It is extremely important while viewing this video courtesy of Sharp Elbows to keep in mind the assertions made by the Quincy Police Force via a press release. In that release, the Tea Party protesters were portrayed as the source of the problem - the reason that riot police had to be called in. That claim does not pass the smell test, nor does it pass the video test. Check out this excerpt from the April 29th release.
Secret Service personnel requested these individuals leave the area and to go back to the north side of York Street. They did not comply. Quincy Police Department personnel made the same requests and again they did not comply. At that time the MFFT was deployed to stand post between the individuals and the site and, if necessary, remove the individuals. Once the MFFT was in place, the individuals agreed to move.
For more on the Quincy Police press release, go here. Before doing so, however, check out yet another video from Sharp Elbows that clearly demonstrates there was NO CAUSE for the riot police. In fact, you can hear videographer Jason being as respectful as humanly possible to law enforcement, deferring to their direction at every turn.
Pay particularly close attention at the end when a protester volunteers to the camera that he overheard a Secret Service official direct the riot police to push the Tea Party protesters out of sight.
On April 28th, Barack Obama spoke at the Quincy, IL community center. A Tea Party broke out across the street. Thanks to several videos and photos, riot police were seen being brought in while donning full riot gear without having any visible provocation for doing so.
The images, which created the perception of unnecessary intimidation and overkill must have had an impact because Quincy's Chief of Police, Robert A. Copley issued a press release, the stated purpose of which was to "relay factual information" about the deployment of the equivalent of a S.W.A.T. team and rooftop snipers.
That release is refuted with the truth, which was caught on video. Copley's claim is that the Mobile Field Force Teams (MFFT) were called in only after the Tea Party protesters refused to comply with an order to move across the street. It's unfortunate that the protesters are being blamed for the deployment of riot police in riot gear to dispel a riot that never took place.
The most dishonest portion of the press release comes in the 4th paragraph:
During President Obama’s address, at approximately 1530 hours, the MFFT was deployed. A group of individuals positioned themselves on the south side of York Street near 3rd Street. This was within the area that was to be kept secure at the request of the U. S. Secret Service agents in charge of the site. Prior to the event only ticketed individuals were to be in this area; during the event it was restricted to the general public completely. Secret Service personnel requested these individuals leave the area and to go back to the north side of York Street. They did not comply. Quincy Police Department personnel made the same requests and again they did not comply. At that time the MFFT was deployed to stand post between the individuals and the site and, if necessary, remove the individuals. Once the MFFT was in place, the individuals agreed to move. Once everyone complied and the site was again secure, the MFFT returned to their staging point. No physical force was used during this deployment.
That is simply false. Thanks to Sharp Elbows and the many videos posted there, what really happened was that the Tea Party protesters complied with all orders prior to the arrival of the MFFT. In fact, one of its organizers was directing them with a bullhorn in compliance with all police requests.
See for yourself.
More on the Quincy Tea Party vs. Riot Police here.
Gateway Pundit breaks down further the falsehoods in the press release.
No president in history has had more ruthless surrogates than Barack Obama. Rahm Emanuel is unmatched in his ability to bully, intimidate, demagogue, and demonize anyone he decides to go after. And there's more.
Conversely, Obama has enjoyed a perception of likability that continues to exceed public agreement with his policies. That's what makes this video so pathetically revealing. Watch as Obama in 2006 chastises George W. Bush for not reigning in his surrogates.
The added bonus of commentary from Mark Levin is a nice touch. On the campaign trail in 2008, Obama told Joe the Plumber "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody". While in Illinois this week, he said, "I do think that at some point you've made enough money".
As Barack Obama was speaking to a stacked audience inside the Quincy, IL Convention Center, a Tea Party was taking place outside. The makeup of the tea party was very similar to the countless others. Peaceful conservatives, Christians, and anti-Big Government patriots who believe in the Constitution.
Courtesy of Sharp Elbows, we see a very disturbing reality unfolding. In addition to there being absolutely no reason to believe the protest was going to turn violent, a majority of the participants were senior citizens.
What to do, what to do.... Well, someone apparently thought it appropriate to position snipers on the roof and march in some riot police in formation. No word yet on whether the May 1st illegal immigration protests are going to be treated with the same preventive measures but based on how potentially violent the Quincy, IL tea party could have been, perhaps S.W.A.T. teams will be sent in to protect the illegals from the angry mobs of Tea Party protesters.
A significant problem is being exposed for Obama and the May 1st protests could exacerbate it. That problem is imagery. The imagery of the tea parties juxtaposed with the imagery from the Arizona protests demonstrates the problem clearly. Regardless of talking points, media corruption, and who thinks they control the agenda - in this case, the executive branch of the U.S. government - the power of perception via visual imagery trumps all. Tack onto the aforementioned juxtaposition, the message communicated through pictures of riot police positioned in opposition to elderly American citizen patriots petitioning their government for a redress of grievances while peaceably assembling.
This is not about the threat of violence from the Tea Parties. This is about Barack Obama's fear of the truth, which is coming out and cutting him deep (metaphor). A prime example is this seen in the signs in the photos on display in Quincy. Obama's administration has been conspicuous in its attempt to control the message.
This explosion of the Tea Party movement is increasingly threatening his ability to do that. It is visually and clearly obvious that the threat to the Obama administration is not a phyiscal one from the Tea Party. It's the threat of the truth being exposed that has him terrified.
Here is one of the videos on Sharp Elbows. Be sure to visit them for more.
Ah, that infamous climate "scientist" from Penn State University, Michael Mann, appears to have a sensitivity problem and his way of dealing with it is ill-advised by Marc Morano who, while appearing on Fox with Megyn Kelly, points out that Mann is more concerned about suing the creators of a parody YouTube video than he is about pleading his case and defending his record.
The result, as Morano and Kelly point out, will unquestionably be more interest in the viral video known as "Hide the Decline". First the Fox interview wit Morano via Hope for America:
Kelly pointed out that the video of Hide the Decline has been pulled as a result of the lawsuit and in some cases it has been. However, I've found this one that still works......for now.
As the popularity of the Arizona Immigration law is becoming known - Governor Jan Brewer's approval numbers in the state are skyrocketing as a result of her signing it - another border state, Texas is poised to vote on a similar law in 2011. State Representative Debbie Riddle (R-HOU) will be introducing an immigration bill that will mirror the Arizona law.
Is it me or does it seem like it's the women who are doing all the heavy lifting lately?
Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Jan Brewer, and now Debbie Riddle?
