take back the aircraft from the terrorists.
All 44 passengers and crew including the 4 Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorists died at about 10:03 a.m.when the plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
Several hundred people choose to jump to their deaths from both towers to escape from the intense fire and choking smoke in both buildings captured in the “Falling Man” photo and recounted in the 9/11 The Falling Man documentary on YouTube and “The Falling Man” online article in Esquire Magazine:
Credit: The Falling Man, a photograph by Richard Drew for the Associated Press.
9/11 The Falling Man
The Falling Man
By Tom Junod
“…They began jumping not long after the first plane hit the North Tower, not long after the fire started. They kept jumping until the tower fell. They jumped through windows already broken and then, later, through windows they broke themselves. They jumped to escape the smoke and the fire; they jumped when the ceilings fell and the floors collapsed; they jumped just to breathe once more before they died. They jumped continually, from all four sides of the building, and from all floors above and around the building’s fatal wound. They jumped from the offices of Marsh & McLennan, the insurance company; from the offices of Cantor Fitzgerald, the bond-trading company; from Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 106th and 107th floors — the top. For more than an hour and a half, they streamed from the building, one after another, consecutively rather than en masse, as if each individual required the sight of another individual jumping before mustering the courage to jump himself or herself. …”
People watching the burning towers from surrounding streets were horrified at what they were witnessing as hundreds from all sides of the two towers jumped to their certain deaths to escape the flames and smoke.
After burning for fifty-six minutes the South Tower of the World Trade Center fell at 9:58.
Thirty minutes later the North Tower fell.
Less than two hours from the time the two jet passenger airliners crashed into World Trade Center towers, both buildings had collapsed.
Killed that day were nearly three thousand people from over 70 countries that were in and around the buildings that were destroyed or damaged including over three hundred New York City fireman and policemen who responded to the explosions and fires in the buildings.
Al-Qaeda’s Islamic Wahhabi jihad or struggle by the sword arrived with a vengeance in the United States on September 11, 2001.
Al-Qaeda is a radical network of militants who call for a global jihad or armed struggle with those not of the Islamic faith, including Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus.
Most Al-Qaeda jihadists are from the Sunni branch of Islam and from the fundamentalist Wahhabi sect established in Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda wants to establish a new Islamic Caliphate or leader for the Muslim community or Ummah under Sharia or Islamic law. However, Muslims differ as to the interpretation of Sharia or Islamic law.
The two main branches of Islam are Sunni and Shia. The largest branch of Islam is Sunni who comprise between 87% to 90% of all Muslems worldwide according to the Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population, a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. The smaller Shia branch of Islam comprises between 10% and 13% of the all Muslims worldwide and who are are primarily located in Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, and India. Arabs are primarily Sunni and Iranians or Persians are primarily Shia. There are both Sunni and Shia jihadists who use suicide bombers to attack infidels or those of another religious faith mainly Christians, Jews and Hindus.
However, neither Arabs nor Iranians are the largest populations of Muslims. The countries with the largest Muslim populations include Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey. In 2010 the world’s population is nearly 7 billion of which nearly 1.6 billion are Muslims or over 22% of the world’s population. There are over 50 countries with a Muslim majority and 57 countries comprising the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) .
The United States with a population of 310 million has a relatively small Muslim population of about 3 million or roughly 1% of the total population of the United States in 2010. The Al-qaeda attackers came primarily from Saudi Arabia with a Muslim population of about 25 million or less than 2% of the world’s Muslim population.
The nineteen Al-Qaeda terrorists were religious fanatics of the Sunni Islam Wahhabi sect, including fifteen Saudi nationals. The Al-Qaeda jihadists had hijacked four commercial airline passenger jets in a coordinated attack on the American people and the United States of America.
The death toll from the Islamic Wahhabi jihad attack on America on September 11, 2001 was 2,995 including the nineteen al-Qaeda terrorist hijackers. There were more deaths on September 11, 2001, than the 2350 deaths, mostly members of the United States Navy and Army, from the surprise Imperial Japanese Navy attack on the United States Navy Pacific fleet docked at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
Nearly nine years later a so-called “moderate” Muslem cleric, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, wants to build a thirteen story Islamic community center and mosque less than three blocks from ground zero, the site of the destroyed World Trade Center towers.
The planned site for the Islamic community center and mosque is 45-51 Park Place, called Park 51, is two and half block north and 560 feet from the northern boundary of the World Trade Center site at Vesey street.
Few Americans dispute the property owners’ right to construct such a building provided all city, state and Federal laws are complied with including local zoning laws and receipt of the necessary building permits.
Few Americans dispute the rights of all Americans to practice their religious faith.
Few Americans oppose the exercise of free speech.
The vast majority of Americans, however, consider the proposed community center and mosque to be an insulting affront to the families and friends of those who died on September 11, 2001.
Just because you can do something, does not mean you should.
In fact the Islamic religion considers such an action to be mischief-making or a fitna, a deliberate provocation against the infidels, those not of the Islamic faith including Christians and Jews.
The site of the World Trade Center and the immediate surrounding area is considered hallowed ground for it is the final resting place or cemetery for many of those who died on September 11, 2001 and whose remains were never found.
The American people demand that this Islamic community center and mosque be moved to another location in New York City.
Otherwise, those behind the building of such an insulting affront to the American people will only receive the rightful indignation and shunning they justly deserve and will soon be exposed for who and what they are–stealth jihadists.
Extreme jidahists can be Sunni or Shia and overt militarist jihadists like those of September 11, 2010 or covert stealth jihadists that want to replace the United States Constitution and American law with Sharia or Islamic law and our representative republic with a theocracy.
Stealth jihadists speak of toleration when speaking to infidels or non-believers in Islam
When the jihadists speak to their fellow Muslims, they speak of Islamic global supremacy and return of the Caliphate under Sharia or Islamic law.
Religious toleration has it limits even in the United States. Toleration should be a two-way street. Toleration does not extend to evil. Toleration is not a suicide pact. Yet Saudi Arabia has zero toleration or an absolute ban for any church, temple or synagogue being built in Saudi Arabia and bans all non-believers in Islam from the city of Mecca.
Sharia is a direct and immediate threat to liberty of the American people. The jihadists seek to replace American law and the United States Constitution with Sharia or Islamic law.
Sharia or Islamic law should be banned from the United States and those immigrants advocating it should be deported to their country of origin.
Saudi Arabia funds Islamic community centers and mosques throughout the United States where both militarist and stealth jihadists are cultivated and supported. The majority of terrorist attacks in the last decade have come from extreme Islamic jihadists, from both the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam and with support and encouragement of local mosques and their Imam.
Authors, journalists, politicians and television and talk radio show hosts such as Steven Emerson, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Andrew C. McCarthy, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage are among those who expose the threat posed by the militarist and stealth jihadists. However, those commenting upon the threat posed by the jihadists are quickly labeled by the jihadists, their supporters and mainstream media as engaging in hate speech and accused of being racists and Islamophobes, having prejudice or bias against those of the Islam faith or Moslems. This is especially true when the Quran and actual speeches and words of the jihadists are quoted or made available for viewing on the Internet at such sites as YouTube.
The American people will remember September 11, 2001 and never forget the fallen. The American people will honor their memories by stopping the ground zero mosque and the militant and stealth jihadists of the sword whether they be Sunni or Shia. The American people will defend their country and their liberty.
Imam Rauf Exposed, Elimination of Israel, Terrorist Supporting, N’ Word
Newt Gingrich: No Ground Zero Mosque
Newt Gingrich: Ban Sharia – It is” totally abhorrent to the Western World”
ADDED And UPDATED March 3, 2011
Frank Gaffney: Jihad By Other Means
“…At fifteen seconds after 9:41 a.m., on September 11, 2001, a photographer named Richard Drew took a picture of a man falling through the sky — falling through time as well as through space. The picture went all around the world, and then disappeared, as if we willed it away. One of the most famous photographs in human history became an unmarked grave, and the man buried inside its frame — the Falling Man — became the Unknown Soldier in a war whose end we have not yet seen. …”
On May 1, 2011 the President of The United States of America made the following announcement:
President Obama FULL Speech – Osama Bin Laden DEAD – Complete
Osama Bin Laden is Killed in Pakistan – 1st May 2011
CNN: How U.S. found, killed Osama bin Laden
“The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done,”
Former President George W. Bush
NYC reacts to Osama bin Laden’s death
CNN: Big crowds cheer at White House
Osama Bin Laden Is Dead – What Was Pakistan’s Part – 1st May 2011
US kills Osama bin Laden decade after 9/11 attacks
“…Osama bin Laden, the face of global terrorism and architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was killed in a firefight with elite American forces Monday, then quickly buried at sea in a stunning finale to a furtive decade on the run.
Long believed to be hiding in caves, bin Laden was tracked down in a costly, custom-built hideout not far from a Pakistani military academy. The stunning news of his death prompted relief and euphoria outside the White House and around the globe, yet also deepening fears of terrorist reprisals against the United States and its allies.
“Justice has been done,” President Barack Obama said late Sunday from the White House in an announcement that seemed sure to lift his own political standing.
The military operation took mere minutes, and there were no U.S. casualties.
U.S. Blackhawk helicopters ferried about two dozen troops from Navy SEAL Team Six, a top military counter-terrorism unit, into the compound identified by the CIA as bin Laden’s hideout — and back out again in less than 40 minutes. Bin Laden was shot in the head, officials said, after he and his bodyguards resisted the assault.
Three adult males were also killed in the raid, including one of bin Laden’s sons, whom officials did not name. One of bin Laden’s sons, Hamza, is a senior member of al-Qaida. U.S. officials also said one woman was killed when she was used as a shield by a male combatant, and two other women were injured.
The U.S. official who disclosed the burial at sea said it would have been difficult to find a country willing to accept the remains. Obama said the remains had been handled in accordance with Islamic custom, which requires speedy burial. …”
Leader of Ground Zero Mosque Refuses To Disclose Source Of Funding
Ground Zero Mosque 9/11 Liars for Islam, Muhammad said you can lie: Taqiyya
Radical Islam: Saudi Wahhabism responsible for worldwide terror
Robert Spencer on Hannity exposes Imam Rauf on Ground Zero Mosque
Robert Spencer Jihad Watch
Jihad on Campus – Saudis’ Multi-Million Dollar PR Agenda]
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (1 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (2 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (3 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (4 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (5 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (6 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (7 of 7)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (1 of 6)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (2 of 6)
]
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (3 of 6)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (4 of 6)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (5 of 6)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (6 of 6)
Andy McCarthy Discusses The Ground Zero Mosque
Andy McCarthy – The Grand Jihad (5.24.10)
ADDED March 9, 2011
Andrew McCarthy: “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America”
Andy McCarthy Discusses The Ground Zero Mosque
Law & Jihad with Andrew McCarthy
Andy McCarthy: “What We Call Terrorism, They Don’t”
First Friday – Andrew C. McCarthy – America’s War on Terror…or is It?
Michael Savage Gets Pissed Off About Jihadists and Terrorism
annity 05/04/2010 w/ Mark Levin
REVISED AND EXPANDED ON MAY 1, 2011
Steve Coll on The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century
The history of the Bin Laden Family-good!-1/6
The history of the Bin Laden Family-good!-2/6
The history of the Bin Laden Family-good!-3/6
The history of the Bin Laden Family-good!-4/6
The history of the Bin Laden Family-good!-5/6
The history of the Bin Laden Family-good!-6/6
Conversations with History: Steve Coll
September 11 Attacks
The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.[1][2] The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. Both buildings collapsed within two hours, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the plane, which the hijackers had redirected toward Washington, D.C. There were no survivors from any of the flights.
The death toll of the attacks was 2,995, including the 19 hijackers.[3] The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 70 countries.[4] In addition, there is at least one secondary death – one person was ruled by a medical examiner to have died from lung disease due to exposure to dust from the World Trade Center’s collapse.[5]
The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terrorism. It invaded Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had harbored al-Qaeda terrorists. The United States also enacted the USA PATRIOT Act. Many other countries also strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. Some American stock exchanges stayed closed for the rest of the week following the attack and posted enormous losses upon reopening, especially in the airline and insurance industries. The destruction of billions of dollars worth of office space caused serious damage to the economy of Lower Manhattan.
The damage to the Pentagon was cleared and repaired within a year, and the Pentagon Memorial was built adjacent to the building. The rebuilding process has started on the World Trade Center site. In 2006 a new office tower was completed on the site of 7 World Trade Center. 1 World Trade Center is currently under construction at the site and, at 1,776 ft (541 m) upon completion in 2013, it will become one of the tallest buildings in North America. Three more towers were originally expected to be built between 2007 and 2012 on the site. Ground was broken for the Flight 93 National Memorial on November 8, 2009, and the first phase of construction is expected to be ready for the 10th anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2011.[6] …”
American Airlines Flight 11
American Airlines Flight 11 was a scheduled U.S. domestic passenger flight from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts to Los Angeles International Airport. It was hijacked by five al-Qaedan terrorists and deliberately crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City as part of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Fifteen minutes into the flight, the hijackers injured at least three people, forcefully breached the cockpit, and overpowered the pilot and first officer. Mohamed Atta, a known member of al-Qaeda,[1][2] and trained as a pilot, took over the controls. Air traffic controllers noticed the flight was in distress when the crew stopped responding to them. They realized the flight had been hijacked when Atta mistakenly transmitted announcements for passengers to air traffic control. On board, two flight attendants contacted American Airlines, and provided information about the hijackers and injuries to passengers and crew.
The aircraft crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 local time; the impact killed all 92 people aboard, including the hijackers, plus an unconfirmed number of people in the buildings impact zone. Many people in the streets witnessed the collision, and the Naudet brothers captured the impact on video, as did Pavel Hlava. Mark Burnback and Wolfgang Staehle had a webcam set up that captured the impact through a series of photographs. Before the hijacking was confirmed, news agencies began to report on the incident and speculated that the crash had been an accident. The impact and subsequent fire caused the North Tower to collapse, which resulted in thousands of additional casualties. During the recovery effort at the World Trade Center site, workers recovered and identified dozens of remains from Flight 11 victims (see section Aftermath below), but many other body fragments could not be identified. …”
“…American Airlines Flight 77 was the third flight hijacked as part of the September 11 attacks. It was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon. The flight from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport was hijacked by five Islamic extremists less than 35 minutes into the flight. The hijackers stormed the cockpit and forced the passengers to the rear of the aircraft. Hani Hanjour, one of the hijackers who was trained as a pilot, assumed control of the flight. Unknown to the hijackers, passengers aboard were able to make calls to loved ones and relay information on the hijacking.
The aircraft crashed into the western side of the Pentagon at 09:37am EDT. All 64 people on board the aircraft, including the hijackers, and 125 in the building were killed. Dozens of people witnessed the crash and news sources began reporting on the incident within minutes. The impact severely damaged an area of the Pentagon and ignited a large fire. A portion of the Pentagon collapsed and firefighters spent days trying to fully extinguish the blaze. The damaged sections of the Pentagon were rebuilt in 2002, with occupants moving back into the completed areas on August 15, 2002.
The 184 victims of the attack are memorialized in the Pentagon Memorial adjacent to the Pentagon. The 1.93-acre (7,800 m2) park consists of 184 benches, one for each of the victims, arranged according to the year of birth, ranging from 1930 (age 71) to 1998 (age 3). Flight 77′s cuts directly through the park. …”
“… United Airlines Flight 175 was a scheduled U.S. domestic passenger flight from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts to Los Angeles International Airport, in California. On the morning of September 11, 2001, the flight was hijacked by five al-Qaeda-associated Islamist terrorists, and flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City as part of the September 11 attacks. Approximately thirty minutes into the flight, the hijackers forcefully breached the cockpit, and overpowered the pilot and first officer, allowing lead hijacker and trained pilot Marwan al-Shehhi to take over the controls. The aircraft’s transponder was turned off and the aircraft deviated from the assigned flight path for four minutes, before air traffic controllers noticed at 08:51. They made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the cockpit. Several passengers and crew aboard made phone calls from the plane and provided information about the hijackers and injuries to passengers and crew.