AUSTIN, Texas — A Republican Texas lawmaker plans to introduce a tough immigration measure similar to the new law in Arizona, a move state Democrats say would be a mistake.
Rep. Debbie Riddle of Tomball said she will push for the law in the January legislative session, according to Wednesday's editions of the San Antonio Express-News and Houston Chronicle.
"The first priority for any elected official is to make sure that the safety and security of Texans is well-established," said Riddle, who introduced a similar measure in 2009 that didn't get out of committee. "If our federal government did their job, then Arizona wouldn't have to take this action, and neither would Texas."
It would appear that British Primer Minister has been watching too much Mainstream Media coverage of the U.S. tea parties. While on the campaign trail, Brown was confronted by an elderly woman that would fit in quite nicely with the American Tea Party movement. She had legitimate concerns about her government's deficits and debt. She politely but assertively challenged Brown on a wide array of things.
In front of the cameras, Brown was cordial and congenial. Then, he called 65 year-old Gillian Duffy a "bigot", obviously thinking the microphones were turned off.
First up, click HERE to watch the actual interaction between Brown and Duffy.
Now, after watching that, check out Brown's reaction while appearing on a Radio 2 in Great Britain as he listens to the uncovered audio of him calling Duffy a "bigot". Click HERE for video.
Ah, the pitfalls of going to the mat. Anyone could have seen this coming. When Lieberman's letters to the White House were predictably ignored, he upped the ante by issuing subpoenas to the administration and the Department of Justice, asking for the release of documents relative to the Fort Hood shootings.
Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs appears to have inserted himself into a game of "chicken" with the Obama administration. The question is, how long will he continue playing? Based on this report from the Washington Post, it's Lieberman's move.
After days of negotiations, the Pentagon and Justice Department informed a Senate committee that they would not comply with congressional subpoenas to share investigative records from the Nov. 5 shootings at Fort Hood, Tex., which killed 13 people. The agencies said that divulging the material could jeopardize their prosecution of Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the accused gunman.
Granted, the reaction from Lieberman's office to this latest news is strongly worded....
Leslie Phillips, a spokeswoman for the Senate committee, called the refusal by the Pentagon and the Justice Department to hand over all the requested material "an affront to Congress's constitutional obligation to conduct independent oversight of the executive branch."
Unless Lieberman is prepared to go to the mat, such language could be nothing more than a parting shot before the committee chair bows out.
The ball is in Lieberman's court and he is either going to let this matter die or continue to push via subpoenas through the courts.
Glenn Beck is at is best when he's using visual aids without guests or a studio audience. He's most insightful and peels away the most layers of any story when he goes it alone on his television show. That's how he exposed Van Jones and Anita Dunn. He's at his best when he's connecting visual dots with visual props.
He did just that on his April 26th show, in which he demonstrated with great clarity why Goldman Sachs has become the straw man that Congress is demonizing - it's basically the cost of admission for Goldman Sachs. It's pay to play. In this case, the "pay" is taking a public beating that really isn't a beating. The play?
You'll see....
Barack Obama's hero, Saul Alinsky, opened his last book, "Rules for Radicals" thusly:
What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.
Keep that in mind as you watch Beck because, as he explains it, that's exactly what's happening at the Chicago Climate Exchange and Cap and Trade:
Perhaps non-believers are getting yet another nudge to re-think their position. On the heels of a History Channel documentary that revealed the face of Yaushua, son of Yahweh, researchers are closer to identifying Noah's Ark.
A group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers say they have found wooden remains on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey.
They claim carbon dating proves the relics are 4,800 years old — around the same time the ark was said to be afloat.
The discoveries from the History Channel documentary on the Shroud were said to equate to a "DNA match". Now we read this one month later:
Yeung Wing-Cheung, from the Noah's Ark Ministries International research team, said: "It's not 100 per cent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 per cent that this is it."
Is this another DNA match? If so, what would two DNA matches equate to if both are tied back to the Word of God?
Perhaps the strongest argument Sheriff Joe Arpaio had against Al Sharpton - renowned race hustling poverty pimp - was that Obama's D.O.J. has been on the former's tail for over a year, trying to intimidate him and / or catch him abusing civil rights. As Arpaio rightfully points out, they've come up with nothing.
Predictably, the race hustling poverty pimp had no coherent response to that one. Maybe he was intimidated by Arpaio's Gun Tie Pin.
This takes us to the height of egregious government. According to the American Spectator, a report was delivered to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius one week before passage of Obamacare that proved health care costs will go up, not down with passage.
That report was held back by the HHS. Via the Spectator:
The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama's health care "reform" law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius's staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.
"The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote," says an HHS source. "Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think."
Video of Obama Budget Director Peter Orszag on April 8th at the Economic Club of Washington, D.C. confirms that when Sarah Palin wrote about Obamacare having "death panels", she was right. While Orszag doesn't use such overt terms, he overtly revealed what the Independent Payment Advisory Board will be all about.
There's no way he would have been this open before Obamacare was passed. Take note when Orszag says the IPAD - not that iPad - is "more important to the future of our fiscal health than the CBO". He also emphasizes that the Board will focus on "quality" and not "quantity" of care while declaring that it has aggressive cost cutting goals. The Board will be virtually unaccountable to anyone according to Orszag who boasts that its proposals - that would be individual proposals - would have to be legislated away by Congress.
While this Independent Payment Advisory Board may be able to impact "fiscal health" more effectively than the CBO, the latter was never given the authority to do so by witholding health care from American citizens.
There shouldn't be any doubt that the Tea Party was right and Obamacare supporters have been duped, brainwashed, or both.
When I saw this happen live, I suspected it would go viral. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell literally said that the Mainstream Media is giving the Tea Party Movement "too much credit".
Two words to describe this argument: Blatantly Dishonest. Rendell provides the latest example of the left completely unmasking itself. These people are losing the debate by wider and wider margins every time they open their mouths. The MSM has been doing all it can to ignore the Tea Party, albeit to no avail.
Is Barack Obama a racist? I've often said there is no difference between a race-baiter and a racist. In order to race-bait, an individual must be race-based in his/her views. Barack Obama is playing the race card here, of that there can be no doubt.
Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again."
If you ever needed a clearer example of Projection - a defense mechanism in which an individual accuses others of what that individual is in fact guilty of - I give you Barack Obama.
Last week, New York Senator Chuck Schumer (D) raised eyebrows when he appeared on a conservative Jewish radio show and publicly chastised both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for their treatment of Israel. Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch echoed similar sentiments in a recorded statement leading up to a pro-Jewish protest in front of NYC's Israeli Consulate.
Click here to view Koch's statement. More on Schumer's interview here. Schumer is a far left liberal who agrees with practically all of Obama's agenda. However, if Obama loses Schumer over his Israeli policy, it could be politically disastrous for the president.
Here is the audio from Schumer's radio interview with Nachum Segal.
Al Sharpton isn't just calling for "civil disobedience" in response to the passage of the new state law in Arizona (S1070) signed by Governor Jan Brewer (R). He's also comparing its passage to Nazism, Apartheid, and Jim Crow.
New York activists, including the Rev. Al Sharpton, compared Arizona's new immigration law to apartheid, Nazi Germany and the Jim Crow South - and vowed to shut it down with mass protests.
"We will bring Freedom Walkers to Arizona just like Freedom Riders went to the deep south 50 years ago," Sharpton said yesterday.
PAGING BILL CLINTON! PAGING BILL CLINTON! Last week, Clinton compared the Tea Party Movement's anger with the anger that caused the Oklahoma Bombing. Not only was the motivation for the OK City bombing actually Bill Clinton's handling of the Branch Davidian compound two years earlier but he blamed talk radio.
Just last week, Clinton warned that the Tea Party movement could be responsible for some future event. Don't hold your breath waiting for Clinton to publicly denounce Al Sharpton's extremely incendiary words that could inflame the situation in Arizona. Also, unlike the Tea Party movement which has been peaceful and law-abiding, Sharpton is advocating civil disobedience on the part of his marchers to the point of being arrested:
Standing with local clergy, elected officials and a leader of the Hispanic Federation, Sharpton said he would mobilize people from across the country to march in Arizona - and get arrested, if necessary - to stop the controversial new law.
The hypocrisy of the left is beyond palpable at this point. Al Sharpton is literally inflaming tensions by advocating non-peaceful assembly and behavior that will lead to arrests. Perhaps Bill Clinton should come out and publicly warn Mr. Sharpton.
While appearing on CNN with Howard Kurtz as the moderator, Salon magazine's Joan Walsh - far left liberal alert - found herself alienated, again by those she likely thought would be siding with her. Last week, it was Mika Brzenzinski of MSNBC's Morning Joe, who actually mocked Walsh openly and overtly, to which Walsh responded with an apoplectic face of shock that Mika would do such a thing.
As Walsh was still reeling from Mika's body blow, she is hit again, this time by global editor-at-large for REUTERS, of all places, Chrystia Freeland who announces she's siding with Rush Limbaugh over Bill Clinton with respect to the latter's contention that Limbaugh's rhetoric may incite another Timothy McVeigh style attack. Shortly thereafter, Walsh's jaw drops.
For the precursor to Walsh being alienated in debate by those she suspected would be on her side, click here.
This video of Walsh on MSNBC is good viewing multiple times...
The phenomenon that is Juan Williams just continues to un-mask itself. The arguments this guy has been putting up lately are so literally absurd, objective viewers are left with only one conclusion - conflict of interest. The conflict is the fact that Juan Williams is paid with taxpayer dollars, as an employee of NPR.
At issue in his debate with Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday is the revealing of emails belonging to a Goldman Sachs CEO. Kristol makes the point that Michigan Senator Carl Levin (D) has no right to make such an email public. Williams then compares Levin to a boss who has every right to access an employee's email.
Justifiably, Kristol goes on offense, reminding Williams that a Senator is not the boss of any businessman. Instead of conceding the point, Williams deflects by making some lame argument about stockholders and investors. Williams is increasingly revealing himself as a Big Government hack who is defending the entity he thinks is his boss (Big Government) without realizing who really is - the U.S. tax payer.
This is another amazing un-masking of Juan WIlliams.
The fact that convicted felon and longtime Barack Obama friend Tony Rezko has yet to be sentenced after two years is curious enough. Adding to that mystery - it's a mystery because apparently no one can answer it - is that no one knows where Rezko is. According to an article in the Washington Examiner, he's not even listed in the Bureau of Prisons' inmate locator.
Why is Antoin “Tony” Rezko under lock and key at an undisclosed location, like some sort of CIA-renditioned al Qaeda operative? And why hasn’t he been sentenced yet?
As the June 3 corruption trial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich for allegedly trying to sell Obama’s former Illinois Senate seat approaches, the whereabouts of the former Blago and Obama fundraiser is literally a state secret.
The Chicago Sun-Times reported that Rezko was moved from Chicago’s downtown Metropolitan Correctional Center on December 16th, even though it’s right across the street from the federal courthouse where Blago will be tried.
Adding to the intrigue surrounding all of these head-scratching realities about Rezko is what was revealed about him this past week in Rod Blagojevich's motion for the subpoena of Barack Obama. The document, highly redacted, has been de-coded thanks to a software glitch and a significant portion of what was redacted included some potentially very strong claims about Rezko that could implicate team Obama. Here are the relevant excerpts from Blago's motion (formerly redacted portions in bold):
21. Tony Rezko is one of the government’s main witnesses.8 Mr. Rezko’s credibility is extremely relevant in this trial. In many instances, Mr. Rezko is the government’s crucial witness to prove up their allegations.9 Mr. Rezko wrote a letter to a federal judge stating “the prosecutors have been overzealous in pursuing a crime that never happened. They are pressuring me to tell them the “wrong” things that I supposedly know about Governor Blagojevich and Senator Obama. I have never been a party to any wrongdoing that involved the Governor or the Senator. I will never fabricate lies about anyone else for selfish purposes.” (Exhibit A)
22. However, the defense has a good faith belief that Mr. Rezko, President Obama’s former friend, fund-raiser, and neighbor told the FBI and the United States Attorneys a different story about President Obama. In a recent in camera proceeding, the government tendered a three paragraph letter indicating that Rezko “has stated in interviews with the government that he engaged in election law violations by personally contributing a large sum of cash to the campaign of a public official who is not Rod Blagojevich. … Further, the public official denies being aware of cash contributions to his campaign by Rezko or others and denies having conversations with Rezko related to cash contributions. … Rezko has also stated in interviews with the government that he believed he transmitted a quid pro quo offer from a lobbyist to the public official, whereby the lobbyist would hold a fundraiser for the official in exchange for favorable official action, but that the public official rejected the offer. The public official denies any such conversation. In addition, Rezko has stated to the government that he and the public official had certain conversations about gaming legislation and administration, which the public official denies having had.”10
23. President Obama is the only one who can testify as to the veracity of Mr. Rezko’s allegations above.
10 The defense has a good faith belief that this public official is Barack Obama.
The implication is clear. Rezko's claims - according to Blago's motion - are that he illegally gave cash to Obama, in some cases as a quid pro quo and that the two had multiple conversations about such transactions. Obama's land deal with Rezko would seem to bolster that claim. Obama is apparently on record as saying no such conversations with Rezko have taken place.