The Boeing 767 operating as Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center at 09:03, killing all 65 people aboard, including the hijackers. The Flight 175 hijacking was coordinated with that of American Airlines Flight 11, which had struck the top of the North Tower eighteen minutes earlier. The crash of Flight 175 into the South Tower was the only impact seen live on television around the world as it happened. It was upon the loss of Flight 175 that the world realized that the crashes of both aircraft at the World Trade Center were in fact deliberate. The impact and subsequent fire caused the South Tower to collapse, 56 minutes later, resulting in hundreds of additional casualties. During the recovery effort at the World Trade Center site, workers recovered and identified remains from Flight 175 victims (see chapter Aftermath, below), but many other body fragments could not be identified. …”
“…United Airlines Flight 93 was a United States domestic passenger flight from Newark International Airport in Newark, NJ to San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco, CA that was hijacked on September 11, 2001. Approximately 40 minutes into the flight the hijackers breached the cockpit, overpowered the pilots and took control of the aircraft, diverting it toward Washington, D.C. Several passengers and crew members made telephone calls aboard the flight and learned about the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As a result of this knowledge, the passengers decided to mount an assault against the hijackers in an attempt to regain control of the aircraft.
The plane crashed in a field in Stonycreek Township, near Shanksville, in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, about 80 miles (130 km) southeast of Pittsburgh and 150 miles (240 km) northwest of Washington, D.C., killing all on board including the four hijackers. Many witnessed the impact from the ground and news agencies began reporting on the event within an hour. The plane fragmented upon impact, leaving a crater, and some debris was blown miles from the crash site. The remains of everyone on board the aircraft were later identified. Subsequent analysis of the flight recorders revealed how the actions taken by the passengers prevented the aircraft from reaching the hijackers’ intended target, thought to be either the White House or the United States Capitol. A permanent memorial is planned for construction on the crash site, with dedication scheduled for 2011, though it has been the subject of criticism.
Of the four aircraft hijacked on September 11 (the others were American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 175), United Airlines Flight 93 was the only one that failed to reach its intended target. …”
“…Al-Qaeda (pronounced /ælˈkaɪdə/ al-KYE-də or /ælˈkeɪdə/ al-KAY-də; Arabic: القاعدة, al-qāʿidah, “the base”), alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa’ida, is a militant Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988[6] and late 1989.[7] It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless army[8] and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global Jihad. It is considered a terrorist organization.
Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, most notably the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. in 2001. The U.S. government responded by launching the War on Terror.
Characteristic techniques include suicide attacks and simultaneous bombings of different targets.[9] Activities ascribed to it may involve members of the movement, who have taken a pledge of loyalty to Osama bin Laden, or the much more numerous “al-Qaeda-linked” individuals who have undergone training in one of its camps in Afghanistan, Iraq or Sudan, but not taken any pledge.[10]
Al-Qaeda ideologues envision a complete break from the foreign influences in Muslim countries, and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate. Reported beliefs include that a Christian-Jewish alliance is conspiring to destroy Islam,[11] which is largely embodied in the U.S.-Israel alliance, and that the killing of bystanders and civilians is religiously justified in jihad. …”
“…Jihad (pronounced /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد [dʒiˈhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning “struggle.” Jihad appears frequently in the Qur’an and common usage as the idiomatic expression “striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)“.[1][2] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[3] In Twelver Shi’a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion.
A wide range of opinions exist about the exact meaning of jihad. Muslims use the word in a religious context to refer to three types of struggles: an internal struggle to maintain faith, the struggle to improve the Muslim society, or the struggle in a holy war.[4] The differences of opinion are the result of different interpretation of the two most important sources in Islam, the Qur’an and the ahadith (singular: hadith). For example, the prominent orientalist Bernard Lewis argues that, in the Qur’an and the ahadith jihad implies warfare in the large majority of cases.[5] In a commentary of the hadith Sahih Muslim, entitled al-Minhaj, the medieval Islamic scholar Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi stated that “one of the collective duties of the community as a whole (fard kifaya) is to lodge a valid protest, to solve problems of religion, to have knowledge of Divine Law, to command what is right and forbid wrong conduct”.[6]
In western societies the term jihad is often translated as “holy war”.[7] Muslim authors tend to reject such an approach, stressing non-militant connotations of the word.[8] In technical literature, the term “holy war” is often used to describe jihad.[9] However, scholars of Islamic studies often stress that both words are not synonymous.[10]
Jihad has been classified either as al-jihād al-akbar (the greater jihad), the struggle against one’s soul (nafs), or al-jihād al-asghar (the lesser jihad), the external, physical effort, often implying fighting (this is similar to the shiite view of jihad as well).
Gibril Haddad has analyzed the basis for the belief that internal jihad is the “greater jihad”, Jihad al-akbar. Haddad identifies the primary historical basis for this belief in a pair of similarly worded hadith, in which Mohammed is reported to have told warriors returning home that they had returned from the lesser jihad of struggle against non-Muslims to a greater jihad of struggle against lust. Although Haddad notes that the authenticity of both hadeeth is questionable, he nevertheless concludes that the underlying principle of superiority internal jihad does have a reliable basis in the Qur’an and other writings.[31][32]
In contrast, the Hanbali scholar Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya did believe that “internal Jihad” is important[33] but he suggests those hadith as weak which consider “Jihad of the heart/soul” to be more important than “Jihad by the sword”.[34] Contemporary Islamic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Azzam has argued the hadith is not just weak but “is in fact a false, fabricated hadith which has no basis. It is only a saying of Ibrahim Ibn Abi `Abalah, one of the Successors, and it contradicts textual evidence and reality.”[35]
Muslim jurists explained there are four kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):[36]
Jihad of the heart(jihad bil qalb/nafs) is concerned with combatting the devil and in the attempt to escape his persuasion to evil. This type of Jihad was regarded as the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar).
Jihad by the tongue(jihad bil lisan) is concerned with speaking the truth and spreading the word of Islam with one’s tongue.
Jihad by the hand(jihad bil yad) refers to choosing to do what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong with action.
Jihad by the sword(jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war), the most common usage by Salafi Muslims and offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Some contemporary Islamists have succeeded in replacing the greater jihad, the fight against desires, with the lesser jihad, the holy war to establish, defend and extend the Islamic state.[37]
“…Most Americans continue to be puzzled by the Saudis. 15 or the 19 hijackers on Sept 11th were Saudia Arabian. Not Taliban. Not Libyan. Not Palestinian. Why? They don’t like our military presence in the country, our culture, our policies, in general they just don’t like us and want us dead. What’s more they’re increasingly unhappy with the ruling Al Saud Family, who a decade ago cut a deal with us for military protection. The Key to understanding the vicious attack on America is in understanding “Wahhabism.”
Wahhabi Clerics control education in Saudi Arabia. They teach that all who do not believe exactly as they do are “enemies.” They also teach holy war against enemies (Die fighting a jihad and you die a martyr with special rewards afterlife.)
The Saudi hijackers were Wahhabi. When they crashed the planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon they believed they were doing a holy act and ensuring martyrdom. This twisted thinking is a perversion of Islam. The Wahhabis use their wealth to export their twisted message. They target the poor and illiterate with the promise of an education, only to teach religious INTOLERANCE, the oppression of women and terrorist warfare.
The Al Saud Family is worried about civil war. It has been Osama Bin Ladens main objective has ben to terrorize the U.S. out of Saudia Arabia and then incite the Saudi people to help him seize the kingdom and it’s vast oil reserves.
The Al Saud Family regularly pays off the Wahhabi Clerics and Islamic charities simply to avoid civil war. A lot of the money has been funnelled to Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda network.
If Islamic terrorists were to seize control of Saudia Arabia and its 260 billion barrels of crude oil reserves, they would be ten times more powerful than Iran or Iraq.
While Kuwait is the only Arab Democracy in the Middle East, the Islamic Fundamentalist Party is the fastest growing party there. The Middle East is a ticking time bomb. Islamic extremism is rapidly growing. …”
A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population
ANALYSIS October 7, 2009
Executve Summary
“..A comprehensive demographic study of more than 200 countries finds that there are 1.57 billion Muslims of all ages living in the world today, representing 23% of an estimated 2009 world population of 6.8 billion.
While Muslims are found on all five inhabited continents, more than 60% of the global Muslim population is in Asia and about 20% is in the Middle East and North Africa. However, the Middle East-North Africa region has the highest percentage of Muslim-majority countries. Indeed, more than half of the 20 countries and territories1 in that region have populations that are approximately 95% Muslim or greater.
More than 300 million Muslims, or one-fifth of the world’s Muslim population, live in countries where Islam is not the majority religion. These minority Muslim populations are often quite large. India, for example, has the third-largest population of Muslims worldwide. China has more Muslims than Syria, while Russia is home to more Muslims than Jordan and Libya combined.
Of the total Muslim population, 10-13% are Shia Muslims and 87-90% are Sunni Muslims. Most Shias (between 68% and 80%) live in just four countries: Iran, Pakistan, India and Iraq.
These are some of the key findings of Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population, a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. The report offers the most up-to-date and fully sourced estimates of the size and distribution of the worldwide Muslim population, including sectarian identity.
Previously published estimates of the size of the global Muslim population have ranged widely, from 1 billion to 1.8 billion.2 But these commonly quoted estimates often have appeared without citations to specific sources or explanations of how the figures were generated.
The Pew Forum report is based on the best available data for 232 countries and territories. Pew Forum researchers, in consultation with nearly 50 demographers and social scientists at universities and research centers around the world, acquired and analyzed about 1,500 sources, including census reports, demographic studies and general population surveys, to arrive at these figures – the largest project of its kind to date. (See Methodology for more detail.)
The Pew Forum’s estimate of the Shia population (10-13%) is in keeping with previous estimates, which generally have been in the range of 10-15%. Some previous estimates, however, have placed the number of Shias at nearly 20% of the world’s Muslim population.3 Readers should bear in mind that the figures given in this report for the Sunni and Shia populations are less precise than the figures for the overall Muslim population. Data on sectarian affiliation have been infrequently collected or, in many countries, not collected at all. Therefore, the Sunni and Shia numbers reported here are expressed as broad ranges and should be treated as approximate. …”
by Daniel Pipes
April 22, 2003
updated Nov 22, 2009
“…Islam is widely touted as “the fastest growing religion in the United States,” so how does one explain that The World Almanac and Book of Facts has these figures for Muslims in the United States:
1997 edition (p. 644) says 5.1 million
2003 edition (p. 635) says 2.8 million
No, the population did not actually decrease; to understand this reduction in the estimate, see my October 2001 analysis, “How Many U.S. Muslims?” In it, I report on two recent surveys, by the American Religious Identification Survey 2001 and Tom Smith of the University of Chicago, which found the number of U.S. Muslims to be under two million. So, it appears that the almanac’s editors stopped accepting the overblown Islamist estimates as accurate and instead relied on scholarly and reliable work. A good round estimate is that Muslims make up just under 1 percent of the U.S. population. (April 22, 2003) …”
“…Islam
Islam (a word that literally means “surrender to the will of God”) arose in Arabia with what Muslims believe are a series of revelations to the Prophet Mohammed from the one and only God, the God of Abraham and of Jesus. These revelations, conveyed by the angel Gabriel, are recorded in the Qur’an. Muslims believe that these revelations, given to the greatest and last of a chain of prophets stretching from Abraham through Jesus, complete God’s message to humanity. The Hadith, which recount Mohammed’s sayings and deeds as recorded by his contemporaries, are another fundamental source. A third key element is the Sharia, the code of law derived from the Qur’an and the Hadith.
Islam is divided into two main branches, Sunni and Shia. Soon after the Prophet’s death, the question of choosing a new leader, or caliph, for the Muslim community, or Ummah, arose. Initially, his successors could be drawn from the Prophet’s contemporaries, but with time, this was no longer possible. Those who became the Shia held that any leader of the Ummah must be a direct descendant of the Prophet; those who became the Sunni argued that lineal descent was not required if the candidate met other standards of faith and knowledge. After bloody struggles, the Sunni became (and remain) the majority sect. (The Shia are dominant in Iran.) The Caliphate-the institutionalized leadership of the Ummah-thus was a Sunni institution that continued until 1924, first under Arab and eventually under Ottoman Turkish control.
Many Muslims look back at the century after the revelations to the Prophet Mohammed as a golden age. Its memory is strongest among the Arabs. What happened then-the spread of Islam from the Arabian Peninsula throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and even into Europe within less than a century-seemed, and seems, miraculous.6 Nostalgia for Islam’s past glory remains a powerful force.
Islam is both a faith and a code of conduct for all aspects of life. For many Muslims, a good government would be one guided by the moral principles of their faith. This does not necessarily translate into a desire for clerical rule and the abolition of a secular state. It does mean that some Muslims tend to be uncomfortable with distinctions between religion and state, though Muslim rulers throughout history have readily separated the two.
To extremists, however, such divisions, as well as the existence of parliaments and legislation, only prove these rulers to be false Muslims usurping God’s authority over all aspects of life. Periodically, the Islamic world has seen surges of what, for want of a better term, is often labeled “fundamentalism.”7 Denouncing waywardness among the faithful, some clerics have appealed for a return to observance of the literal teachings of the Qur’an and Hadith. One scholar from the fourteenth century from whom Bin Ladin selectively quotes, Ibn Taimiyyah, condemned both corrupt rulers and the clerics who failed to criticize them. He urged Muslims to read the Qur’an and the Hadith for themselves, not to depend solely on learned interpreters like himself but to hold one another to account for the quality of their observance.8
The extreme Islamist version of history blames the decline from Islam’s golden age on the rulers and people who turned away from the true path of their religion, thereby leaving Islam vulnerable to encroaching foreign powers eager to steal their land, wealth, and even their souls.
Bin Ladin’s Worldview
Despite his claims to universal leadership, Bin Ladin offers an extreme view of Islamic history designed to appeal mainly to Arabs and Sunnis. He draws on fundamentalists who blame the eventual destruction of the Caliphate on leaders who abandoned the pure path of religious devotion.9 He repeatedly calls on his followers to embrace martyrdom since “the walls of oppression and humiliation cannot be demolished except in a rain of bullets.”10 For those yearning for a lost sense of order in an older, more tranquil world, he offers his “Caliphate” as an imagined alternative to today’s uncertainty. For others, he offers simplistic conspiracies to explain their world.
Bin Ladin also relies heavily on the Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb. A member of the Muslim Brotherhood11 executed in 1966 on charges of attempting to overthrow the government, Qutb mixed Islamic scholarship with a very superficial acquaintance with Western history and thought. Sent by the Egyptian government to study in the United States in the late 1940s, Qutb returned with an enormous loathing of Western society and history. He dismissed Western achievements as entirely material, arguing that Western society possesses “nothing that will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence.”12
Three basic themes emerge from Qutb’s writings. First, he claimed that the world was beset with barbarism, licentiousness, and unbelief (a condition he called jahiliyya, the religious term for the period of ignorance prior to the revelations given to the Prophet Mohammed). Qutb argued that humans can choose only between Islam and jahiliyya. Second, he warned that more people, including Muslims, were attracted to jahiliyya and its material comforts than to his view of Islam; jahiliyya could therefore triumph over Islam. Third, no middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan.All Muslims-as he defined them-therefore must take up arms in this fight.Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction.13
Bin Ladin shares Qutb’s stark view, permitting him and his followers to rationalize even unprovoked mass murder as righteous defense of an embattled faith. Many Americans have wondered, “Why do ‘they’ hate us?” Some also ask, “What can we do to stop these attacks?”
Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands. America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as “your agents.” Bin Ladin has stated flatly, “Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you.”14 These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America’s support for their countries’ repressive rulers.
Bin Ladin’s grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper. To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda’s answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture: “It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.” If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al Qaeda’s leaders said “desires death more than you desire life.”15 …”
“…We keep hearing that the only issue at hand is whether building the Ground Zero Mosque is legal or not. We keep hearing that opposing this mosque is un-American and makes us just like the enemy. In short, those who oppose a mosque are bigots.
This is, of course, a tactic employed by the left to narrow the debate, a tactic used to deny the very existence of Jihad. It’s also a way of smearing those who want to know more about the ideology of Imam Rauf and to find out if this mosque is terror-financed.
Questions: If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is revealed as an Islamist supremacist and the financing as dirty money, would it make a difference to those who support the building of the mosque?
If it makes no difference that Rauf is an Islamist who wants America to become Sharia compliant, then you are enabling Salafist Islam, an ideology that is, at the core, dedicated to the eradication of Western civilization.
If it does make a difference then we should exercise due diligence and investigate Rauf and the already murky financing behind the mosque? …”
“…Sharia (شريعة Šarīʿa; [ʃaˈriːʕa], “way” or “path”) is the sacred law of Islam. All Muslims believe Sharia is God’s law, but they have differences among themselves as to exactly what it entails.[1] Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well.