So why is Rezko's location such a secret and why hasn't he been sentenced?
Previous posts about the redacted motion for subpoena here and here.
When I read columns like this one from Ken Blackwell - this guy should have been RNC Chairman - my view that political correctness in matters of Islam in this country is reinforced; it's just a nice way of saying, "Stockholm Syndrome". Named after a bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden in 1973, the hostages in that robbery actually viewed their captors as their protectors. It's a survival technique that is incredibly delusional and misguided, if not mildly understandable.
It's also very real. While Blackwell doesn't identify it as such when he juxtaposes Gen. Jerry Boykin's treatment in the media with that of Nidal Malik Hasan, the implication is clear; Boykin is an easy target because he's no threat. Conversely, Hasan and other militant Islamists are actual threats media types like NPR's Nina Totenberg don't want to confront.
It's really both disgraceful and obvious what's going on. Via the American Spectator:
Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin knows something about political correctness in the military. Gen. Boykin, a highly-decorated combat veteran was dragged through the mill by the liberal media back in 2003 for expressing his Christian beliefs in Christian churches. They charged the general was calling for a Christian crusade against the Muslims.
"I hope he's not long for this world," said NPR's Nina Totenberg on WUSA's Inside Washington TV talk show. When fellow panelists, mostly liberals, protested, asking whether Totenberg really wanted to issue a fatwa on the offending general, she quickly backtracked. She said: "in his job, in his job, please, please, in his job." Well, that's reassuring. Totenberg only wanted the heroic general fired. She wanted him removed from any role in directing the war on terror. She didn't want him beheaded.
Major TV networks denounced Gen. Boykin as a "Holy Warrior." They ridiculed his Evangelical Christian faith on prime-time television.
Compare that treatment with what we see in the treatment of Nidal Hasan. This man yelled "Allahu Akbar" (Arabic for "God is great!") even as he squeezed the trigger in the worst case of terrorism here since September 11th. Yet, the media is very hesitant to demand accountability of the military brass. Army Chief of Staff General Casey made the rounds of TV talk shows the first Sunday after Hasan's shootings. He said it would be "a tragedy" if the Army's diversity was a casualty of the Fort Hood murders.
The hero is spat upon by those he attempts to save while the villains are glorified by the countless, shameless, and cowardly knaves.
Before I get to Graham...... Chalk up the signing of this strict immigration bill in Arizona by Republican Governor Jan Brewer as one of the hurdles Obama didn't count on when he had dreams of implementing his own special version of Socialist America. Perhaps that's why his rhetoric in response to it has been so strong, including a threat to get Eric Holder's Justice Department to investigate the state for civil rights violations.
First up, Brewer's signing of Senate Bill 1070:
Obama's reaction to one of the 50 states deciding to pass legislation to protect itself.
Now, onto Lindsey "RINO" Graham. In light of the boldly brash claim by ALIPAC President William Gheen at an April 17th Tea Party that Graham is a closet homosexual who is being forced to support immigration reform because Democrats in congress are using it as some form of blackmail (video below), it is at least somewhat noteworthy that Graham appears to be THE ONLY Republican supporting the Democrat push for a new Immigration Reform Bill.
Sources familiar with discussions about the issue say the White House is reluctant to move on the politically polarizing and divisive issue of immigration without bipartisan support.
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina seems to be the only GOP senator on board, but he has told Democrats they will lose his support unless they find another Republican.
Obama called Sen. Scott Brown, R-Massachusetts, to try to get him to sign on, as well as four other GOP senators: Lisa Murkowksi of Alaska, Richard Lugar of Indiana, George Lemieux of Florida and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.
CNN contacted aides to those senators, and all said none gave the president a commitment to work with Democrats on immigration reform.
Now, onto Gheen, president of ALIPAC. Granted, no one should make such charges without proof - I'm not saying he doesn't have it. They are very strong charges. That said, considering the political climate, there really is no conceivable reason why a Republican Senator would be in support of immigration reform right now. All of the reasons for taking it on at this juncture necessarily involve helping the Democrats in November. Graham's support of it is inexplicable and he should explain it. Otherwise, Gheen's explanation is likely to garner more support.
The accusation that the prospect of Graham's sexual preference going public could be influencing his vote starts at the 7:00 mark.
Sent in by Barrackaid #7. Juan Williams needs to look up the word, "Dhimmi". He is heading toward being one. Based on the apoplectic look on his face as ACT for America's Brigitte Gabriel slapped him with cold hard facts, we now see Williams in another realm he completely doesn't understand. Williams has been getting utterly punk'd in every debate he engages in lately. He used to get by with his smooth, congenial arguments but no more.
He's exposing himself as completely misguided on a lot of things, not the least of which is Islam. Hats off to Hannity for having Gabriel on his show.
What can one possibly say to set this up? The video starts out with an un-hinged moonbat yelling, "Raise my taxes". Either the moonbat is a complete and utter moron, she has no idea where money comes from, or she's living vicariously through others whose taxes she wants raised. Regardless of what option you choose, she's certifiable.
Don't stop watching there because the hits just keep coming. For example, the woman in the purple shirt with the yellow vest says she's for an increase in revenue which is why she supports taxes......for business owners who make more than she does, as a business owner. This individual is then asked how she got to the event - the question was actually geared toward who funded the trip. The answer? We got here on a Greyhound bus.
Priceless - no pun intended. These people literally - no, I mean literally - have no idea where money comes from.
If someone told you Barack Obama skipped all his classes on economics and the virtues of capitalism, it would be believable. Also believable would be the suggestion that he never learned that lesson about picking your battles. As the court cases being filed by states against the Federal Government continue to mount - last count was 20 - Arizona's governor has signed a strict immigration enforcement bill into law.
PHOENIX (Reuters) - Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on Friday signed into effect the toughest immigration law in the United States, which President Barack Obama singled out as a "misguided" effort that showed the need for national reform.
Police in the border state with Mexico will now be required to determine if people are in the country illegally if there is "reasonable suspicion" -- which critics charge will open the door to racial profiling.
Now about that "know when to pick your battles" thing. Keep in mind that this bill went through Arizona's state legislature, passing both the House and the State Senate before getting signed by Governor Jan Brewer - ironically, the Republican Brewer replaced current head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Janet Napolitano, who would have certainly vetoed the bill.
But I digress. Obama is apparently so bitter about Arizona having the gall to write, pass, and enforce its own laws, he is going to have Eric Holder's Justice Department look into civil rights violations. Via Jim Kouri at COP Magazine:
"If we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country," Obama said.
Obama also said that the Justice Department will monitor enforcement of this new law, a statement many believe is a threat aimed at Arizona cops.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs later said if the Arizona measure became law in that state, Obama has asked that the Justice Department look into any civil rights implications.
This is a fight Obama is welcome to wage. He will lose. When states begin to see the Feds send in the Justice Department to investigate them because the latter doesn't like their laws, they may just start waking up. Such a fight would make the Feds look like the bullies they are and might turn the tide of public opinion even more in favor of suing the federal government over health care.
Whether this is just a blip or foreshadows a growing fissure between Barack Obama and Democrats who support Israel, seeing far left Senator Chuck Schumer come out publicly this strongly with respect to Obama's policy on Israel is raising a few eyebrows.
New York Senator Chuck Schumer harshly criticized the Obama Administration's attempts to exert pressure on Israel today, making him the highest-ranking Democrat to object to Obama's policies in such blunt terms.
Schumer, along with a majority of members of the House and Senate, signed on to letters politely suggesting the U.S. keep its disagreements with Israel private, a tacit objection to the administration's very public rebuke of the Jewish State over construction in Jerusalem last month.
It didn't stop there with Schumer, who appeared on a Jewish radio show and actually took things up a notch. While appearing on the Nachum Segal show, Schumer let some indignation show when talking about the tension between the Obama administration and Netanyahu:
"This has to stop," he said of the administration's policy of publicly pressuring Israel to end construction in Jerusalem.
"I told the President, I told Rahm Emanuel and others in the administration that I thought the policy they took to try to bring about negotiations is counter-productive, because when you give the Palestinians hope that the United States will do its negotiating for them, they are not going to sit down and talk," Schumer told Segal.
Schumer went on to publicly chastise Hillary and her State Department spokesman, PJ Crowley for statements made about what the administration expects from Israel.
"...the next day Hillary Clinton called up Netanyahu and talked very tough to him, and worse they made it public through this spokesperson, a guy named Crowley. And Crowley said something I have never heard before, which is, the relationship of Israel and the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations."
Schumer was referring to State Department spokesman PJ Crowley's description of Clinton's conversation with Netanyahu, in which he said that Clinton "made clear that the Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words but through specific actions that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process."
"That is terrible," Schumer said today. "That is the dagger because the relationship is much deeper than the disagreements on negotiations, and most Americans—Democrat, Republican, Jew, non-Jew--would feel that. So I called up Rahm Emanuel and I called up the White House and I said, 'If you don’t retract that statement you are going to hear me publicly blast you on this,'" Schumer said.
While Schumer apparently has a problem with Hillary's public statements toward Israel, maybe he should also take a look at who she allowed into the United States. Tariq Ramadan had been banned from entering the United States when his ties to terrorism became known six years ago. Ramadan, the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, was found to have contributed to the Holy Land Foundation before it was convicted on 108 counts relative to funding Islamic terrorists.
The eleven page motion filed by Rod Blagojevich calling for the subpoena of Barack Obama was news all by itself but when it was discovered that the heavily redacted document had been de-coded, the document's importance took on exponentially more significance. The motion, while posted on the internet, had been redacted in many places. However, the redactions, if copied and pasted to a Word document were almost magically revealed.
This phenomenon is going viral and the judge presiding over the case has called an EMERGENCY MEETING according to NBC Chicago:
The judge presiding over former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's corruption trial called an emergency meeting Thursday evening after information that was intended to remain under seal was released to the public in a defense filing to subpoena President Barack Obama.
The parties involved are downplaying the reason for the meeting but, come on. There was obviously a glitch that permitted redacted portions of a document potentially implicating the president of the United States to be splattered all over the internet.
And we're supposed to believe that an emergency meeting called by the judge presiding over the case has NOTHING to do with these new revelations?
Uh, ok.
Whether planned or not, Blago has got to be thrilled right this very second.
Defendant Rod Blagojevich has filed a motion to have Barack Obama subpoenaed in the former's trial. Most interesting is that the motion has been posted on line with significant portions redacted. That however, didn't prevent the redacted portions from being unearthed. Simply copying the redacted portions and pasting them into a word document actually reveals them. Here is the entire motion with redacted portions revealed and in bold type.
Be sure to click on the above link to the Huffington Post and take a look at the comments. The kooks over there are unquestionably disturbed by all of this and they're not happy with Blago at all.
UPDATE: 10:09pm CST **IF HUFFINGTON POST IMAGE CAPTURE SUDDENLY NOT WORKING FOR YOU - IT'S NOT FOR ME AND I DIDN'T DOWNLOAD IT - HERE ARE THE REDACTED EXCERPTS FROM THE MOTION:
9. Yet, despite President Obama stating that no representatives of his had any part of any deals, labor union president told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to labor union official on November 3, 2008 who received a phone message from Obama that evening. After labor union official listened to the message labor union official told labor union president “I’m the one”. Labor union president took that to mean that labor union official was to be the one to deliver the message on behalf of Obama that Senate Candidate B was his pick. (Labor union president 302, February 2, 2009, p. 7).
10. Labor union official told the FBI and the United States Attorneys “Obama expressed his belief that [Senate Candidate B] would be a good Senator for the people of Illinois and would be a candidate who could win re-election. [Labor union official] advised Obama that [labor union official] would reach out to Governor Blagojevich and advocate for [Senate Candidate B].. . . [Labor union official] called [labor union president] and told [labor union president] that Obama was aware that [labor union official] would be reaching out to Blagojevich.” (Labor union official 302, February 3, 2009 p. 3).
11. According to Senate Candidate B, on November, 4 2008, Senate Candidate B spoke with labor union official about the Senate seat. Labor union official said he spoke to Obama. Labor union official said he was going to meet with Blagojevich and said “he was going to push Blagojevich hard on this. According to Senate Candidate B, labor union official’s language could have been stronger than the language that she was reporting to the government.” (Senate Candidate B 302, December 19, 2008).