Muslims believe all Sharia is derived from two primary sources, the divine revelations set forth in the Qur’an, and the sayings and example set by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah. Fiqh, or “jurisprudence,” interprets and extends the application of Sharia to questions not directly addressed in the primary sources, by including secondary sources. These secondary sources usually include the consensus of the religious scholars embodied in ijma, and analogy from the Qur’an and Sunnah through qiyas. Shia jurists replace qiyas analogy with ‘aql, or “reason”. Where it enjoys official status, Sharia is applied by Islamic judges, or qadis. The imam has varying responsibilities depending on the interpretation of Sharia. While the term is commonly used to refer to the leader of communal prayers, the imam may also be a scholar, religious leader or political leader. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexuality, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting.
Introduction (or reintroduction) of Sharia is a longstanding goal for Islamist movements in Muslim countries. Some Muslim minorities in Asia (e.g. India) have attained institutional recognition of Sharia to adjudicate their personal and community affairs. In Western countries, where Muslim immigration is more recent, Muslim minorities have introduced Sharia family law, for use in their own disputes, with varying degrees of success (e.g. Britain’s Muslim Arbitration Tribunal). Attempts to impose Sharia have been accompanied by controversy,[2][3][4][5] violence,[6][7][8][9][10][11] and even warfare (cf. Second Sudanese Civil War) [12][13][14][15].
…”
Pearl Harbor
“…Pearl Harbor, or Pu’uloa, is a lagoon harbor on the island of Oʻahu, Hawaiʻi, west of Honolulu. Much of the harbor and surrounding lands is a United States Navy deep-water naval base. It is also the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The attack on Pearl Harbor by the Empire of Japan on December 7, 1941, brought the United States into World War II. …”
“…Aircraft and midget submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy began an attack on the U.S. The Americans had deciphered Japan’s code earlier and knew about a planned attack before it actually occurred. However, due to difficulty in deciphering intercepted messages, the Americans failed to discover Japan’s target location before the attack occurred.[6] Under the command of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the attack was devastating in loss of life and damage to the U.S. fleet. At 06:05 on December 7, the six Japanese carriers launched a first wave of 183 planes composed mainly of dive bombers, horizontal bombers and fighters.[7] The Japanese hit American ships and military installations at 07:51. The first wave attacked military airfields of Ford Island. At 08:30, a second wave of 170 Japanese planes, mostly torpedo bombers, attacked the fleet anchored in Pearl Harbor. The battleship Arizona was hit with an armor piercing bomb which penetrated the forward ammunition compartment, blowing the ship apart and sinking it within seconds. Overall, nine ships of the U.S. fleet were sunk and 21 ships were severely damaged. Three of the 21 would be irreparable. The overall death toll reached 2,350, including 68 civilians, and 1,178 injured. Of the military personnel lost at Pearl Harbor, 1,177 were from the Arizona. The first shots fired were from the destroyer Ward on a midget submarine that surfaced outside of Pearl Harbor; Ward sank the midget sub at approximately 06:55, about an hour before the assault on Pearl Harbor. Japan would lose 29 out of the 350 planes they attacked with. …”
“…In Pearl Harbor were 96 vessels, the bulk of the United States Pacific Fleet. Eight battleships of the Fleet were there, but the aircraft carriers were all at sea. The Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet (CINCPAC) was Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Army forces in Hawaii, including the 24th and 25th Infantry Divisions, were under the command of Lt. Gen. Walter C. Short, Commanding General of the Hawaiian Department. On the several airfields were a total of about 390 Navy and Army planes of all types, of which less than 300 were available for combat or observation purposes.
The Japanese air attack on Pearl Harbor and on the airfields of Oahu began at 0755 on December 7, 1941 and ended shortly before 1000. Quickly recovering from the initial shock of surprise, the Americans fought back vigorously with antiaircraft fire. Devastation of the airfields was so quick and thorough that only a few American planes were able to participate in the counterattack. The Japanese were successful in accomplishing their principal mission, which was to cripple the Pacific Fleet. They sunk three battleships, caused another to capsize, and severely damaged the other four.
All together the Japanese sank or severely damaged 18 ships, including the 8 battleships, three light cruisers, and three destroyers. On the airfields the Japanese destroyed 161 American planes (Army 74, Navy 87) and seriously damaged 102 (Army 71, Navy 31).
The Navy and Marine Corps suffered a total of 2,896 casualties of which 2,117 were deaths (Navy 2,008, Marines 109) and 779 wounded (Navy 710, Marines 69). The Army (as of midnight, 10 December) lost 228 killed or died of wounds, 113 seriously wounded and 346 slightly wounded. In addition, at least 57 civilians were killed and nearly as many seriously injured.
The Japanese lost 29 planes over Oahu, one large submarine (on 10 December), and all five of the midget submarines. Their personnel losses (according to Japanese sources) were 55 airmen, nine crewmen on the midget submarines, and an unknown number on the large submarines. The Japanese carrier task force sailed away undetected and unscathed.
On December 8, 1941, within less than an hour after a stirring, six-minute address by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress voted, with only one member dissenting, that a state of war existed between the United States and Japan, and empowered the President to wage war with all the resources of the country.
Four days after Pearl Harbor, December 11, 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. Congress, this time without a dissenting vote, immediately recognized the existence of a state of war with Germany and Italy, and also rescinded an article of the Selective Service Act prohibiting the use of American armed forces beyond the Western Hemisphere. …”
“…Wahhabi (Arabic: Al-Wahhābīyya الوهابية) or Wahhabism is a conservative Sunni Islamic sect based on the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, an 18th century scholar from what is today known as Saudi Arabia, who advocated to purge Islam of what he considered innovations in Islam. Wahhabism is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.[1] It is often referred to as a “sect”[1] or “branch”[2] of Islam, though both its supporters and its opponents[3] reject such designations. It has developed considerable influence in the Muslim world through the funding of mosques, schools and other means from Persian Gulf oil wealth.[4]
The primary doctrine of Wahhabi is Tawhid, or the uniqueness and unity of God.[5] Ibn Abdul Wahhab was influenced by the writings of Ibn Taymiyya and questioned medieval interpretations of Islam, claiming to rely on the Qur’an and the Hadith.[5] He preached against a “perceived moral decline and political weakness” in the Arabian Peninsula and condemned idolatry, the popular cult of saints, and shrine and tomb visitation.[5]
The term “Wahhabi” (Wahhābīya) was first used by opponents of ibn Abdul Wahhab.[2] It is considered derogatory by the people it is used to describe, who prefer to be called “unitarians” (Muwahiddun).[6]
The terms “Wahhabi”, “Salafi” (and also sometimes Ahle Hadith) are often used interchangeably, but Wahhabi has also been called “a particular orientation within Salafism”, [2] an orientation some consider ultra-conservative. [7][8] …”
Ground Zero mosque modeled after notorious 9/11 mosque?
Founder of hijackers’ D.C. worship center partners with N.Y. imam pushing shariah
“…The New York imam behind the Ground Zero mosque has struck a partnership with the founder of the so-called 9/11 mosque in the Washington suburbs that gave aid and comfort to some of the 9/11 hijackers, WND has learned.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf counts the lead trustee of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center among partners in his Cordoba Initiative, which features a 13-story mosque and a “cultural center” for his project to bring shariah, or Islamic law, to America.
Families of 9/11 victims oppose construction of the proposed site so close to Ground Zero.
Jamal Barzinji, one of the founders of the radical Muslim Brotherhood in America, also founded Dar al-Hijrah in Falls Church, Va., which is run by the pro-jihad Brotherhood. The mosque has been tied to numerous terrorism plots, including the 9/11 attacks.
The dots are finally being connected! Find out what Islam has planned for you: Get “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”
In December 2008, the Brotherhood’s U.S. think tank — the International Institute of Islamic Thought, or IIIT – hosted Rauf. During their meeting, IIIT’s leadership, including Barzinji, “pledged cooperation and support” for Rauf’s project, according to this screenshot of the description of the event from IIIT’s scrubbed Web archives.
Rauf’s partner Barzinji is a founder and director of IIIT, which is under active federal investigation for funneling funds to Palestinian terrorists. Its Herndon, Va., offices were raided by federal agents after 9/11.
The U.S. government has accused Barzinji of being “closely associated” with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas and other terrorist organizations. He has not been charged with a crime, however. …”
Ground Zero mosque debate swirls in world capitals
The Ground Zero mosque debate is garnering increased attention in the world press, with Muslims coming down on both sides of the proposed center two blocks from the former World Trade Center.
“…Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya television, also criticized the project in a column titled “A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?” in the Arab daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat on Sunday.
“Muslims do not aspire for a mosque next to the September 11 cemetery,” Mr. Al-Rashed wrote. He added that “the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!”
Shakib Bin-Makhlouf, president of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe, told Arab News that he supports the proposed Islamic center and appreciated President Obama coming out in support of it. “Islam has nothing to do with the events that happened on 9/11,” Mr. Bin-Makhlouf told the agency. “Unfortunately, the media has contributed in tying terrorism to Islam. When a non-Muslim commits an act of terror, no one refers to his religion.”
As the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” has turned into a political debating ground, it’s also become a barometer for the world to assess how America treats Muslims. One British blogger suggested that the mosque is evidence that America is experiencing the same “Islamitization” allegedly happening in Europe, where many Europeans worry that Muslims are gaining undue influence. In a pointed summary of the project, Qatar-based newspaper Al Jazeera writes:
Critics say it would be inappropriate to build a mosque on the “hallowed ground” of Ground Zero.
Yet there is already a mosque two blocks north of the Cordoba House site, Masjid Manhattan, which has been open since 1970.
As several commentators have pointed out, there is also a strip club – New York Dolls – just one block north of the mosque site. No one has complained about that profaning of the sacred. …”
Rush – You Have To Ask Yourself What Was The Point Of The Election
Brett gives details Krauthammer a big win for Obama but more debt
Dick Morris Calls Tax Cut Deal “A Surrender”
Michael Savage Dec 10 2010
News From the Cartoons – Bush Tax Cuts
Extending the bush tax cuts explained.
Will Obama’s Tax Cut Extension Boost Economy?
Suspend SS Payroll Tax? Robbing Peter to pay Paul?
Conservatives Oppose Extension of Jobless Benefits
House Democrats Reject Obama Tax Compromise
Mike Pence: It’s ‘Unconscionable’ the Democrats Didn’t Vote on Bush Tax Cuts Extension
Laffer Curve: Obama gets it? Is Obama a supply-sider now? Extending Bush tax cuts?
The Democratic Party’s Communist Dream
The Communist Manifesto
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.[12]
The U.S. Constitution? Or Obama’s Communist Manifesto? :: WHICH ONE, AMERICA? You MUST Choose!
The Tea Party Movement is against increases in Federal Government spending, subsidies, regulations and higher taxes.
The Tea Party Movement is for limited government and immigration, free enterprise, fiscal responsibility and a strong national defense.
The Tea Party Movement wants comprehensive tax reform–either a one rate flat income tax or a national retail sales consumption tax–the FairTax, preferably the latter.
Until this happens the Bush tax rates should be made permanent with no estate and gift taxes.
As a minimum the Bush tax rates should be made permanent including those on personal and corporate income, capital gains and interest, and estate and gift taxes.
If the Democrats want another extension of unemployment benefits then the they must agree to the three lower rate brackets for all Americans.
Otherwise let the Democratic Party and President will be responsible for the large tax increase in the middle of a recession with over 30 million Americans seeking a full time job.
If you want to “stimulate” the economy and avoid the Great Recession becoming the Obama Depression, cut the existing tax bracket rates and have three tax bracket instead of the current six brackets.
The Republican Party should replace the current six rates of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% with three new lower rates of 10%, 20%, and 30%.
For single taxpayers the 10% bracket would be for taxable income up to the first $100,000.
For single taxpayers the 20% bracket would be for income from $100,000 to $25o,000.
For single taxpayers the 30% bracket would be for income exceeding $250,000.
For married taxpayers the 10% bracketwould be for taxable income up to the first $200,000 taxpayers.
For married taxpayers the 20% bracket would be for income up from $200,000 to $500,000.
Formarried taxpayers the 30% bracket would be for income exceeding $500,000.
The Democratic Party and President Obama wants to replace the current six rate brackets of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% with five new higher tax brackets of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%.
Sell three lower tax brackets to the American people.
Which do you think the American people will want?
Certainly not higher tax rates and taxes when 30,000,000 Americans are looking for full-time jobs!
The Tea Party Movement wants balanced or surplus budgets which means cutting Federal expenditures by at least $1,000 billion per year. This requires the closing of ten Federal Departments, several agencies and over a thousand programs.
Stop subsidizing alternative energy such as ethanol, unemployment, and illegal immigration.
Permanently shut-down the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Resources, Interior, Labor and Transportation.
The Obama/Republican deal extending existing tax rates by two years does not do any of the above.
Instead the proposed bad deal would increase Federal Government expenditures and subsidies by at least another $200 billion or more per year.
This is a complete sellout of the Tea Party Movement.
The Republican Party establishment better get with the program or else face defeat in the next election like they did in 2006 and 2008!
Either the Republican establishment leadership walks away from this sellout of the Tea Party movement or the Tea Party Movement will demand new leadership or a third party to replace both the Democratic and Republican progressive parties.
Any Republican who votes for the Obama/Republican so-called deal will be replaced when they come up for election.
The time has come for the Republican establishment to show leadership and not appeasement to the big government interventionists–progressive radical socialists of the Democratic Party.
Kill The Deal!
Otherwise replace the Republican leadership in the House and Senate.
Remember what happened to the last Republican President who said “read my lips no new taxes” and then reneged on his promise.
This will happen to every Republican who votes for this deal.
Kill Obama’s Bad Deal!
The proposed bad deal is a trap.
If Republicans vote for this bad deal, Obama will blame another failed so-called stimulus bill on the Republicans and say he tried tax cuts and they did not work.
Only Marxists, progressives and the Democratic Party want and expect the tax rates to rise in 2011 to pay for the growing scope and size of government.
Larry Kudlow, Republican and radio/television commentor, is profound wrong when he repeatedly says that the extension of existing tax rates is a tax cut. This is the same nonsense that cutting the rate of growth in government spending is a spending cut.
Both are an attempt to deceive the American people.
The American people want a permanent extension to the existing rates and/or real tax reform such as the flat tax or the FairTax.
The American people want real spending cuts exceeding $1,000 billion per year and not more subsidies for ethanol and alternative energy.
The American people are tired of being robbed and held hostage by the progress radical socialists of the Demoratic Party.
Kill Obama’s Bad Deal.
The Tea Party movement will be taking names of those Republicans who voted for this economic and political bad deal.
Run, do not walk, away from the so-called Obama/Republican proposed tax bill to extend current tax rates for two years.
Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, and Goldberg are right and Kudlow, Krauthammer, Bennett, and the Republican establishment and ruling class are wrong both economically and politically.
The Tea Party movement agrees with Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and Goldberg.
Mark Levin – We Need Leaders, We Need Leaders That Know What There Doing
Time for the Republican party to stop playing defense and go on the offense.
Time for the FairTax.
The FairTax: It’s Time
Stop the sellout of the Tea Party Movement!
Kill the Bad Deal.
Rolling Stones – You Can’t Always Get What You Want (Live 1969)
The Big Chill Funeral Alex
One or both political parties are slowly committing suicide.
May they rest in peace.
Background Articles and Videos
December 13, 2010
The Lesson of the Tax Deal and the Deficit: Teach Your Kids Chinese
“…Of course, federal budget accounting is odd, to say the least. An extension of existing tax rates is not any new stimulus, but it counts as new deficit, since the current rates were supposed to expire at the end of 2010 and then rise to levels in effect before the 2001 and 2003 cuts. Since the federal government is now borrowing about forty cents to support every dollar of federal spending, the failure to raise tax rates (or cut spending) does lead to additional deficit spending in the future. Both Republicans and Democrats were quick to say that what they did this week was necessary because the economy is so weak, and in the end, the deal will help fix that. Since both Republicans and Democrats routinely vote to increase spending and cut taxes when the economy is strong, the only common denominator is that in good times or bad, the deficit increases.
Republicans have been arguing that they have won the ideological battle over tax rates, since the Obama administration accepted in the end that it is a bad idea to raise tax rates in a weak economy and that lower tax rates are stimulative. On the other hand, the Democrats won an ideological battle, too, since the Republicans have argued that the prior stimulus bill passed in February 2009 was an expensive failure (it was) but are now accepting that a new stimulus package is needed.
The compromise reached this week will have about $300 billion in what could be called new stimulus out of the trillion in total cost over two years, all to be financed with new debt. Extending tax rates and unemployment insurance already in place does not count as new stimulus.