12. On November 5, 2008, Blagojevich told John Harris that labor union official “talked to Barack Obama, wants to come and see me.” Blagojevich then told Harris that labor union official “was very explicit with me, “I talked to Barack about the Senate seat. Can I come and see ya? Can I do it tomorrow?’ I said, sure.” (Blagojevich Home Phone Call # 261)
13. A supporter of Presidential Candidate Obama suggested that she talk to the wife of Governor Blagojevich about Senate Candidate B for Senator. (Valerie Jarrett 302, December 19, 2008). Supporter of Presidential Candidate Obama is mentioned in a phone call on November 3, 2008, having offered “fundraising” in exchange for Senate Candidate B for senator (Blagojevich Home Phone Call # 149).
17.President-elect Obama also spoke to Governor Blagojevich on December 1, 2008 in Philadelphia. On Harris Cell Phone Call # 139, John Harris and Governor’s legal counsel discuss a conversation Blagojevich had with President-elect Obama. The government claims a conspiracy existed from October 22, 2008 continuing through December 9, 2008.6 That conversation is relevant to the defense of the government’s theory of an ongoing conspiracy. Only Rod Blagojevich and President Obama can testify to the contents of that conversation. The defense is allowed to present evidence that corroborates the defendant’s testimony.7
18.President-elect Obama also suggested Senate Candidate A to Governor Blagojevich. John Harris told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to President’s Chief of Staff on November 12, 2008. Harris took notes of the conversation and wrote that President’s Chief had previously worked as Blagojevich's press secretary. Obama agreed of Staff told Harris that Senate Candidate A was acceptable to Obama as a senate pick. (Harris handwritten notes, OOG1004463) President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI that “he could not say where but somewhere it was communicated to him that” Senate Candidate A was a suggested candidate viewed as one of the four “right” candidates “by the Obama transition team.” (Rahm Emanuel 302, p. 5, December 20, 2008). Harris told Blagojevich Obama’s suggestion on November 12, 2008 (Blagojevich Home Phone Call # 539). 19.President-elect Obama was also involved in other senate candidate choices. On December 8, 2008, John Harris’ secretary’s call log noted President’s Chief of Staff called at 10:47 am and wrote “needs to talk to you asap” (Harris 302, February 20, 2009). President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI that he had a conversation discussing the Senate seat with Obama on December 7, 2008 in Obama’s car. President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI “Obama expressed concern about Senate Candidate D being appointed as Senator. [President’s Chief of Staff] suggested they might need an expanded list to possibly include names of African Americans that came out of the business world. [President’s Chief of Staff] thought he suggested Senate Candidate E who was the head of the Urban League and with President’s Chief of Staff’s suggestion." (President’s Chief of Staff, 302, 12-20-08).
22.However, the defense has a good faith belief that Mr. Rezko, President Obama’s former friend, fund-raiser, and neighbor told the FBI and the United States Attorneys a different story about President Obama. In a recent in camera proceeding, the government tendered a three paragraph letter indicating that Rezko “has stated in interviews with the government that he engaged in election law violations by personally contributing a large sum of cash to the campaign of a public official who is not Rod Blagojevich. ... Further, the public official denies being aware of cash contributions to his campaign by Rezko or others and denies having conversations with Rezko related to cash contributions. ... Rezko has also stated in interviews with the government that he believed he transmitted a quid pro quo offer from a lobbyist to the public official, whereby the lobbyist would hold a fundraiser for the official in exchange for favorable official action, but that the public official rejected the offer. The public official denies any such conversation. In addition, Rezko has stated to the government that he and the public official had certain conversations about gaming legislation and administration, which the public official denies having had.” 23.President Obama is the only one who can testify as to the veracity of Mr. Rezko’s allegations above.
The defense has a good faith belief that this public official is Barack Obama. See, “Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake”, Dave McKinney, Chris Fusco, and Mark Brown, Chicago Sun Times, November 5, 2006. Senator Barack Obama was asked: “Did Rezko or his companies ever solicit your support on any matter involving state or federal government? Did Al Johnson, who was trying to get a casino license along with Tony Rezko, or Rezko himself ever discuss casino matters with you?” Senator Obama answered: “No, I have never been asked to do anything to advance his business interest. In 1999, when I was a State Senator, I opposed legislation to bring a casino to Rosemont and allow casino gambling at docked riverboats which news reports said Al and Tony Rezko were interested in being part of. I never discussed a casino license with either of them. I was a vocal opponent of the legislation.” Obama’s involvement with Tony Rezko and this legislation coincides with the three paragraph summary the government has provided to the defense referenced above.
As for the relevance of the redacted portions in particular and the entire motion in general, NBC Chicago identified six secrets that the un-redacted portions reveal. It is not clear whether the easily deciphered redactions were intentional but they do make things quite interesting. Claims - with names - are being made that Obama spoke to Blago on December 1st, 2008 and Blago wants the contents of that conversation admitted. There is also a claim that not only was Valerie Jarrett offered Obama's vacant Senate seat but that a quid pro quo was involved. Of course, Obama's conversations with Tony Rezko are at issue as well.
The motion filed Thursday says Obama was interviewed for two hours by prosecutors and FBI agents regarding the Blagojevich case, and the defense filed a motion asking for all transcripts, notes and reports from that interview. But the defense never received the documents, the motion said.
Here is a link to the story referenced by Blago in this motion he points to as proof that the interview between the FBI and Obama took place.
Another aspect of the motion that should raise some interest is Blago's accusation that he met with a union official ostensibly representing Obama's interests over who should be appointed to his former Senate seat. Blago says yes. Obama has denied any such claim in the past.
The motion also claims that prosecutors say Blagojevich met a labor union official whom he believed to be in contact with President Obama, and told the official he would appoint a certain candidate to the vacant Senate seat. In exchange, Blagojevich expected to be named secretary of Health and Human Services, the motion says prosecutors claim.
Click here to read the entire motion as the imaged portion above does not include pages 7 - 11.
When it comes to Islam, we all know how sensitive its followers are to any depiction of their prophet. That fact was not lost on the creators of South Park, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, who featured Mohammed in one of their cartoons.
However, obviously aware of the Muslim sensitivities, Parker and Stone didn't depict Mohammed. They implied his presence by keeping him inside a U-haul while wearing a bear suit so that no one could see him.
News of the threats to Matt Stone and Trey Parker seems to be going mainstream. Via the BBC:
Islamists have warned the creators of TV show South Park they could face violent retribution for depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit.
A posting on the website of the US-based group, Revolution Muslim, told Matt Stone and Trey Parker they would "probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh".
Predictably, the video has been pulled but here is an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali on CNN about the controversy.
James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles may have had an even bigger impact than anyone imagined when they took down ACORN with their undercover videos. They may have inspired countless other would-be citizen journalists.
For example, these videos are extremely reminiscent of those ACORN videos even though it's very unlikely they got the idea from O'Keefe and Giles based on when they were done. Imagine a premise in which a young woman poses as a 14 year-old girl named “Brianna” who has been impregnated by a 31 year-old man and enters an abortion clinic. The clinic in this video is one belonging to the National Abortion Federation.
Here, the lie from the counselor that Brianna shouldn't be concerned because the fetus has no brain activity at this stage of her pregnancy, is proven to be just that - a lie.
In light of Bill Clinton's comments last week drawing parallels between the Tea Party movement and the anti-government sentiment prior to the Oklahoma CIty bombing, this takes on added significance. While speaking at an event for the Young Democratic Socialists (YDS), ACORN head Bertha Lewis expresses love for anyone who is young and socialist.
Don't stop watching there. Lewis says some alarming things about the Tea Party movement's plans to unleash their "racism", thereby ushering in a time worse than McCarthyism or internment during WWII.
Considering the founder of ACORN - Wade Rathke - was a member of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), a group that gave birth to Bill Ayers' Weather Underground, one can find strong similarities between the old SDS and YDS, where Lewis was speaking. Take particular note of Lewis expressing her fear of the Tea Party movement opening up internment camps.
After watching that, take a look at this. The only evidence of any plans for camps comes from the far left. Remember, the Weather Underground was formed when the SDS splintered. Larry Grathwohl, the only person to successfully infiltrate the Weather Underground for the FBI has testified under oath that group's leadership, including Bill Ayers, planned on sending capitalists to re-education centers and eliminating 25 million people.
Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), ranking Republican of the House Oversight Committee could be battling the White House stonewall again. This time, in the form of a request for any documents related to the Securities and Exchange Commission civil lawsuit filed against Goldman Sachs.
The Wall Street giant is certainly not the symbol of high ethical practices. That is not the potential issue at hand. The timing of the lawsuit coupled with financial regulation legislation being debated in the Senate is what has Issa and at least 8 other Republicans wanting answers, who are demanding transparency from the SEC and the White House because of a coincidence that could be anything but.
Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight committee, is demanding a slew of documents from the Securities and Exchange Commission, asserting that the timing of civil charges against Goldman Sachs raises “serious questions about the commission’s independence and impartiality.”
Issa’s letter, addressed to SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro and signed by eight other House Republicans, asks whether the commission had any contact about the case, prior to its public release, with White House aides, Democratic Party committee officials, or members of Congress or their staff.
“[W]e are concerned that politics have unduly influenced the decision and timing of the commission’s controversial enforcement action against Goldman,” Issa writes.
Issa implied that the timing was a bit too convenient, saying President Barack Obama’s push on Wall Street reform “neatly coincided with the commission’s announcement of the suit.”
CBS also reported on this story. If there ends up being some validity to Issa's concerns, bolstering his cause for skepticism is that such a tactic is vintage Saul Alinsky. If it turns out that the SEC was colluding with the White House, demonizing big bankers is red meat to Obama's base. Rubbing raw the sores of discontent is what it's all about in Community Organizing. The same thing happened in the late 1990's with the Community Reinvestment Act. Community Organizations agitated the base, demonized mortgage lenders, and let that discontent fester to the point of getting the likes of ACORN sending angry members to bankers' homes, demanding whatever form of justice they perceived was owed to them.
As I mentioned, Goldman Sachs certainly doesn't set the standard for ethical practices - which is one of the reasons this tactic would play well - but until more people see big government as multiple times worse, things aren't likely to change.
Check out this video interview between Greta van Susteren and Darrell Issa on the matter:
Is this guy running for congress or president? He actually does refer to himself as Commander in Chief at a point in the future. Colonel Allen West nails it in ten minutes. As a former commander in Iraq, hearing him go after Gen. George Casey for the latter's concern about diversity being a casualty after the Fort Hood attack takes on added resonance.
As far as poster children for leftwing media, Joan Walsh of Salon magazine fits the bill as well as anyone. Her inability to name a vitriolic leftwing talk show host is trumped only by the reaction of Morning Joe's Mika Brzezinski, who mocks Walsh's ignorance. Are we witnessing the subtle long term genius of Joe Scarborough here?
Many - myself included - wondered if Scarborough was being poisoned by the leftwing cesspool at MSNBC as he has repeatedly come across as more moderate but maybe he's having the opposite effect on his co-host. I'm really starting to like this side of Brzenzinski. Not only does she slam a lefty in Walsh better than anyone on the right could but she is un-phased by the producer in the control room who is visibly exasperated by the exchange.
Mika delivers a leftwing smack down!
As for those wacky left wing talk show hosts revealed to Walsh off-air...
An antidote for those infected with liberal whack job leftwing entertainment. I've never heard of Steve Pichan before but I like him. In this video, Pichan challenges the segment of the left that outwardly reveres Che Guevara, who is inexplicably glorified in the form of Hollywood movies, t-shirts, and other disturbingly shocking ways. The man was a cold blooded killer, a racist, and would-be tyrant.
Welcome to the consequences of unaccountability. In 2008, Michael Pfleger was suspended for a whopping two weeks for politically incendiary rhetoric directed at Hillary Clinton. He also likened America's treatment of minorities to rape.
Here's Pfleger's latest rant. Days before receiving a lifetime achievement award for social justice, presented by Cardinal Francis George - also the man who gave Pfleger that slap on the wrist in 2008 - Pfleger becomes unhinged and seems to dismiss the need for a Pope.
The continued stonewalling by the White House on releasing documents to Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joe Lieberman led to the latter finally issuing a subpoena for the documents necessary to pursue a congressional investigation. Lieberman gave the White House a deadline of April 19th which it predictably ignored.
Lieberman and ranking Republican on the committee, Susan Collins have taken the next step of issuing subpoenas for the documents. I wrote about my take on the likelihood of Lieberman and Collins going to the mat and winning this battle here.
Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, an independent, and Susan Collins, the panel's top Republican, took the action after the departments of Justice and Defense failed to provide the materials by Monday's deadline.
The two senators have been trying for months to obtain documents and be provided access to witnesses that they say are critical to their investigation of the shooting spree at Fort Hood in November that ended with 13 soldiers killed and dozens wounded.
Pardon my skepticism but this White House has made stonewalling an art form, the Justice Department in particular. Let's not forget Walpin-gate or Jobsgate. This doesn't even account for how Holder's DOJ handled the Black Panther case in Philadelphia.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates didn't back down when asked about the threat of a subpoena last week. Since the White House did not respond by Lieberman's deadline, the latter has issued subpoenas along with a new deadline:
In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, who heads the Justice Department, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Lieberman and Collins wrote: "It is impossible for us to avoid reaching the conclusion that the departments simply do not want to cooperate with our investigation."