Will that new stimulus money do the trick for the economy in the next year or two, when $862 billion did not do much the last two years? …”
Voters Put Spending Cuts Ahead of Deficit Reduction
“First things first. Despite official Washington’s increasing fixation on the federal budget deficit, most voters think cutting federal spending is a bigger priority.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters think reducing federal government spending is more important than reducing the deficit. Thirty-four percent (34%) put reducing the deficit first. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
It’s telling to note that while 65% of Mainstream voters believe cutting spending is more important, 72% of the Political Class say the primary emphasis should be on deficit reduction.
Most voters are still not convinced, even with a new Republican majority in the House, that Congress will actually cut government spending substantially over the next year. GOP voters are among the most doubtful.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters, in fact, are pessimistic about what Congress will accomplish in terms of government spending. …”
“…Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans and 50% of voters not affiliated with either of the major parties say cutting spending is more important than reducing the deficit. Democrats are more narrowly divided on the question.
Most conservatives and moderates say spending cuts should come first, but most liberals say deficit reduction is paramount.
Voters have consistently said in surveys for years that increased government spending hurts the economy, while decreased spending has a positive effect on the economy. But they expect government spending to rise during the Obama years.
Americans overwhelmingly anticipate that the federal government will have to dramatically cut spending like France and Britain are doing now, and a sizable number suggest that even Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid may have to be on the cutting block. …”
“O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).”
~Quran, 9:123
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
~Winston Churchill
American Airlines flight number 11 left gate B32 and took off from Boston’s Logan International airport at 7:59 a.m bound for Los Angeles.
At about 8:46:40 local time, all 92 passengers and crew including five Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorist hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11 were killed as it crashed into the North Tower (Tower 1) of the World Trade Center.
Then at 9:03 a.m. United Airlines Flight 175 bound from Boston’s Logan International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport crashes into the South Tower (Tower 2) killing 65 passengers and crew including five Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorist hijackers.
Shortly thereafter at 9:35 a.m. American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon killing all 64 passengers and crew including five Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorist hijackers aboard as well as 125 in the Pentagon.
The only aircraft that did not reach its intended target, the United States Capital building in Washington D.C., was United Airlines Flight 93 bound from Newark International Airport to San Francisco International Airport.
Four Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorists hijacked the plane about forty minutes into the flight. However, several passengers tried to take back the aircraft from the terrorists.
All 44 passengers and crew including the 4 Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorists died at about 10:03 a.m.when the plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
Several hundred people choose to jump to their deaths from both towers to escape from the intense fire and choking smoke in both buildings captured in the “Falling Man” photo and recounted in the 9/11 The Falling Man documentary on YouTube and “The Falling Man” online article in Esquire Magazine:
Credit: The Falling Man, a photograph by Richard Drew for the Associated Press.
9/11 The Falling Man
The Falling Man
By Tom Junod
“…They began jumping not long after the first plane hit the North Tower, not long after the fire started. They kept jumping until the tower fell. They jumped through windows already broken and then, later, through windows they broke themselves. They jumped to escape the smoke and the fire; they jumped when the ceilings fell and the floors collapsed; they jumped just to breathe once more before they died. They jumped continually, from all four sides of the building, and from all floors above and around the building’s fatal wound. They jumped from the offices of Marsh & McLennan, the insurance company; from the offices of Cantor Fitzgerald, the bond-trading company; from Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 106th and 107th floors — the top. For more than an hour and a half, they streamed from the building, one after another, consecutively rather than en masse, as if each individual required the sight of another individual jumping before mustering the courage to jump himself or herself. …”
People watching the burning towers from surrounding streets were horrified at what they were witnessing as hundreds from all sides of the two towers jumped to their certain deaths to escape the flames and smoke.
After burning for fifty-six minutes the South Tower of the World Trade Center fell at 9:58.
Thirty minutes later the North Tower fell.
Less than two hours from the time the two jet passenger airliners crashed into World Trade Center towers, both buildings had collapsed.
Killed that day were nearly three thousand people from over 70 countries that were in and around the buildings that were destroyed or damaged including over three hundred New York City fireman and policemen who responded to the explosions and fires in the buildings.
Al-Qaeda’s Islamic Wahhabi jihad or struggle by the sword arrived with a vengeance in the United States on September 11, 2001.
Al-Qaeda is a radical network of militants who call for a global jihad or armed struggle with those not of the Islamic faith, including Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus.
Most Al-Qaeda jihadists are from the Sunni branch of Islam and from the fundamentalist Wahhabi sect established in Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda wants to establish a new Islamic Caliphate or leader for the Muslim community or Ummah under Sharia or Islamic law. However, Muslims differ as to the interpretation of Sharia or Islamic law.
The two main branches of Islam are Sunni and Shia. The largest branch of Islam is Sunni who comprise between 87% to 90% of all Muslems worldwide according to the Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population, a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. The smaller Shia branch of Islam comprises between 10% and 13% of the all Muslims worldwide and who are are primarily located in Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, and India. Arabs are primarily Sunni and Iranians or Persians are primarily Shia. There are both Sunni and Shia jihadists who use suicide bombers to attack infidels or those of another religious faith mainly Christians, Jews and Hindus.
However, neither Arabs nor Iranians are the largest populations of Muslims. The countries with the largest Muslim populations include Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey. In 2010 the world’s population is nearly 7 billion of which nearly 1.6 billion are Muslims or over 22% of the world’s population. There are over 50 countries with a Muslim majority and 57 countries comprising the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) .
The United States with a population of 310 million has a relatively small Muslim population of about 3 million or roughly 1% of the total population of the United States in 2010. The Al-qaeda attackers came primarily from Saudi Arabia with a Muslim population of about 25 million or less than 2% of the world’s Muslim population.
The nineteen Al-Qaeda terrorists were religious fanatics of the Sunni Islam Wahhabi sect, including fifteen Saudi nationals. The Al-Qaeda jihadists had hijacked four commercial airline passenger jets in a coordinated attack on the American people and the United States of America.
The death toll from the Islamic Wahhabi jihad attack on America on September 11, 2001 was 2,995 including the nineteen al-Qaeda terrorist hijackers. There were more deaths on September 11, 2001, than the 2350 deaths, mostly members of the United States Navy and Army, from the surprise Imperial Japanese Navy attack on the United States Navy Pacific fleet docked at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
Nearly nine years later a so-called “moderate” Muslem cleric, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, wants to build a thirteen story Islamic community center and mosque less than three blocks from ground zero, the site of the destroyed World Trade Center towers.
The planned site for the Islamic community center and mosque is 45-51 Park Place, called Park 51, is two and half block north and 560 feet from the northern boundary of the World Trade Center site at Vesey street.
Few Americans dispute the property owners’ right to construct such a building provided all city, state and Federal laws are complied with including local zoning laws and receipt of the necessary building permits.
Few Americans dispute the rights of all Americans to practice their religious faith.
Few Americans oppose the exercise of free speech.
The vast majority of Americans, however, consider the proposed community center and mosque to be an insulting affront to the families and friends of those who died on September 11, 2001.
Just because you can do something, does not mean you should.
In fact the Islamic religion considers such an action to be mischief-making or a fitna, a deliberate provocation against the infidels, those not of the Islamic faith including Christians and Jews.
The site of the World Trade Center and the immediate surrounding area is considered hallowed ground for it is the final resting place or cemetery for many of those who died on September 11, 2001 and whose remains were never found.
The American people demand that this Islamic community center and mosque be moved to another location in New York City.
Otherwise, those behind the building of such an insulting affront to the American people will only receive the rightful indignation and shunning they justly deserve and will soon be exposed for who and what they are–stealth jihadists.
Extreme jidahists can be Sunni or Shia and overt militarist jihadists like those of September 11, 2010 or covert stealth jihadists that want to replace the United States Constitution and American law with Sharia or Islamic law and our representative republic with a theocracy.
Stealth jihadists speak of toleration when speaking to infidels or non-believers in Islam
When the jihadists speak to their fellow Muslims, they speak of Islamic global supremacy and return of the Caliphate under Sharia or Islamic law.
Religious toleration has it limits even in the United States. Toleration should be a two-way street. Toleration does not extend to evil. Toleration is not a suicide pact. Yet Saudi Arabia has zero toleration or an absolute ban for any church, temple or synagogue being built in Saudi Arabia and bans all non-believers in Islam from the city of Mecca.
Sharia is a direct and immediate threat to liberty of the American people. The jihadists seek to replace American law and the United States Constitution with Sharia or Islamic law.
Sharia or Islamic law should be banned from the United States and those immigrants advocating it should be deported to their country of origin.
Saudi Arabia funds Islamic community centers and mosques throughout the United States where both militarist and stealth jihadists are cultivated and supported. The majority of terrorist attacks in the last decade have come from extreme Islamic jihadists, from both the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam and with support and encouragement of local mosques and their Imam.
Authors, journalists, politicians and television and talk radio show hosts such as Steven Emerson, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Andrew C. McCarthy, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage are among those who expose the threat posed by the militarist and stealth jihadists. However, those commenting upon the threat posed by the jihadists are quickly labeled by the jihadists, their supporters and mainstream media as engaging in hate speech and accused of being racists and Islamophobes, having prejudice or bias against those of the Islam faith or Moslems. This is especially true when the Quran and actual speeches and words of the jihadists are quoted or made available for viewing on the Internet at such sites as YouTube.
The American people will remember September 11, 2001 and never forget the fallen. The American people will honor their memories by stopping the ground zero mosque and the militant and stealth jihadists of the sword whether they be Sunni or Shia. The American people will defend their country and their liberty.
Imam Rauf Exposed, Elimination of Israel, Terrorist Supporting, N’ Word
Newt Gingrich: No Ground Zero Mosque
Newt Gingrich: Ban Sharia – It is” totally abhorrent to the Western World”
“…At fifteen seconds after 9:41 a.m., on September 11, 2001, a photographer named Richard Drew took a picture of a man falling through the sky — falling through time as well as through space. The picture went all around the world, and then disappeared, as if we willed it away. One of the most famous photographs in human history became an unmarked grave, and the man buried inside its frame — the Falling Man — became the Unknown Soldier in a war whose end we have not yet seen. …”
Leader of Ground Zero Mosque Refuses To Disclose Source Of Funding
Ground Zero Mosque 9/11 Liars for Islam, Muhammad said you can lie: Taqiyya
Radical Islam: Saudi Wahhabism responsible for worldwide terror
Robert Spencer on Hannity exposes Imam Rauf on Ground Zero Mosque
Robert Spencer Jihad Watch
Jihad on Campus – Saudis’ Multi-Million Dollar PR Agenda]
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (1 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (2 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (3 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (4 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (5 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (6 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (7 of 7)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (1 of 6)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (2 of 6)
]
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (3 of 6)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (4 of 6)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (5 of 6)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (6 of 6)
Andy McCarthy Discusses The Ground Zero Mosque
Andy McCarthy – The Grand Jihad (5.24.10)
Law & Jihad with Andrew McCarthy
Andy McCarthy: “What We Call Terrorism, They Don’t”
First Friday – Andrew C. McCarthy – America’s War on Terror…or is It?
Michael Savage Gets Pissed Off About Jihadists and Terrorism
annity 05/04/2010 w/ Mark Levin
September 11 Attacks
The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.[1][2] The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. Both buildings collapsed within two hours, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the plane, which the hijackers had redirected toward Washington, D.C. There were no survivors from any of the flights.
The death toll of the attacks was 2,995, including the 19 hijackers.[3] The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 70 countries.[4] In addition, there is at least one secondary death – one person was ruled by a medical examiner to have died from lung disease due to exposure to dust from the World Trade Center’s collapse.[5]
The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terrorism. It invaded Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had harbored al-Qaeda terrorists. The United States also enacted the USA PATRIOT Act. Many other countries also strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. Some American stock exchanges stayed closed for the rest of the week following the attack and posted enormous losses upon reopening, especially in the airline and insurance industries. The destruction of billions of dollars worth of office space caused serious damage to the economy of Lower Manhattan.
The damage to the Pentagon was cleared and repaired within a year, and the Pentagon Memorial was built adjacent to the building. The rebuilding process has started on the World Trade Center site. In 2006 a new office tower was completed on the site of 7 World Trade Center. 1 World Trade Center is currently under construction at the site and, at 1,776 ft (541 m) upon completion in 2013, it will become one of the tallest buildings in North America. Three more towers were originally expected to be built between 2007 and 2012 on the site. Ground was broken for the Flight 93 National Memorial on November 8, 2009, and the first phase of construction is expected to be ready for the 10th anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2011.[6] …”
American Airlines Flight 11
American Airlines Flight 11 was a scheduled U.S. domestic passenger flight from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts to Los Angeles International Airport. It was hijacked by five al-Qaedan terrorists and deliberately crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City as part of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Fifteen minutes into the flight, the hijackers injured at least three people, forcefully breached the cockpit, and overpowered the pilot and first officer. Mohamed Atta, a known member of al-Qaeda,[1][2] and trained as a pilot, took over the controls. Air traffic controllers noticed the flight was in distress when the crew stopped responding to them. They realized the flight had been hijacked when Atta mistakenly transmitted announcements for passengers to air traffic control. On board, two flight attendants contacted American Airlines, and provided information about the hijackers and injuries to passengers and crew.
The aircraft crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 local time; the impact killed all 92 people aboard, including the hijackers, plus an unconfirmed number of people in the buildings impact zone. Many people in the streets witnessed the collision, and the Naudet brothers captured the impact on video, as did Pavel Hlava. Mark Burnback and Wolfgang Staehle had a webcam set up that captured the impact through a series of photographs. Before the hijacking was confirmed, news agencies began to report on the incident and speculated that the crash had been an accident. The impact and subsequent fire caused the North Tower to collapse, which resulted in thousands of additional casualties. During the recovery effort at the World Trade Center site, workers recovered and identified dozens of remains from Flight 11 victims (see section Aftermath below), but many other body fragments could not be identified. …”
“…American Airlines Flight 77 was the third flight hijacked as part of the September 11 attacks. It was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon. The flight from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport was hijacked by five Islamic extremists less than 35 minutes into the flight. The hijackers stormed the cockpit and forced the passengers to the rear of the aircraft. Hani Hanjour, one of the hijackers who was trained as a pilot, assumed control of the flight. Unknown to the hijackers, passengers aboard were able to make calls to loved ones and relay information on the hijacking.
The aircraft crashed into the western side of the Pentagon at 09:37am EDT. All 64 people on board the aircraft, including the hijackers, and 125 in the building were killed. Dozens of people witnessed the crash and news sources began reporting on the incident within minutes. The impact severely damaged an area of the Pentagon and ignited a large fire. A portion of the Pentagon collapsed and firefighters spent days trying to fully extinguish the blaze. The damaged sections of the Pentagon were rebuilt in 2002, with occupants moving back into the completed areas on August 15, 2002.
The 184 victims of the attack are memorialized in the Pentagon Memorial adjacent to the Pentagon. The 1.93-acre (7,800 m2) park consists of 184 benches, one for each of the victims, arranged according to the year of birth, ranging from 1930 (age 71) to 1998 (age 3). Flight 77′s cuts directly through the park. …”
“… United Airlines Flight 175 was a scheduled U.S. domestic passenger flight from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts to Los Angeles International Airport, in California. On the morning of September 11, 2001, the flight was hijacked by five al-Qaeda-associated Islamist terrorists, and flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City as part of the September 11 attacks. Approximately thirty minutes into the flight, the hijackers forcefully breached the cockpit, and overpowered the pilot and first officer, allowing lead hijacker and trained pilot Marwan al-Shehhi to take over the controls. The aircraft’s transponder was turned off and the aircraft deviated from the assigned flight path for four minutes, before air traffic controllers noticed at 08:51. They made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the cockpit. Several passengers and crew aboard made phone calls from the plane and provided information about the hijackers and injuries to passengers and crew.
The Boeing 767 operating as Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center at 09:03, killing all 65 people aboard, including the hijackers. The Flight 175 hijacking was coordinated with that of American Airlines Flight 11, which had struck the top of the North Tower eighteen minutes earlier. The crash of Flight 175 into the South Tower was the only impact seen live on television around the world as it happened. It was upon the loss of Flight 175 that the world realized that the crashes of both aircraft at the World Trade Center were in fact deliberate. The impact and subsequent fire caused the South Tower to collapse, 56 minutes later, resulting in hundreds of additional casualties. During the recovery effort at the World Trade Center site, workers recovered and identified remains from Flight 175 victims (see chapter Aftermath, below), but many other body fragments could not be identified. …”
“…United Airlines Flight 93 was a United States domestic passenger flight from Newark International Airport in Newark, NJ to San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco, CA that was hijacked on September 11, 2001. Approximately 40 minutes into the flight the hijackers breached the cockpit, overpowered the pilots and took control of the aircraft, diverting it toward Washington, D.C. Several passengers and crew members made telephone calls aboard the flight and learned about the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As a result of this knowledge, the passengers decided to mount an assault against the hijackers in an attempt to regain control of the aircraft.
The plane crashed in a field in Stonycreek Township, near Shanksville, in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, about 80 miles (130 km) southeast of Pittsburgh and 150 miles (240 km) northwest of Washington, D.C., killing all on board including the four hijackers. Many witnessed the impact from the ground and news agencies began reporting on the event within an hour. The plane fragmented upon impact, leaving a crater, and some debris was blown miles from the crash site. The remains of everyone on board the aircraft were later identified. Subsequent analysis of the flight recorders revealed how the actions taken by the passengers prevented the aircraft from reaching the hijackers’ intended target, thought to be either the White House or the United States Capitol. A permanent memorial is planned for construction on the crash site, with dedication scheduled for 2011, though it has been the subject of criticism.
Of the four aircraft hijacked on September 11 (the others were American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 175), United Airlines Flight 93 was the only one that failed to reach its intended target. …”
“…Al-Qaeda (pronounced /ælˈkaɪdə/ al-KYE-də or /ælˈkeɪdə/ al-KAY-də; Arabic: القاعدة, al-qāʿidah, “the base”), alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa’ida, is a militant Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988[6] and late 1989.[7] It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless army[8] and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global Jihad. It is considered a terrorist organization.
Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, most notably the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. in 2001. The U.S. government responded by launching the War on Terror.
Characteristic techniques include suicide attacks and simultaneous bombings of different targets.[9] Activities ascribed to it may involve members of the movement, who have taken a pledge of loyalty to Osama bin Laden, or the much more numerous “al-Qaeda-linked” individuals who have undergone training in one of its camps in Afghanistan, Iraq or Sudan, but not taken any pledge.[10]
Al-Qaeda ideologues envision a complete break from the foreign influences in Muslim countries, and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate. Reported beliefs include that a Christian-Jewish alliance is conspiring to destroy Islam,[11] which is largely embodied in the U.S.-Israel alliance, and that the killing of bystanders and civilians is religiously justified in jihad. …”
“…Jihad (pronounced /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد [dʒiˈhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning “struggle.” Jihad appears frequently in the Qur’an and common usage as the idiomatic expression “striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)“.[1][2] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[3] In Twelver Shi’a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion.
A wide range of opinions exist about the exact meaning of jihad. Muslims use the word in a religious context to refer to three types of struggles: an internal struggle to maintain faith, the struggle to improve the Muslim society, or the struggle in a holy war.[4] The differences of opinion are the result of different interpretation of the two most important sources in Islam, the Qur’an and the ahadith (singular: hadith). For example, the prominent orientalist Bernard Lewis argues that, in the Qur’an and the ahadith jihad implies warfare in the large majority of cases.[5] In a commentary of the hadith Sahih Muslim, entitled al-Minhaj, the medieval Islamic scholar Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi stated that “one of the collective duties of the community as a whole (fard kifaya) is to lodge a valid protest, to solve problems of religion, to have knowledge of Divine Law, to command what is right and forbid wrong conduct”.[6]
In western societies the term jihad is often translated as “holy war”.[7] Muslim authors tend to reject such an approach, stressing non-militant connotations of the word.[8] In technical literature, the term “holy war” is often used to describe jihad.[9] However, scholars of Islamic studies often stress that both words are not synonymous.[10]
Jihad has been classified either as al-jihād al-akbar (the greater jihad), the struggle against one’s soul (nafs), or al-jihād al-asghar (the lesser jihad), the external, physical effort, often implying fighting (this is similar to the shiite view of jihad as well).
Gibril Haddad has analyzed the basis for the belief that internal jihad is the “greater jihad”, Jihad al-akbar. Haddad identifies the primary historical basis for this belief in a pair of similarly worded hadith, in which Mohammed is reported to have told warriors returning home that they had returned from the lesser jihad of struggle against non-Muslims to a greater jihad of struggle against lust. Although Haddad notes that the authenticity of both hadeeth is questionable, he nevertheless concludes that the underlying principle of superiority internal jihad does have a reliable basis in the Qur’an and other writings.[31][32]
In contrast, the Hanbali scholar Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya did believe that “internal Jihad” is important[33] but he suggests those hadith as weak which consider “Jihad of the heart/soul” to be more important than “Jihad by the sword”.[34] Contemporary Islamic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Azzam has argued the hadith is not just weak but “is in fact a false, fabricated hadith which has no basis. It is only a saying of Ibrahim Ibn Abi `Abalah, one of the Successors, and it contradicts textual evidence and reality.”[35]
Muslim jurists explained there are four kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):[36]
Jihad of the heart(jihad bil qalb/nafs) is concerned with combatting the devil and in the attempt to escape his persuasion to evil. This type of Jihad was regarded as the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar).
Jihad by the tongue(jihad bil lisan) is concerned with speaking the truth and spreading the word of Islam with one’s tongue.
Jihad by the hand(jihad bil yad) refers to choosing to do what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong with action.
Jihad by the sword(jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war), the most common usage by Salafi Muslims and offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Some contemporary Islamists have succeeded in replacing the greater jihad, the fight against desires, with the lesser jihad, the holy war to establish, defend and extend the Islamic state.[37]
“…Most Americans continue to be puzzled by the Saudis. 15 or the 19 hijackers on Sept 11th were Saudia Arabian. Not Taliban. Not Libyan. Not Palestinian. Why? They don’t like our military presence in the country, our culture, our policies, in general they just don’t like us and want us dead. What’s more they’re increasingly unhappy with the ruling Al Saud Family, who a decade ago cut a deal with us for military protection. The Key to understanding the vicious attack on America is in understanding “Wahhabism.”
Wahhabi Clerics control education in Saudi Arabia. They teach that all who do not believe exactly as they do are “enemies.” They also teach holy war against enemies (Die fighting a jihad and you die a martyr with special rewards afterlife.)
The Saudi hijackers were Wahhabi. When they crashed the planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon they believed they were doing a holy act and ensuring martyrdom. This twisted thinking is a perversion of Islam. The Wahhabis use their wealth to export their twisted message. They target the poor and illiterate with the promise of an education, only to teach religious INTOLERANCE, the oppression of women and terrorist warfare.
The Al Saud Family is worried about civil war. It has been Osama Bin Ladens main objective has ben to terrorize the U.S. out of Saudia Arabia and then incite the Saudi people to help him seize the kingdom and it’s vast oil reserves.
The Al Saud Family regularly pays off the Wahhabi Clerics and Islamic charities simply to avoid civil war. A lot of the money has been funnelled to Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda network.
If Islamic terrorists were to seize control of Saudia Arabia and its 260 billion barrels of crude oil reserves, they would be ten times more powerful than Iran or Iraq.
While Kuwait is the only Arab Democracy in the Middle East, the Islamic Fundamentalist Party is the fastest growing party there. The Middle East is a ticking time bomb. Islamic extremism is rapidly growing. …”
A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population
ANALYSIS October 7, 2009
Executve Summary
“..A comprehensive demographic study of more than 200 countries finds that there are 1.57 billion Muslims of all ages living in the world today, representing 23% of an estimated 2009 world population of 6.8 billion.
While Muslims are found on all five inhabited continents, more than 60% of the global Muslim population is in Asia and about 20% is in the Middle East and North Africa. However, the Middle East-North Africa region has the highest percentage of Muslim-majority countries. Indeed, more than half of the 20 countries and territories1 in that region have populations that are approximately 95% Muslim or greater.
More than 300 million Muslims, or one-fifth of the world’s Muslim population, live in countries where Islam is not the majority religion. These minority Muslim populations are often quite large. India, for example, has the third-largest population of Muslims worldwide. China has more Muslims than Syria, while Russia is home to more Muslims than Jordan and Libya combined.
Of the total Muslim population, 10-13% are Shia Muslims and 87-90% are Sunni Muslims. Most Shias (between 68% and 80%) live in just four countries: Iran, Pakistan, India and Iraq.
These are some of the key findings of Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population, a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. The report offers the most up-to-date and fully sourced estimates of the size and distribution of the worldwide Muslim population, including sectarian identity.
Previously published estimates of the size of the global Muslim population have ranged widely, from 1 billion to 1.8 billion.2 But these commonly quoted estimates often have appeared without citations to specific sources or explanations of how the figures were generated.
The Pew Forum report is based on the best available data for 232 countries and territories. Pew Forum researchers, in consultation with nearly 50 demographers and social scientists at universities and research centers around the world, acquired and analyzed about 1,500 sources, including census reports, demographic studies and general population surveys, to arrive at these figures – the largest project of its kind to date. (See Methodology for more detail.)
The Pew Forum’s estimate of the Shia population (10-13%) is in keeping with previous estimates, which generally have been in the range of 10-15%. Some previous estimates, however, have placed the number of Shias at nearly 20% of the world’s Muslim population.3 Readers should bear in mind that the figures given in this report for the Sunni and Shia populations are less precise than the figures for the overall Muslim population. Data on sectarian affiliation have been infrequently collected or, in many countries, not collected at all. Therefore, the Sunni and Shia numbers reported here are expressed as broad ranges and should be treated as approximate. …”
by Daniel Pipes
April 22, 2003
updated Nov 22, 2009
“…Islam is widely touted as “the fastest growing religion in the United States,” so how does one explain that The World Almanac and Book of Facts has these figures for Muslims in the United States:
1997 edition (p. 644) says 5.1 million
2003 edition (p. 635) says 2.8 million
No, the population did not actually decrease; to understand this reduction in the estimate, see my October 2001 analysis, “How Many U.S. Muslims?” In it, I report on two recent surveys, by the American Religious Identification Survey 2001 and Tom Smith of the University of Chicago, which found the number of U.S. Muslims to be under two million. So, it appears that the almanac’s editors stopped accepting the overblown Islamist estimates as accurate and instead relied on scholarly and reliable work. A good round estimate is that Muslims make up just under 1 percent of the U.S. population. (April 22, 2003) …”
“…Islam
Islam (a word that literally means “surrender to the will of God”) arose in Arabia with what Muslims believe are a series of revelations to the Prophet Mohammed from the one and only God, the God of Abraham and of Jesus. These revelations, conveyed by the angel Gabriel, are recorded in the Qur’an. Muslims believe that these revelations, given to the greatest and last of a chain of prophets stretching from Abraham through Jesus, complete God’s message to humanity. The Hadith, which recount Mohammed’s sayings and deeds as recorded by his contemporaries, are another fundamental source. A third key element is the Sharia, the code of law derived from the Qur’an and the Hadith.
Islam is divided into two main branches, Sunni and Shia. Soon after the Prophet’s death, the question of choosing a new leader, or caliph, for the Muslim community, or Ummah, arose. Initially, his successors could be drawn from the Prophet’s contemporaries, but with time, this was no longer possible. Those who became the Shia held that any leader of the Ummah must be a direct descendant of the Prophet; those who became the Sunni argued that lineal descent was not required if the candidate met other standards of faith and knowledge. After bloody struggles, the Sunni became (and remain) the majority sect. (The Shia are dominant in Iran.) The Caliphate-the institutionalized leadership of the Ummah-thus was a Sunni institution that continued until 1924, first under Arab and eventually under Ottoman Turkish control.
Many Muslims look back at the century after the revelations to the Prophet Mohammed as a golden age. Its memory is strongest among the Arabs. What happened then-the spread of Islam from the Arabian Peninsula throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and even into Europe within less than a century-seemed, and seems, miraculous.6 Nostalgia for Islam’s past glory remains a powerful force.
Islam is both a faith and a code of conduct for all aspects of life. For many Muslims, a good government would be one guided by the moral principles of their faith. This does not necessarily translate into a desire for clerical rule and the abolition of a secular state. It does mean that some Muslims tend to be uncomfortable with distinctions between religion and state, though Muslim rulers throughout history have readily separated the two.
To extremists, however, such divisions, as well as the existence of parliaments and legislation, only prove these rulers to be false Muslims usurping God’s authority over all aspects of life. Periodically, the Islamic world has seen surges of what, for want of a better term, is often labeled “fundamentalism.”7 Denouncing waywardness among the faithful, some clerics have appealed for a return to observance of the literal teachings of the Qur’an and Hadith. One scholar from the fourteenth century from whom Bin Ladin selectively quotes, Ibn Taimiyyah, condemned both corrupt rulers and the clerics who failed to criticize them. He urged Muslims to read the Qur’an and the Hadith for themselves, not to depend solely on learned interpreters like himself but to hold one another to account for the quality of their observance.8
The extreme Islamist version of history blames the decline from Islam’s golden age on the rulers and people who turned away from the true path of their religion, thereby leaving Islam vulnerable to encroaching foreign powers eager to steal their land, wealth, and even their souls.
Bin Ladin’s Worldview
Despite his claims to universal leadership, Bin Ladin offers an extreme view of Islamic history designed to appeal mainly to Arabs and Sunnis. He draws on fundamentalists who blame the eventual destruction of the Caliphate on leaders who abandoned the pure path of religious devotion.9 He repeatedly calls on his followers to embrace martyrdom since “the walls of oppression and humiliation cannot be demolished except in a rain of bullets.”10 For those yearning for a lost sense of order in an older, more tranquil world, he offers his “Caliphate” as an imagined alternative to today’s uncertainty. For others, he offers simplistic conspiracies to explain their world.
Bin Ladin also relies heavily on the Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb. A member of the Muslim Brotherhood11 executed in 1966 on charges of attempting to overthrow the government, Qutb mixed Islamic scholarship with a very superficial acquaintance with Western history and thought. Sent by the Egyptian government to study in the United States in the late 1940s, Qutb returned with an enormous loathing of Western society and history. He dismissed Western achievements as entirely material, arguing that Western society possesses “nothing that will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence.”12
Three basic themes emerge from Qutb’s writings. First, he claimed that the world was beset with barbarism, licentiousness, and unbelief (a condition he called jahiliyya, the religious term for the period of ignorance prior to the revelations given to the Prophet Mohammed). Qutb argued that humans can choose only between Islam and jahiliyya. Second, he warned that more people, including Muslims, were attracted to jahiliyya and its material comforts than to his view of Islam; jahiliyya could therefore triumph over Islam. Third, no middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan.All Muslims-as he defined them-therefore must take up arms in this fight.Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction.13
Bin Ladin shares Qutb’s stark view, permitting him and his followers to rationalize even unprovoked mass murder as righteous defense of an embattled faith. Many Americans have wondered, “Why do ‘they’ hate us?” Some also ask, “What can we do to stop these attacks?”
Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands. America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as “your agents.” Bin Ladin has stated flatly, “Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you.”14 These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America’s support for their countries’ repressive rulers.
Bin Ladin’s grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper. To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda’s answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture: “It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.” If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al Qaeda’s leaders said “desires death more than you desire life.”15 …”
“…We keep hearing that the only issue at hand is whether building the Ground Zero Mosque is legal or not. We keep hearing that opposing this mosque is un-American and makes us just like the enemy. In short, those who oppose a mosque are bigots.
This is, of course, a tactic employed by the left to narrow the debate, a tactic used to deny the very existence of Jihad. It’s also a way of smearing those who want to know more about the ideology of Imam Rauf and to find out if this mosque is terror-financed.
Questions: If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is revealed as an Islamist supremacist and the financing as dirty money, would it make a difference to those who support the building of the mosque?
If it makes no difference that Rauf is an Islamist who wants America to become Sharia compliant, then you are enabling Salafist Islam, an ideology that is, at the core, dedicated to the eradication of Western civilization.
If it does make a difference then we should exercise due diligence and investigate Rauf and the already murky financing behind the mosque? …”
“…Sharia (شريعة Šarīʿa; [ʃaˈriːʕa], “way” or “path”) is the sacred law of Islam. All Muslims believe Sharia is God’s law, but they have differences among themselves as to exactly what it entails.[1] Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well.
Muslims believe all Sharia is derived from two primary sources, the divine revelations set forth in the Qur’an, and the sayings and example set by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah. Fiqh, or “jurisprudence,” interprets and extends the application of Sharia to questions not directly addressed in the primary sources, by including secondary sources. These secondary sources usually include the consensus of the religious scholars embodied in ijma, and analogy from the Qur’an and Sunnah through qiyas. Shia jurists replace qiyas analogy with ‘aql, or “reason”. Where it enjoys official status, Sharia is applied by Islamic judges, or qadis. The imam has varying responsibilities depending on the interpretation of Sharia. While the term is commonly used to refer to the leader of communal prayers, the imam may also be a scholar, religious leader or political leader. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexuality, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting.
Introduction (or reintroduction) of Sharia is a longstanding goal for Islamist movements in Muslim countries. Some Muslim minorities in Asia (e.g. India) have attained institutional recognition of Sharia to adjudicate their personal and community affairs. In Western countries, where Muslim immigration is more recent, Muslim minorities have introduced Sharia family law, for use in their own disputes, with varying degrees of success (e.g. Britain’s Muslim Arbitration Tribunal). Attempts to impose Sharia have been accompanied by controversy,[2][3][4][5] violence,[6][7][8][9][10][11] and even warfare (cf. Second Sudanese Civil War) [12][13][14][15].
…”
Pearl Harbor
“…Pearl Harbor, or Pu’uloa, is a lagoon harbor on the island of Oʻahu, Hawaiʻi, west of Honolulu. Much of the harbor and surrounding lands is a United States Navy deep-water naval base. It is also the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The attack on Pearl Harbor by the Empire of Japan on December 7, 1941, brought the United States into World War II. …”
“…Aircraft and midget submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy began an attack on the U.S. The Americans had deciphered Japan’s code earlier and knew about a planned attack before it actually occurred. However, due to difficulty in deciphering intercepted messages, the Americans failed to discover Japan’s target location before the attack occurred.[6] Under the command of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the attack was devastating in loss of life and damage to the U.S. fleet. At 06:05 on December 7, the six Japanese carriers launched a first wave of 183 planes composed mainly of dive bombers, horizontal bombers and fighters.[7] The Japanese hit American ships and military installations at 07:51. The first wave attacked military airfields of Ford Island. At 08:30, a second wave of 170 Japanese planes, mostly torpedo bombers, attacked the fleet anchored in Pearl Harbor. The battleship Arizona was hit with an armor piercing bomb which penetrated the forward ammunition compartment, blowing the ship apart and sinking it within seconds. Overall, nine ships of the U.S. fleet were sunk and 21 ships were severely damaged. Three of the 21 would be irreparable. The overall death toll reached 2,350, including 68 civilians, and 1,178 injured. Of the military personnel lost at Pearl Harbor, 1,177 were from the Arizona. The first shots fired were from the destroyer Ward on a midget submarine that surfaced outside of Pearl Harbor; Ward sank the midget sub at approximately 06:55, about an hour before the assault on Pearl Harbor. Japan would lose 29 out of the 350 planes they attacked with. …”
“…In Pearl Harbor were 96 vessels, the bulk of the United States Pacific Fleet. Eight battleships of the Fleet were there, but the aircraft carriers were all at sea. The Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet (CINCPAC) was Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Army forces in Hawaii, including the 24th and 25th Infantry Divisions, were under the command of Lt. Gen. Walter C. Short, Commanding General of the Hawaiian Department. On the several airfields were a total of about 390 Navy and Army planes of all types, of which less than 300 were available for combat or observation purposes.
The Japanese air attack on Pearl Harbor and on the airfields of Oahu began at 0755 on December 7, 1941 and ended shortly before 1000. Quickly recovering from the initial shock of surprise, the Americans fought back vigorously with antiaircraft fire. Devastation of the airfields was so quick and thorough that only a few American planes were able to participate in the counterattack. The Japanese were successful in accomplishing their principal mission, which was to cripple the Pacific Fleet. They sunk three battleships, caused another to capsize, and severely damaged the other four.
All together the Japanese sank or severely damaged 18 ships, including the 8 battleships, three light cruisers, and three destroyers. On the airfields the Japanese destroyed 161 American planes (Army 74, Navy 87) and seriously damaged 102 (Army 71, Navy 31).
The Navy and Marine Corps suffered a total of 2,896 casualties of which 2,117 were deaths (Navy 2,008, Marines 109) and 779 wounded (Navy 710, Marines 69). The Army (as of midnight, 10 December) lost 228 killed or died of wounds, 113 seriously wounded and 346 slightly wounded. In addition, at least 57 civilians were killed and nearly as many seriously injured.
The Japanese lost 29 planes over Oahu, one large submarine (on 10 December), and all five of the midget submarines. Their personnel losses (according to Japanese sources) were 55 airmen, nine crewmen on the midget submarines, and an unknown number on the large submarines. The Japanese carrier task force sailed away undetected and unscathed.
On December 8, 1941, within less than an hour after a stirring, six-minute address by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress voted, with only one member dissenting, that a state of war existed between the United States and Japan, and empowered the President to wage war with all the resources of the country.
Four days after Pearl Harbor, December 11, 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. Congress, this time without a dissenting vote, immediately recognized the existence of a state of war with Germany and Italy, and also rescinded an article of the Selective Service Act prohibiting the use of American armed forces beyond the Western Hemisphere. …”
“…Wahhabi (Arabic: Al-Wahhābīyya الوهابية) or Wahhabism is a conservative Sunni Islamic sect based on the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, an 18th century scholar from what is today known as Saudi Arabia, who advocated to purge Islam of what he considered innovations in Islam. Wahhabism is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.[1] It is often referred to as a “sect”[1] or “branch”[2] of Islam, though both its supporters and its opponents[3] reject such designations. It has developed considerable influence in the Muslim world through the funding of mosques, schools and other means from Persian Gulf oil wealth.[4]
The primary doctrine of Wahhabi is Tawhid, or the uniqueness and unity of God.[5] Ibn Abdul Wahhab was influenced by the writings of Ibn Taymiyya and questioned medieval interpretations of Islam, claiming to rely on the Qur’an and the Hadith.[5] He preached against a “perceived moral decline and political weakness” in the Arabian Peninsula and condemned idolatry, the popular cult of saints, and shrine and tomb visitation.[5]
The term “Wahhabi” (Wahhābīya) was first used by opponents of ibn Abdul Wahhab.[2] It is considered derogatory by the people it is used to describe, who prefer to be called “unitarians” (Muwahiddun).[6]
The terms “Wahhabi”, “Salafi” (and also sometimes Ahle Hadith) are often used interchangeably, but Wahhabi has also been called “a particular orientation within Salafism”, [2] an orientation some consider ultra-conservative. [7][8] …”
Ground Zero mosque modeled after notorious 9/11 mosque?
Founder of hijackers’ D.C. worship center partners with N.Y. imam pushing shariah
“…The New York imam behind the Ground Zero mosque has struck a partnership with the founder of the so-called 9/11 mosque in the Washington suburbs that gave aid and comfort to some of the 9/11 hijackers, WND has learned.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf counts the lead trustee of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center among partners in his Cordoba Initiative, which features a 13-story mosque and a “cultural center” for his project to bring shariah, or Islamic law, to America.
Families of 9/11 victims oppose construction of the proposed site so close to Ground Zero.
Jamal Barzinji, one of the founders of the radical Muslim Brotherhood in America, also founded Dar al-Hijrah in Falls Church, Va., which is run by the pro-jihad Brotherhood. The mosque has been tied to numerous terrorism plots, including the 9/11 attacks.
The dots are finally being connected! Find out what Islam has planned for you: Get “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”
In December 2008, the Brotherhood’s U.S. think tank — the International Institute of Islamic Thought, or IIIT – hosted Rauf. During their meeting, IIIT’s leadership, including Barzinji, “pledged cooperation and support” for Rauf’s project, according to this screenshot of the description of the event from IIIT’s scrubbed Web archives.
Rauf’s partner Barzinji is a founder and director of IIIT, which is under active federal investigation for funneling funds to Palestinian terrorists. Its Herndon, Va., offices were raided by federal agents after 9/11.
The U.S. government has accused Barzinji of being “closely associated” with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas and other terrorist organizations. He has not been charged with a crime, however. …”
Ground Zero mosque debate swirls in world capitals
The Ground Zero mosque debate is garnering increased attention in the world press, with Muslims coming down on both sides of the proposed center two blocks from the former World Trade Center.
“…Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya television, also criticized the project in a column titled “A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?” in the Arab daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat on Sunday.
“Muslims do not aspire for a mosque next to the September 11 cemetery,” Mr. Al-Rashed wrote. He added that “the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!”
Shakib Bin-Makhlouf, president of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe, told Arab News that he supports the proposed Islamic center and appreciated President Obama coming out in support of it. “Islam has nothing to do with the events that happened on 9/11,” Mr. Bin-Makhlouf told the agency. “Unfortunately, the media has contributed in tying terrorism to Islam. When a non-Muslim commits an act of terror, no one refers to his religion.”
As the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” has turned into a political debating ground, it’s also become a barometer for the world to assess how America treats Muslims. One British blogger suggested that the mosque is evidence that America is experiencing the same “Islamitization” allegedly happening in Europe, where many Europeans worry that Muslims are gaining undue influence. In a pointed summary of the project, Qatar-based newspaper Al Jazeera writes:
Critics say it would be inappropriate to build a mosque on the “hallowed ground” of Ground Zero.
Yet there is already a mosque two blocks north of the Cordoba House site, Masjid Manhattan, which has been open since 1970.
As several commentators have pointed out, there is also a strip club – New York Dolls – just one block north of the mosque site. No one has complained about that profaning of the sacred. …”
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal Contradicts Obama; Says More Could be Done
National Guard Oil Spill
Crime Inc. Obama, Joel Rogers & Van Jones in : Collusion, Knowledge of the Lie
MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: Peter Huber
The Free-Market Case for Green
The American people want the oil leak to be plugged and the oil spill to be contained.
The American people want the 30 million unemployed American citizens to find full time jobs and the illegal aliens living and working in the United States to go home.
The American people want affordable or cheap electricity, heating and gasoline for transportation.
The American people do not want more more taxes to subsidize wind and solar power and ethanol production that cannot compete with very cheap coal and nuclear electrical power generation and gasoline for transportation.
Let consumer sovereignty and the free markets determine the best and cheapest way to produce electricity and move vehicles.
More government intervention into the private sector and the economy in the form of more government regulations, spending, taxes and national debt is not the answer–it is the problem–and it is getting worse not better.
The President is calling for a new energy tax that would only raise the price to consumers of electricity, heating oil and gasoline for transportation as well as the cost of all consumer goods that use electricity, heating oil and gasoline to produce these goods and services.
China and India are expanding their electrical power generation by building coal-fired and nuclear powered plants.
Neither wind nor solar power are competitive in terms of price.
The Federal Government does not know what it is doing.
Let the oil companies drill for more oil and natural gas on land and off the coast.
If they make mistakes, make them pay for their mistakes through litigation.
The government redistributes wealth and destroys jobs by irresponsible spending, taxes, and regulations.
Time to vote out of office the Progressive Radical Socialists of the Democratic Party led by President Barack Obama.
The job you save may be your own.
Do not listen to President Obama–he is inexperienced and incompetent–a lame duck President not up for the job.
The talker is clueless as to what needs to be done to create jobs and stop the Gulf of Mexico oil spill from spreading.
While President Obama can read a prepared speech, he is not a leader that the American people will follow.
The American people will correct their mistakes by replacing the progressive radical socialists in Congress, the Senate and the White House by voting them out of office in the next two elections.
Mark Levin – Constitution vs. Obama Redistributio of Wealth
Mark Levin ~ The Time is Now (Part 1 of 3)
Mark Levin ~ The Time is Now (Part 2 of 3)
Mark Levin ~ The Time is Now (Part 2 of 3)
the best of mark levin.
Rush interviews Levin PT1
Rush interviews Levin PT2
Marl levin
“…Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is an American radio host, lawyer, author, and political commentator who served in the Reagan administration. He is the host of The Mark Levin Show, a nationally-syndicated talk show that airs throughout the United States, and the President of Landmark Legal Foundation. He is the author of multiple bestselling books and a contributor to various other media outlets.
Mark R. Levin grew up in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and holds a B.A. from Temple University, where he was graduated Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude. Levin also earned a JD from the Temple University Beasley School of Law.
Beginning in 1981, Levin served as advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet, eventually becoming Associate Director of Presidential Personnel and ultimately Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese; Levin also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education, and Deputy Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior.
He has practiced law in the private sector, and is president of Landmark Legal Foundation, a conservative public interest law firm founded in 1976 and based in Leesburg, Virginia.
Levin has participated in the Freedom Concerts, an annual benefit concert to aid the families of fallen soldiers, and he uses his radio program to promote the concerts.[1][2] Levin is also involved with Troopathon, a charity which sends care packages to soldiers serving overseas.[3]
In 2001, the American Conservative Union awarded Levin its Ronald Reagan Award.[4][5]
Levin began his broadcast career as a guest on conservative talk radio programs. For many years he was a frequent contributor of legal opinions to The Rush Limbaugh Show, where Limbaugh referred to him on-air as “F. Lee Levin,” a tongue-in-cheek reference to the famous defense attorney F. Lee Bailey. He was also a contributor to The Sean Hannity Show and eventually got a radio slot of his own, on WABC, following Sean Hannity’s program. Hannity has nicknamed Mark Levin “The Great One.” Levin and Hannity remain frequent contributors to each other’s programs, often calling in and facetiously referring to each other as “Doctor Hannity” and “Doctor Levin.”
Levin began his radio hosting career in 2002 as a Sunday afternoon host on WABC. His radio show, a mix of political and social commentary from a conservative point of view, covers legal issues in some detail, including decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Levin follows the traditional talk radio model of taking listener calls throughout the show. In the fall of 2003, his show filled the 6-8 p.m. (ET) time slot. As of February 2, 2009, his show was expanded to three hours, namely, 6-9 p.m.[6]
As of 2006, his show is syndicated by Citadel Media (formerly known as ABC Radio Networks) on over 150 stations as well as on the XM America Right and SIRIUS Patriot channels. Levin’s show has been rated number one in its time slot in New York, Chicago, Detroit, Dallas – Fort Worth and Washington, D.C.[6] According to Talkers Magazine,The Mark Levin Show is tied for the fourth most-listened to talk show with The Laura Ingraham Show on commercial radio in the United States, with more than 5.5 million listeners weekly.[7]
Levin occasionally has guests on his show, including Republican politicians, conservative pundits and commentators, and a variety of entertainers such as Jackie Mason, Jon Voight, and Clint Walker.
Levin is supportive of the military and civilian first responders, and ends nearly every radio show saying “We salute the men and women of the armed forces, policemen, firefighters, and emergency personnel.” He regularly plays the themes for the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and Merchant Marines. He plays “America the Beautiful” as performed by Ray Charles every Friday.
Levin’s show has garnered criticism from moderate conservatives. New York Times columnist David Brooks labeled Levin as one of a number of “people I consider loons and harmful for America”.[8][9] Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum has emerged as a leading critic of Levin[10][11] and repeatedly criticized Levin’s approach as an example of right-wing broadcasters who have adopted an angry tone and posed a negative influence on both conservative politics and civil discourse.[12][13] Mark McKinnon, former advisor to George W. Bush and John McCain, has condemned Levin’s “jaw-dropping hate language about the President” and accused him of “reveling in the President’s failures”.[14]
For his part, Levin dismisses Frum, Brooks and others as “phony conservatives”[15] and “ineffective lightweights who shoot spitballs at conservatives[16]. Levin believes that Frum, Brooks, et al. are used by liberal pundits and organizations[17] who try to portray them as the real face of conservatism[18] in order to make Levin and others look like extremists.[19]
Mark Levin’s new book, published today, is essential reading. It is a remarkable work on several different levels. It takes no degree of clairvoyance to predict that it will become an enormous best seller and very soon begin to influence the national political debate.
Liberty and Tyranny artfully presents a harmonious marriage of the timeless with the timely. On the one hand, the book is a thorough yet compact briefing on the major political issues of this era. On the other hand, the author brings to bear the principles of the American Founders and Framers of the Constitution (and the great thinkers who guided them), illustrating, dissecting, and explaining our current political arguments, while enlightening the reader with the genuine wisdom bequeathed to all of us — the sacred trust of the Founders, embodied in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and Federalist Papers, all of which are quoted and applied with insight and precision.
Think of it as an outstanding tutorial in applied political philosophy, and you will begin to grasp the scope of Mark Levin’s achievement. The fact that the book is lucid, unpretentious, and utterly accessible to anyone who cares to focus and think, means that it will elevate the quality of political thought and dialogue across a broad swath of the American populace.
If you care passionately about America, and worry for its future — and who doesn’t, given the current national leadership? — then you owe it to yourself to buy and devour this marvelous work. It is an essential antidote to what ails America at the moment. …”
Book Review: Liberty and Tyranny A Conservative Manifesto
“…In his New York Times best selling book, Levin provides two key weapons for anybody who considers himself a conservative. Firstly, he outlines this history of what he identifies as a shift towards Statism. While some might read Levin and claim that he is a bit of a conspiracy theorist or that he is blowing things out of proportion (for example when, in Chapter 8, he seems to make the case that the EPA’s banning of DDT wasn’t about ‘protecting the environment’ but was, instead, about controlling the world, even if it meant allowing folks in Africa to die), I read it as being a terrifyingly honest and accurate look at the realities of the world as we know it.
The history of ’statism’ that he provides is unbelievably eye opening. BUT, the two most important chapters in the book are on the Constitution and on Federalism. In his chapter on the Constitution, Levin reminds all of us of the importance of our Constitution. He provides a short explanation of the biggest lie that Liberals and Statists use: that the Constitution is a ‘living breathing’ document. It is not, as Levin and others have pointed out, living and breathing; it is undying and never changing. It is the bedrock for our Nation.
Levin uses the Constitution chapter to lead into his discussion of Federalism and it’s importance. The obvious argument in favor of Federalism always has been the “experiment” function–the idea that a state can examine and put into practice various ideas in order to find the best and most effective strategy before implementing that idea at the National level. But Levin also introduces readers to a less discussed function of the Federal system: mobility. This is not something that is taught in school or in college, nor is it something I had considered before, but Liberty and Tyranny makes an excellent case for this function. Simply, Federalism allows the citizen to move from state to state to avoid or to find state-level governmental functions that best suit each individual. The most obvious example is the exodus from New York City of such leading New Yorkers as Rush Limbaugh in response to the ever-rising tax-rates the city imposes. …”
Mark Levin’s new book ‘Liberty & Tyranny’ is a timely bestseller
“…Instead, Levin is channeling the old fashioned language of conservative icons like Burke and Kirk, Buckley and Chambers, and the stirring, majestic cadences of the Founders and The Federalist.
Liberty & Tyranny is actually a stylistically more challenging read than Conscience of a Conservative (1960), the last book widely touted as a popular (but note: not necessarily populist) conservative manifesto.
This passage early on in Liberty & Tyranny is a typical example of Levin’s style throughout:
“The Statist veils his pursuits in moral indignation, intoning in high dudgeon the injustices and inequities of liberty and life itself, for which only he can provide justice and bring a righteous resolution. And when the resolution proves elusive, as it undoubtedly does (…) the Statist demands even more authority to wring out the imperfections of mankind’s existence. Unconstrained by constitutional prohibitions, what is left to limit the Statist’s ambitions but his own moral compass, which has already led him astray?”
Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, a man (and it is invariably a man) who tries to write like that is a geek and a crank who isn’t as smart as he thinks he is, for whom “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”, and the results are cringe worthy. But incredibly, Levin pulls it off.
And Levin’s apparent confidence that “dumbing down” his message for our supposedly “stupider” times has paid off. Folks have lined up for hours at Levin’s book signings. It doesn’t hurt that Liberty & Tyranny was released just before the Tea Party movement took off; those activists are Levin’s readers and listeners, as became apparent during that disastrous CNN reporter’s encounter with one Tea Party attendee, who, it’s safe to guess, got his Lincoln stuff from pages 93-94 of Levin’s book. …”
“Courage is the greatest of all virtues, because if you haven’t courage, you may not have an opportunity to use any of the others.”
~Samuel Butler
Governor Palin on Hannity Part 1 (Foxnews Nov 18 2009).avi
Governor Palin on Hannity Part 2 (Foxnews Nov 18 2009).avi
Governor Palin on Hannity Part 3 (Foxnews Nov 18 2009).avi
Governor Palin on Hannity Part 4 (Foxnews Nov 18 2009).avi
Governor Palin on Hannity Part 5 (Foxnews Nov 18 2009).avi
Governor Palin on Hannity Part 6 (Foxnews Nov 18 2009).avi
Gov Palin on Sean Hannity’s Radio Show pt 1 Nov 18
Gov Palin on Sean Hannity’s Radio Show pt 2 Nov 18
Greta on Governor Palin’s Media Roundup (Foxnews Nov 17 2009)
Rush Limbaugh Speaks with Sarah Palin – Part 1/2
Rush Limbaugh Speaks with Sarah Palin – Part 2/2
Sarah Palin, Barbara Walters: Good Morning America (Part 1 of 2)
Sarah Palin, Barbara Walters: Good Morning America (Part 2 of 2)
Sarah Palin wants to “..work her butt-off for common sense conservatives…”, which tells me she is running for the office of President of the United States.
Will former Governor Palin run as a Republican or Independent on a third party ticket, Elephant or Bull Moose?
Today it sure sounds like she would will run as a Republican candidate for the office of President.
Larry Kudlow Panel The Palin Effect
She would be an excellent choice for the Vice-President slot as well.
However, she understands why here husband, Todd, is registered as an independent.
Should she be treated unfairly by the Republican Party establishment, she could run as an independent.
The Republican Party elites better treat her right or her supporters would vote for her instead of the Republican candidate., should she decide to run as an independent.
If Sarah Palin wants to be President of the United States she should follow the example of Ronald Reagan and build a grassroots movement of conservatives, libertarians, and independents for limited government, fiscal responsibilty and job and wealth creation.
She must do her homework and study both domestic and national security issues.
Then communicate her positions on the top twelve issues facing the nation today.
Do not underestimate Governor Palin on her ability to choose the right policy solutions and communicate them to the American people:
The Larry Kudlow Show (October 17, 2009)
Here is a conservative and libertarian political agenda for a quick start:
1. Job Creation: reduce the tax and regulation burden of small and medium size businesses to encourage business formation, economic growth, job and wealth creation.
2. Tax Reform: replace all Federal income, payroll, capital gains, estate and gift taxes with a national consumption tax–The FairTax.
3. Federal Budget: require balanced or surplus budgets only, no more budget deficits and deficit spending and absolutely no government bailouts and subsidies to businesses.
4. Federal Government Size and Scope: eliminate ten Federal Departments and the Federal Reserve System and their associated programs, subsidies, unfunded state mandates and the number of Federal employees by 50%.
5. Federal Government Regulation: reduce by a least half the number and scope of government regulations.
6. Energy Independence: promote oil and gas exploration and production, oil refinery and nuclear power generation plant construction.
7. Education: promote competition and accountability among schools by supporting home schooling , school choice and vouchers for parents to pay for school tuition and fees.
8. Health Care Reform: promote tort reform, interstate competition among insurance companies, and health saving accounts paired with individual high deductible health insurance plans.
9. Social Security and Medicare: place both Social Security and Medicare on a financial and actuarial sound basis and transition to individually owned and controlled Social Security Retirement Accounts and Health Saving Accounts paired with high deductible health insurance plans.
10. Immigration: no amnesty for illegal aliens, stop illegal immigration by requiring all employers to use E-Verify to determine eligibility to work in the USA, complete and patrol the entire border fence, remove and deport all criminal aliens, and limit legal immigration to 250,000 persons per year.
11. National Security: bring the troops home from around the world including Germany, Japan, South Korea., Iraq and Afghanistan and budget 5% of Gross Domestic Product for national defense to build and train all of the military services for defense of the nation.
12. International Affairs: withdraw from the United Nations and require the United Nations to move to another country.
Listening to her answers to serious policy issue questions, it is apparent she has already been studying the top issues.
The pump and dump drive-by media or what Palin calls the lamestream media are in dump-mode attacking her.
O’Reilly: The Sarah Palin Fear Factor (Foxnews Nov 17 2009)
HLN’s Joy Behar, Ann Coulter & Hilary Rosen Spar Over Sarah Palin’s Book
The lamestream media needs to damage her to prevent her from having any chance of running in 2012 or 2016 and beating either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
The country-club or Rockefeller Republicans, aka the Republicans In Name Only, the RINOs, are also taking their shots including McCain’s former campaign staff.
My educated guess is that both Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin will both run for the nomination in 2012 and whoever wins the nomination for Presidency will select the other for the Vice-President slot on the ticket to unite the Republican Party–Newty and The Beauty or Beauty and Newty.
Some woman conservatives are hoping for a Sarah Palin/Michelle Bachmann ticket.
Others are hoping for a Sarah Palin/Marsha Blackburn ticket.
Both are terrific ideas!
How about Sarah Palin/Tom Coburn or Tom Coburn/Sarah Palin ticket ladies?
A Senator and Doctor that really knows how to reform health care!
Both Democrats and Republicans call him Doctor No–a fiscally responsible conservative that walks the walk.
Palin knows that the American people are tired of President Obama’s America apologetic tours with bowing to Emperors and Kings.
The American people are not pleased with the direction the progressive radical socialist President is taking their country with massively huge budget deficits, tax increases, and a new health care entitlement program.
Palin knows how to attack these issues with a smile and prick the inflated Obama opinion of himself.
Palin– The Preening President Popper–Bye Bye Barack!
“Female Conservative Derangement Syndrome has spread across the pond. The Observer of London spotlights the “extreme” women in American politics that give them the willies.
Boo!
She is a striking brunette with a decidedly outspoken attitude. She lambasts President Barack Obama as a socialist and has become the darling of America’s right-wing activists who flock to her appearances. She is hated by liberals and loved by conservatives.
Sarah Palin? Not quite. Meet Michele Bachmann, a Republican congresswoman from Minnesota who is being hailed as a new and increasingly powerful voice in American politics.
Bachmann, at 53, is a darling of the so-called Tea Party movement, which has campaigned vociferously against healthcare reform, the economic stimulus package and legislation to combat climate change. Her followers have been behind mass rallies in Washington and smaller ones all over the country. She has emerged as one of the most visible politicians in America, frequently appearing on the conservative Fox News channel, whose hosts often champion her causes.
She is part of an increasingly visible “female brand” of conservatism that is rising in America in the wake of the election of Obama. They include notable syndicated commentators such as Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter, whose dislike for liberals has grown ever more shrill in recent months. And, of course, Palin herself. She is still a giant of the political and media landscape and next week embarks on a book tour to sell her autobiography. It has already sparked a media frenzy, with a heavily hyped appearance on Oprah Winfrey’s show, and become a huge bestseller on pre-orders alone.
All these women express a mood of conservative discontent that is becoming increasingly vocal and, some experts warn, extreme.
Yes, we’re “extreme.”
No apologies here for being extremely outraged at Washington’s ongoing generational theft, extremely mortified at our imperiled national security, extremely aggravated at the globe-trotting groveler-in-chief, and extremely disgusted with business-as-usual cronyism, pay-for-play thuggery in the Obama White House. …”
On the Scene in Washington D.C. – White House Interview
Glenn Beck-09-30-09-A
Glenn Beck-09-30-09-B
Glenn Beck-09-30-09-C
Michelle Malkin on Obama’s Olympics bid
Background Articles and Videos
Waiver Pursuant to Section 3 of Executive Order 13490
After consultation with the Counsel to the President, I hereby waive the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Ethics Pledge of Ms. Valerie Jarrett with respect to her former relationship with Chicago 2016. I have determined that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver because Ms. Jarrett’s knowledge and expertise on the United States’ sole Olympic bid for 2016 make her an ideal person to lead Administration efforts in support ofthis bid. I understand that Ms. Jarrett will otherwise comply with the remainder of the pledge and with all preexisting government ethics rules.
Dated: April 2, 2009 Special Counsel to the President and Designated Agency Ethics Official
“…As he has done before in the spirit of transparency, Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, asked us to pass along this update on the President’s Executive Order on Ethics:Just a quick post to advise that we granted an authorization under Section 3 of the President’s Ethics Executive Order to Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett to lead the White House’s effort to support Chicago’s bid to secure the 2016 Olympics.The President promised during the campaign that staff would not work on contracts or regulations directly related to their former employers. We have captured that promise in Paragraph 2 of our revolving door rules, which applies to non-lobbyists. Valerie previously served as Vice Chair of Chicago 2016, the non-profit entity responsible for the Chicago bid. Although Chicago 2016 was not her “former employer” in traditional terms, the term “former employer” in the President’s Order encompasses entities that appointees served as directors or officers, as Valerie did here. (To be clear, Valerie was not a lobbyist for Chicago 2016, and this waiver has nothing to do with lobbying.)We decided that a waiver of Paragraph 2 was in the public interest in order to help bring the Olympics back to the United States. Valerie’s past experience with Chicago 2016 makes her ideal to work with the city and its bid committee to help win the Olympics for the U.S., with the many benefits that would bestow. In her time working with the City of Chicago on its bid, she developed knowledge about the process that will make her a powerful advocate and liaison. Although Valerie previously volunteered with Chicago 2016, she has no continuing financial relationship with them. Since the Administration already plans on vigorously supporting the United States’ sole 2016 Olympic bid, we felt that letting Valerie lead our efforts was strongly in the public interest. The authorization can be found here (pdf).
An illustrated guide: All the president’s Olympic cronies
By Michelle Malkin
“…My syndicated column today — reprinted below with added links, pics, and info — gives you a rundown of the Obama cronies inside and outside the White House who stand to gain the most from the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid.
Chicagoans of all political stripes who oppose massive government funding of Mayor Richard Daley’s pet project have inundated my email-box. Reader Will P. sums it all up by noting that the games would “protect the current corrupt structure” and paper over Chicago/Illinois’s myriad woes, including: “Governor after Governor going to jail. Pay to play schemes. Crumbling and outdated infrastructure. Deteriorating public housing. Failing, dumbing-down schools. Hospital cutbacks. Sanctuary city. Never-ending gang wars (outbursts every Spring requiring massive police presence, police outmanned at the Taste of Chicago, innocents shot in the crossfire weekly, current beating video out now). Cemetery scandal (bodies removed and graves resold)…Acorn, Bill Ayers, Rezko, Blago, Wright. Univ. of Illinois “clout” scandal. Illegal preferential city hiring. City inspectors on the take (Operation Crooked Code). Voter fraud. The unemployment rate. Taxes through the roof. Mayor Daley attempting to extend city taxes to the suburbs. All this, and more…”
We need all of our children to be exposed to the Olympic ideals that athletes from around the world represent, particularly this time in our nation’s history, where athletics is becoming more of a fleeting opportunity. Funds dry up so it becomes harder for kids to engage in sports, to learn how to swim, to even ride a bike. When we’re seeing rates of childhood obesity increase, it is so important for us to raise up the platform of fitness and competition and fair play; to teach kids to cheer on the victors and empathize with those in defeat, but most importantly, to recognize that all the hard work that is required to do something special.
Chicago can’t keep its children safe, let alone fit. How about letting another international city foot the massive bill and instead exposing hometown children to Olympic ideals by securing their neighborhoods first so they have somewhere to swim or ride bikes without fearing for their lives? …”
Obamas using schoolkids as junior lobbyists for Olympics
By Michelle Malkin
“…The Obamas, Richard Daley, and little Olympics lobbyists. Photos via WhiteHouse.gov
Yes, they can. And yes, they did. The Obamas have wasted public schoolkids’ time as junior lobbyists for their Chicago cronies’ Olympics bid. More on that in a moment.
As a reminder: I noted last week that Obama had created a new “White House Olympics Office” earlier this summer. The White House has refused to disclose the budget and staffing of the office — but we do know that it is under the roof of the White House Office of Public Engagement, which is managed by chief Chicago Olympics bid cheerleader Valerie Jarrett.
On September 16, the White House Olympics Office and the Obamas hosted a special event and visit to two schools in the D.C. area to shill for the Chicago Olympics bid…under the guise of “service,” of course. Jarrett and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley joined the Obamas for the festivities: …”
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS A BABY KILLER PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION
Obama & Euthanasia
Rush Limbaugh – Obama Health Care for Seniors
Betsy McCaughey on Health Care for CNN
Betsy McCaughey Interview
Mark Levin – Obama Health Czar?
About the Money: Health Care Crisis
Betsy McCaughey on The Mark Levin Radio Show
Obama wants to destroy our healthcare: Mark Levin on Hannity
Cato Experts Dissect Obama’s Health Care Town Hall Meeting
Health Care And Fiscal Responsibility
obamacare For Thee, But Not For Me
President Obama’s health plan for Senior Citizens
Obama Health Care Plan – Doctors are Criminals ?
Obama’s Plan, Not the Answer?
Milton Friedman – Socialized Medicine
Milton Friedman – Healthcare, 3rd Party Payer
Glenn Beck: America Knows Something Isn’t Right
Stop The Spending and Deficits
US Federal Government Deficits
Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis
Death Wish Part 1
Death Wish Part 2
The progressive radical socialists lead by President Obama are a clear and present danager to your life, health care and current insurance plan.
Any candidate of any political party that gives any indication to the American people that they are going to replace, tax, or threaten the American people’s health care and insurance coverage, will be defeated in the next election.
Send a message both to President Obama and your Senators and Representative by signing the Free Our Health Care Petition:
“…This day of the week ends in a “y,” so it must be time to scare old people with another scripted townhall meeting:
After going a day without making public remarks on health care reform, Obama is back at it today participating in a tele-town hall at AARP headquarters. At the town hall, Obama will take questions over the phone and from AARP members in the audience about health insurance reform.
The event will be at 1:30 p.m. EST, and if you have a strong stomach you can watch a live stream here.
Tuesday’s event will be the tenth national AARP tele-town hall held as part of AARP’s Health Action Now campaign. During each town hall, hundreds of thousands of AARP members are invited to join a call where they can have their questions answered by AARP officials and other guests, which have included Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform. Listeners can also ask to be connected directly to their members of Congress.
Donnellan added: “Our most important responsibility is to make sure our 40 million members have accurate, objective information about how health care reform will impact them. With the health care debate too often dominated by scare tactics and misinformation, it’s important that everyone understand the facts.”
…and when that’s not possible, have leading Democrats explain it. …”
“…Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is an American conservative political commentator, radio host, lawyer and bestselling author. Levin earned his B.A. and J.D. at Temple University.[1][2] His nationally syndicated talk show, The Mark Levin Show, airs throughout the United States on ABC Radio Networks. His book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto debuted at #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list (hardcover nonfiction) the week of April 3, 2009.[3]
“…The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 34% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of 0. That’s the highest level of strong disapproval and the lowest overall rating yet recorded (see trends).
The President’s ratings have slipped since General Motors filed for bankruptcy to initiate a new government bailout and takeover. Just 26% of Americans believe the GM bailout was a good idea and nearly as many support a boycott of GM products. It remains to be seen whether the dip in the President’s numbers is a temporary reaction to recent news or something more substantive.
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter.
Overall, 54% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance so far. Forty-six percent (46%) disapprove. For more Presidential barometers, see Obama By the Numbers and recent demographic highlights.
“…”Obama and Pelosi and Dingy Harry and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd said that we had all the answers, that we can borrow and spend our way out of this. In fact, that’s the only thing that we could do! The only solution we had was to borrow and spend our way out of it. So they spent all the money and then some, and things are getting worse and they’re forecast get worse? Okay, so let’s add it up. This crowd was wrong about Iraq. They’re wrong about Guantanamo Bay. They were wrong about General Petraeus. They were wrong that Americans want bigger government and higher taxes. The odds are that this bunch is wrong about the economy, too.” …
Those Democrat and Republican members of Congress that are seriously considering bringing back the Fairness Doctrine are playing with dynamite.
Over 100 million Americans are listening to talk radio everyday.
Mess with talk radio and you will have a ten million men and women march on Congress.
Unfortunatley, many members of Congress are that arrogant and stupid to try.
Just another example of socialism–”spread the wealth around”.
Go ahead, Make my day!
Sudden Impact – “Go Ahead. Make My Day”
Background Articles and Videos
Boehner on so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ – 6/28/07
Fairness Doctrine” — Feinstein Outlawing Talk Radio
Debate over the Fairness Doctrine on Fox News Sunday
Kucinich Discusses Fairness Doctrine on Lou Dobbs
Accuracy in Media – Group Condemns Congressional Hypocrisy
Dem Sen On Fairness Doctrine
2008 UP & COMING ” POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE ( FAIRNESS DOCTRINE ) ” / PART 13
Rep. Pence: Fairness Doctrine and “Freedom Works”
Fairness Doctrine
“The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the FCC’s view) honest, equitable, and balanced. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the Commission’s general right to enforce such a policy where channels are limited, but the courts have generally not considered that the FCC is obliged to do so.[1] The FCC has since withdrawn the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.[2] …”
“…If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views. With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial.”
The history and possible revival of the Fairness Doctrine
by Nat Hentoff
“…The term “Fairness Doctrine” exemplifies what George Orwell called “Newspeak”: it uses language to mask the deleterious effects of its purported meaning. The Fairness Doctrine itself was in effect from 1949 until 1987. It required that radio broadcasts devote a reasonable amount of time to the discussion of controversial issues of public importance, and that the broadcaster do that fairly by offering reasonable opportunity for opposing viewpoints to be heard. If the Federal Communications Commission found a radio station in repeated violation of this Doctrine, it could take away the station’s license — a business form of capital punishment. …”
“…Before the Fairness Doctrine was ended, at least for the time being, in 1987 — Congressman Hinchey could yet prevail if the Democrats retake Congress — Richard Salant, head of CBS News while the Doctrine was flourishing, said to me:
Suppose the English government had told Tom Paine that he could go ahead and publish all he liked — but only if at the back of his pamphlets he also printed the Royal Governor’s views. That command, far from the implementation of free speech, would have been just the opposite. It’s a restriction of speech if, in order to be allowed to express your own views, [the government demands] you also have to present those of someone arguing on the other side.
James Madison did not have the bifurcation of free speech in mind when he submitted his draft of the First Amendment.”
Group Led By Clinton’s John Podesta Outlines Assault of Conservative Radio
“…With that in mind, the left-leaning Center for American Progress published a report Thursday detailing how conservatives dominate the talk radio dial, and exactly what needs to be done legislatively for liberals to wrest control over this medium (emphasis added throughout):
Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.
Imagine that.
For those unfamiliar with the Center, its President and CEO is none other than John Podesta, the former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton. And:
The Executive Vice President for Management is Sarah Rosen, who was also a member of the Clinton administration.
Senior Vice President for Development Debbie Goldberg worked for the Clinton campaign.
Senior Vice President and Director David Halperin was a speech writer for President Clinton.
Vice President of Communications Jennifer Palmieri was Clinton’s White House Deputy Press Secretary.
Senior Vice President for External Affairs Winnie Stachelberg worked at the Office of Management and Budget under Clinton.
Vice President of Finance and Operations Brad Kiley worked for the Clinton administration.
“The Center for American Progress is an American liberal political policy research and advocacy organization. Its website describes it as “…a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity for all.”[1]
Its President and Chief Executive Officer is John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton. Located in Washington, D.C., the Center for American Progress has a campus outreach group, Campus Progress, and a sister advocacy organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund. …”
Fairness Doctrine Watch: Sen. Stabenow makes new pro-gagging noise
By Michelle Malkin
“…You know grass-roots conservatives on talk radio and in New Media are getting under the Democrats’ skin when they publicly renew their Fairness Doctrine agenda again.See.
Shame, Cubed Three separate reasons to be appalled, each more disgusting than the last.
By Bill Whittle
“The Drudge Report this morning led off with a link to audio of Barack Obama on WBEZ, A Chicago Public Radio station. And this time, candidate Obama was not eight years old when the bomb went off.
Speaking at a call-in radio show in 2001, you can hear Senator Obama say things that should profoundly shock any American – or at least those who have not taken the time to dig deeply enough into this man’s beliefs and affiliations.
“You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the Civil Rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of re-distribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
“And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution – at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
“And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”
A caller then helpfully asks:
“The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn’t terribly radical. My question is (with economic changes)… my question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place?”
Obama replies:
“You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.
So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”
“One man’s opportunism is another man’s statesmanship”
~Milton Friedman
The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It’s a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.
~Ronald Reagan
General Colin Powell Endorses Barack Obama! pt.1
General Colin Powell Endorses Barack Obama! pt.2
h4>General Colin Powell Endorses Barack Obama! pt.3
I would have voted for General Powell had he decided to run and obtained the nomination in 1996.
While not totally surprised by General Powell’s endorsement of Senator Obama, his reasoning is highly suspect. Frankly it does not make sense.
Senator Obama is a radical socialist that has associated with a black racist minister for over twenty years, two terrorist bombers for over twelve years, convicted felons, and the very far left of the Democratic Party and several leftist socialist parties.
Top 20 Obama Pastor Comments You Never Saw
Barack Obama & Friends Sean Hannity Special
Barack Obama & Friends Sean Hannity Special Part 2
Barack Obama & Friends Sean Hannity Special Part 3
Barack Obama & Friends Sean Hannity Special Part 4
Barack Obama & Friends Sean Hannity Special Part 5
Barack Obama & Friends Sean Hannity Special Part 6
Either General Powell has not done his homework or he has conveniently chosen to ignore it.
Senator Obama could not pass a routine FBI or Secret Service background check.
Red flags would be flying!
Obama is an economic illiterate, ask Thomas Sowell for his opionion. He is no fan of either Senator McCain or Senator Obama.
Senator McCain is a moderate Republican that leans towards to right some of the time.
The problem the Republican Party has is it moved to the left over the last four years and nearly destroyed the party in the process.
Senator McCain did not fire you General Powell, President George W. Bush did when he asked for your letter of resignation.
Instead Senator McCain wanted your opponent Defense Secretary Rumsfeld fired.
Senator McCain was right and President George W. Bush was very slow in changing strategy and leadership of the war in Iraq.
While I understand identity politics, I think people who vote this way will be very disappointed.
Several Republican Presidents gave General Powell career opportunities that very few military officers are ever given.
For General Powell at this late date to decide to support a Senator that is unqualified and of questionable character smells of opportunism, ingratitude and poor judgement.
General Powell was fooled, he will regret his endorsement.
President McCain will remember this betrayal by General Powell of his former party.
Weapons of mass destruction did exist and still exist in Iraq and Syria.
Democrats on Iraq + WMD’s (Weapons of Mass Destruction)
Al Gore: No Doubt Saddam’s Weapons Are Grave Threat
If Bush Lied, Did Bill Clinton Lie on Iraq WMD?
Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq’s ties to terrorism
Newt Gingrich on Powell endorsement
Our own “Phoney War” – Newt Gingrich
Rush Limbaugh, Race And The Colin Powell Endorsement
Colin Powell
“Colin Luther Powell (born April 5, 1937[1]) is a retired General in the United States Army. He was the 65th United States Secretary of State (2001–2005), serving under President George W. Bush. As a General in the United States Army, Powell also served as National Security Advisor (1987–1989) and as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989–1993), holding the latter position during the Gulf War. He was the first and, so far, the only Jamaican American to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff or in the Cabinet. …”
“Republican In Name Only, or RINO, is a neologism created by Los Angeles conservative activist Celeste Greig. It is considered a disparaging term for a member of the Republican Party of the United States (the GOP) whose political views or actions are perceived as insufficiently conservative or otherwise outside the party mainstream. …”
The Colin Powell endorsement: Triumph of hope over reality
By Michelle Malkin
“…Powell’s embrace of Barack Obama is a triumph of hope over reality. He told Tom Brokaw that Obama’s “steadiness” and “not jumping in and changing every day” convinced him that The One was ready to lead.
Hello?
Guess Powell relied on Obama’s website after he purged his surge criticism from it.
Powell then goes on to pooh-pooh Obama’s longtime “limited relationship” with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers as an “issue that is not central” to the campaign — just as evidence of the closeness of these two very chummy “neighbors” mounts.
Judgment, schmudgment, eh, Secretary Powell?
Finally, we arrive at the real reason Powell is endorsing Obama: The party, he complains, has become too “narrow” for his tastes. Pro-abortion Powell can’t stand the thought of two more Republican Supreme Court appointments. He thinks Sarah Palin is too conservative. He shares the Obama view of our base as racist and non-inclusive — but has nothing to say about the rabid pack of America-damning preachers who helped make Obama the “transformational” figure Powell has placed his faith in. …”
Thomas Sowell: Obama has voters convinced his ‘change’ is needed
“…Perhaps a defining moment in showing Obama’s priorities was his declaring, in answer to a question from Charles Gibson, that he was for raising the capital gains tax rate. When Gibson reminded him of the well-documented fact that lower tax rates on capital gains had produced more actual revenue collected from that tax than the higher tax rates had, Obama was unmoved.
The question may be the economic issue, but the political issue is whether socking it to “the rich” in the name of “fairness” gains more votes.
Since about half the people in the United States own stocks — either directly or because their pension funds buy stocks — socking it to people who earn capital gains is by no means socking it just to “the rich.”
If you are a nurse or mechanic who will be depending on your pension to take care of you when you retire — as Social Security is unlikely to do — you may not think of yourself as one of the privileged.
Obama is for higher minimum wage rates. Does anyone care what actually happens in countries with higher minimum wage rates? Of course not. Studies show that higher minimum wage rates usually mean higher unemployment rates among lower skilled and less experienced workers.
“Pat Brown brought Senator Edward Kennedy to California to help him campaign, and he began a speaking trip around the state declaring, “Reagan has never held any political office before and here he is seeking the top spot in the government of California.” He abandoned that theme after my next speech, when I said, “I understand there’s a senator from Massachusetts who’s come to California and he’s concerned that I’ve never held office prior to seeking this job. Well, you know, come to think of it, the senator from Massachusetts never held any job before he became a senator.”
It is time to turn Governor Sarah Palin loose on the conservative base with interviews on talk radio.
Start with the diva of conservative talk radio, Laura Ingraham.
Follow this with interviews with the following conservative and libertarian talk show hosts:
Bill Bennett
Mike Gallagher
Neal Boortz
Glenn Beck
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Mark Levin
Michael Reagan
Dennis Miller
Monica Crowlely
John Gibson
Hugh Hewitt
Michael Medved
Dennis Prager
Michael Savage
Dr. Laura Schlessinger
If you do this you will win.
The choice is yours.
Sunny & The Sunliners “Talk To Me” (OLDIE)
Cream – Sunshine of your Love
Hugh Hewitt got Sarah call and Bill Bennett replayed today on his show, Morning in America:
Sarah Palin on the Hugh Hewitt Show
Great interview.
Private Palin call your Mother you little stinker!
Governor Palin call Laura Ingraham Thursday!
Your are on a roll, go down the above list.
Ronald Reagan “Morning in America”
Background Articles and Videos
Sarah Palin: Babies, Guns, Jesus
“…RUSH: This is Sarah Palin and her accomplishments. Obama cannot make a speech like this.PALIN: In serving as the team mom and coaching some basketball on the side, I got involved in the PTA and then was elected to the city council and then elected mayor of my hometown where my agenda was to stop wasteful spending and cut property taxes and put the people first! (cheers and applause) I was then appointed ethics commissioner and chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. And when I found corruption there, I fought it hard and I held the offenders to account. (cheers and applause) Along with fellow reformers in the great state of Alaska, as governor, I stood up to the old politics as usual — to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the big oil companies, and the good old boy network. (cheers and applause) When oil and gas prices went up so dramatically and the state revenues followed with that increase, I sent a large share of that revenue directly back to the people of Alaska — and we are now… (cheers and applause) We’re now embarking on a $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.RUSH: She’s doing it.
PALIN: I signed major ethics reforms and I appointed both Democrats and independents to serve in my administration, and I championed reform, toned the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks,” on that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said we’d build it ourselves.
RUSH: Sarah Palin: babies, guns, Jesus. Hot damn! …”
Palin Will Spend More Time With Couric, Cont’d [Byron York]
“…Some Republicans believe the McCain campaign made a fundamental mistake in the Palin rollout by focusing on those traditional broadcast networks. (The only other interview Palin has done was with Sean Hannity on Fox News.) Palin is the person who almost single-handedly repaired John McCain’s relations with the conservative base, and a base media strategy might have been a more effective one. If, a week or so after the Republican convention, Palin had done a lot of talk radio — Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Levin, Bennett, Hewitt, etc. — she would have had widespread exposure to the voters most favorably disposed to her. Of course the campaign press corps would have complained, but they would also probably have been forced to use snippets from Palin’s talk-radio interviews, which means that what Palin said in a friendly atmosphere would ultimately make its way to an even wider audience, one that includes independents and undecided voters. After that radio immersion period — starting, say, about now — Palin would do interviews with everyone.
P.S. One more thought. I know I stressed talk radio above, but it would probably have been wiser for the McCain team to have fashioned a rollout combining talk radio, the blogosphere, and local news outlets in key states. Debuting Palin on a network newscast seems like, well, an old-fashioned kind of strategy. It certainly wasn’t a fresh approach. …”