"It is with great disappointment and reluctance that we have directed service of subpoenas to you which demand disclosure of the requested information by Monday, April 26, 2010," they added.
Yes, it takes a degree of fortitude to issue a subpoena but this is still the blustering phase. Lieberman is trying to do the right thing here but with this administration, a subpoena is increasingly looking like just another piece of paper to ignore.
I'd love to think that the tandem of Lieberman and Collins will be able to force the White House into compliance but am under no illusion they will. Lieberman has put himself in a bit of a spot with this subpoena. If he's outrightly ignored and dismissed, he's effectively neutered as chairman of the committee for good. I wouldn't be surprised to see him reach some sort of compromise where he gets the White House to cough up something only moderately significant just to make it look like his subpoena was effective in return for backing off and letting the issue fade. To Lieberman's credit, this issue is definitely not welcome news to an administration that continues to rack up very questionable practices.
Not sure why Barbara Boxer agreed to have Barack Obama head to California to campaign for her. It's the kiss of death for any aspiring incumbent. After these six minutes, Obama likely had second thoughts as well. The entire video is worth watching as audience members pepper Obama with chants of, "Don't ask, don't tell" and "Yes, we can".
The reference to the former was meant to show support for repealing the policy. The chanting of the latter seemed to carry a mocking tone. There are two points where Obama is noticeably angry - one about 1/3 the way into the video and the other toward the end.
Obama was obviously very frustrated by the whole experience.
Barack Obama's envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) found himself in the middle of a controversy recently over sympathetic things he said about convicted terrorist fundraiser, Sami al-Arian. He said those things at a 2004 Muslim Students Association (MSA) event and had to admit to them when a recording of the event surfaced. More on that controversy here.
Shockingly, Hussain remained on the job despite both his comments and an apparent attempt to erase them from the public record. The New York Times is now reporting on the White House's continued emphasis on strengthening relations with the Islamic world:
(Obama's) administration has reached out to this politically isolated constituency in a sustained and widening effort that has left even skeptics surprised.
Muslim and Arab-American advocates have participated in policy discussions and received briefings from top White House aides and other officials on health care legislation, foreign policy, the economy, immigration and national security. They have met privately with a senior White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to discuss civil liberties concerns and counterterrorism strategy.
Apparently, part of this outreach included lifting the ban on a man named Tariq Ramadan from entering the United States. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed the papers that lifted the ban recently:
Tariq Ramadan, a prominent Muslim academic, visited the United States for the first time in six years after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reversed a decision by the Bush administration, which had barred Mr. Ramadan from entering the country, initially citing the U.S.A. Patriot Act. Mrs. Clinton also cleared the way for another well-known Muslim professor, Adam Habib, who had been denied entry under similar circumstances.
Much of the relevance of Ramadan's travel ban being lifted has to do with his family tree. Ramadan's maternal grandfather was a man named Hassan al-Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928. The Brotherhood is also the umbrella for several groups linked to Islamic terrorism, including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Students Association (MSA), and even Hamas. Ramadan has clearly not renounced his ties to this group. Neither has Hussain denounced his words about al-Arian or the MSA event where he said them.
On April 28th, Obama's Islamic envoy (Hussain) will be delivering a speech at an event put on by the Center for the Study of Islamic and Democracy (CSID). Also delivering a speech at the event is none other than Tariq Ramadan.
At the recent Southern Republican Leadership Conference (SRLC) in New Orleans, a couple was brutally attacked as they left the event and headed for their car. The female, Allee Bautsch, is a staffer for the Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal (R). Bautsch was stomped on by her attacker and her leg was broken in four places. Her boyfriend, Joe Brown suffered a broken nose, broken jaw, and a concussion.
Connie Hair at Human Events reports that as time passes, evidence the attack was politically motivated mounts:
During her first interview with Fox News (reported and transcribed in full on HUMAN EVENTS) Bautsch’s mother, Della Berning, confirmed reports of the political nature of the attacks but was reluctant to discuss that aspect of the assault.
In her latest interview with Yahoo News (via The Hayride, h/t Pat Dollard) Berning went a bit further, saying her daughter Bautsch and her daughter’s boyfriend, Brown, believe the attackers were a group of political protesters who followed them after they left the GOP event.
Neither Bautsch nor Brown were robbed. That would seem to indicate they were beaten out of anger for something they had done or for something they believed, by people they did not know.
What's been the rap from the left on the Tea Party movement - since the race card has basically fallen flat? Answer: it is Un-American to protest big government. TIME Magazine's Joe Klein actually indicated that he thinks people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin might be committing sedition.
The Tea Party movement has so flummoxed the left with its orderliness that the latter has actually been reduced to attempting to infiltrate the Tea Parties to play to the negative - and hugely inaccurate - stereotypes portrayed by the Mainstream Media. Did I mention the race card didn't work?
Morgan Richmond at Big Journalism compares the anti-government sentiment of the Tea Party crowd with that of former White House Green Czar and current senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, Van Jones, who was at one time ALSO anti-government.
As head of the Ella Baker center, Van Jones oversaw that group's sponsoring the production of an album narrated by a convicted cop killer named Mumia Abu Jamal. Jones also appeared on the album. Read more about the specifics on that here.
What's interesting in light of the current political climate though, as Richmond points out, is the comparison between what Van Jones produced then and what the left is now saying about the Tea Party movement now. Via Big Journalism, here are some of the lyrics from the album in question:
F*ck the government, they never done sh*t for me For my people their defeat is a victory “The man” wants the whole world under his thumb, Plunders the globe and tries to buy us off with the crumbs… That’s not your flag, not your government Not your war, not your President Now is not the time to be silent Raise your voices, raise your fist Against the real terrorist – Uncle Sam.
Paging Joe Klein..... By the way, while that brilliant prose is still fresh in your mind, have a look at what Joe Klein said while on a panel moderated by Chris Matthews, via NewsBusters:
The contrast could not be more stark, yet the left continues to demonize the American loving Tea Party movement while giving the likes of Van Jones a pass.
Be sure to read Richmond's entire piece, which also features an audio clip from the album Van Jones sponsored.
Oh, for some reason this Jason Mattera encounter with John Podesta came to mind as well. Check out Podesta's response to Mattera's question about the former's continued support of Van Jones:
