STATE DEPT BUILDS 27 MOSQUES WORLDWIDE

JOHN LOEFFLER
http://britanniaradio.blogspot.com/2010/08/john-loeffler-steel-on-steel-paul-craig.html#links
MAX KEISER & OTHER ECONOMISTS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVombm30geU&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFrBpBmkgjM&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwaNRWMN-F4&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjglR2KYz5o&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPRoQ7OxZAQ&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GRsHlY-J18&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI5KiXihvg4&feature=player_embedded
GERALD CELENTE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2D2y1ye6kc&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlX88WZrPt4&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnTETzeEm6E&feature=player_embedded
RESTORING HONOR RALLY
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27067
LAURIE - DOUG TALK ABOUT THE MOSQUE IN 27 COUNTRIES-AUG 27,10 HR 1-2-3
http://therothshow.com/show-archives/august-2010/
MOSQUE TALK - MONEY CONNECTION AUG 20,10 HR-1-2-3
http://therothshow.com/show-archives/august-2010/

US State Department builds mosques in 27 countries By LAURIE ROTH AUG 27,10

I couldn’t believe my ears when a listener to my national radio show this week told me she was certain that our State Department was funding, building and renovating Mosques in 27 countries using US tax dollars. I thought, she must have partial, incorrect info, it seemed so absurd to me. I had heard nothing of this anywhere. Then just yesterday I confirmed that this was indeed true through a variety of sources and with Frank Salvato, editor of new media journal. What I have uncovered is unacceptable, obscene and should be fought at all levels by the American people. Our State Dept. is using undisclosed amounts of US tax dollars to build and renovate Islamic Mosques in 27 different countries. They do this under an ‘outreach’ program with the purpose of fostering ‘good will’ in Muslim countries. The state department will not reveal just how much they spend on overseas, foreign programs but a very reliable source told me most likely it is in the hundreds of billions.

This is not new to the State Department

The problem of exploitation and priorities with our State Department isn’t just an Obama problem. This was going on under Bush as well. So far from my initial investigation on this, the State Department is considered rogue and has a mind of its own with career lifers being their 20 years and manipulating funding, budgets and continuing to focus on their long term, money laden agendas, not what is fiscally sound, representative of our Judea, Christian values, or American priorities. Naturally, the progressive and liberal leadership of Hillary Clinton doesn’t help!

Back to the billions being spent on mosque building around the world

How is it with our country being in the worst recession, for some depression since the 1930s that we have billions to spend on mosque building in 27 countries? Good will my foot! I don’t know of a Muslim ruled country that doesn’t have massive oil wealth and plenty of money already to build or renovate their mosques! This is nothing but stealing behind closed and manipulated empathy/outreach doors money from the American people at a time when millions are losing their homes jobs and careers! If we are obsessed about building good will in Muslim countries, why don’t we start by building Christian churches in Muslim countries since they have so many Mosques here already. How about we tell Muslim countries this. When we hear any Jihad, anti troop or Israeli talk in US mosques we will start shutting them down.

Not only is it stealing from the poor and suffering masses to fund these mosques but most of America has no interest whatsoever in being a part of funding mosques that in most cases teach and preach jihad against Israel, our troops in a time of war and the conquest of Sharia law worldwide. It has to be the idiot move of the century to allow the rogue State Department to help build the very mosques where Imams teach from Sharia law special techniques on Islamic husbands beating their wives and where many types of Jihad are taught and encouraged. Finally, these mosques reflect the aggressive Muslim brotherhood and Whahhabi inspired Caliphate growing worldwide. Let’s make sure we fund the religion that calls Islamics in the Koran to forcibly convert us, enslave us or kill us.Now folks, how do you feel again about putting up a 100 million dollar mosque at ground zero in New York, backed by radical, Imam Rauf and his foreign, compromised money that continues to evolve. Cry out to your Representatives and Senators and flood the State Department with faxes, emails and phone calls to stop the absurd waste of billions of foreign outreach money to build mosques in 27 countries!

CENSORING QUESTIONS ABOUT OBAMA'S RELIGION
By Cliff Kincaid August 28, 2010 NewsWithViews.com

In a major liberal initiative to curtail discussion of President Obama’s religious identity, over 70 Christian leaders and denominational heads have signed a letter saying that questions about the religious philosophy of the President of the United States should be ignored and suppressed by the major media.The letter demands that the media offer no further support or airtime to those who misrepresent and call into question the President’s Christian faith.The apparent initiator of the letter is Obama associate Jim Wallis of the Sojourners group, a group funded by atheist George Soros.The Eleison Group, which represents the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Wallis’s Sojourners group, arranged the release of the letter and has handled publicity for it. The Eleison Group’s purpose is to mobilize more traditional progressive base faith voters who are often overlooked in Democratic and progressive outreach.The president of the Eleison Group, Burns Strider, has served as an adviser to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and regional Communications Director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Pelosi, a liberal Catholic, invoked St. Joseph, revered for being the foster father of Jesus and the husband of the Virgin Mary, in the successful push for passage of Obama’s socialized medicine plan. The airtime alluded to in the letter has mostly been devoted to the controversy over opinion polls finding that significant numbers of people are confused about Obama’s religious identity and that some believe he is a Muslim. The questions that have been offered by Accuracy in Media concern Obama’s claims about being baptized in the Christian faith. AIM believes that politicians should be held accountable for the claims they make about themselves, even on personal matters of religious faith.

Obama’s aides have claimed the President is a committed and practicing Christian and that he was baptized in Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. But he has gone to church only a few times since he became President. We understand that these are contentious times, say the Christian leaders, but the personal faith of our leaders should not be up for public debate.However, the First Amendment expressly permits not only freedom of religion but freedom of the press. The Christian leaders say, We believe that questioning, and especially misrepresenting, the faith of a confessing believer goes too far. They do not identify who has misrepresented Obama’s faith. But other releases from the Eleison Group attack Fox News, talk radio, and right-wing misinformation about Obama’s religious affiliation and views.Strider and his associate, Eric Sapp, write, The 4th Estate and reporters and editors who care about the truth need to wake up to what is happening. Bloggers and independent journalists need to rise up and demand accountability (even of those on our side). And all Americans need to hold our news organizations accountable.AIM also wants accountability. What AIM has done is quote directly from Obama’s books about his spiritual and political journey. We have pointed out that Obama’s claim about his own baptism, as reported in his second memoir, The Audacity of Hope, is subject to interpretation because of the lack of detail about how and when he was baptized and by whom. It appears, based on information provided by Obama’s own church, that Obama was describing how he became a member of that church.

Obama’s claim of being baptized is presented in the context of discussing the fact that he was not born and baptized a Christian. He describes his Muslim father and grandfather and attendance in a Muslim school as he was growing up. Obama acknowledges that, before he joined Wright’s church, some people regarded him as a Muslim. Wright himself dabbled in Islam before establishing his church, Obama concedes.The proof of the baptism claim is precisely what is lacking in his book. There is no need or demand for a baptismal certificate, but there is no detail about the ceremony, other than talking about a walk down an aisle and a profession of faith, and no information about who performed the baptism and who attended. Traditionally, water is used in such a ceremony. There is no reference to water in Obama’s book.To add further to the mystery, AIM cited evidence that Christian baptisms were not required to join Wright’s church, which emphasized liberation theology, and that Muslims were permitted to join and not disavow their faith. This is not a political issue,say the Christian leaders. The signers of this letter come from different political and ideological backgrounds, but we are unified in our belief in Jesus Christ. As Christian pastors and leaders, we believe that fellow Christians need to be an encouragement to those who call Christ their savior, not question the veracity of their faith.However, what is being questioned in not his faith but the veracity of his claim in his book, published as he was preparing his presidential run, that he underwent a baptism. Was this claim inserted into the book to make Obama more politically palatable to the American electorate who would be naturally suspicious about what the media called his unorthodox religious background? Some Christians claim that baptism is not required to become a Christian. Obama could have claimed that he became a Christian in Wright’s church through a simple profession of faith and that a formal baptism was not required. Instead, however, he claimed to have undergone the procedure.The questions are legitimate because Obama does not have a pristine track record of being open and honest about his background and associates.For example, in his previous book, Dreams from My Father, he misrepresented the identity of his childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, named in his book only as Frank. This individual, who had a major impact on Obama before he went off to college, turned out to be Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party member with a 600-page FBI file. Claims about a baptism cannot be taken at face value, especially because his statements and actions as President have led so many to believe he has a pro-Muslim bent. These have led to the perceptions, captured in the public opinion polls, that Obama may not be a Christian.The controversy will not go away just because a few religious leaders demand that the media stop covering it.2010 Cliff Kincaid.

Obama weighs dramatic security perks if Israel scraps Iran strike - Israeli strategists are not sure what good second-strike weapons systems Washington may offer if Israel is first destroyed by an Iranian nuclear attack.
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report AUG 28,10

DEBKAfile reports Israel is thought to have revived its military option against Iran – especially since Iran activated its first nuclear reactor at Bushehr on Aug. 21, thereby placing the Obama administration under enormous pressure. On top of the dire predictions of catastrophe planted on various US op-ed pages, Obama this week sent two big guns to Jerusalem to try and check an Israel attack. A guaranteed US nuclear umbrella, nuclear attack submarines for the IDF. Raptor stealth jets and NATO membership may be on offer.The first to arrive was International Atomic Energy Agency Director Yukiya Amano, who explained that under his stewardship the nuclear watchdog’s treatment of Iran would be quite different from the lenience shown by his predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei.Thursday, Aug. 26, Amano was joined by Daniel Shapiro, Middle East Director at the National Security Council and a close friend of many Israeli leaders. He came laden with offers of security gifts – possible rewards both for restraint on Iran and as a softener for Netanyahu to be generous with concessions to the Palestinians in the forthcoming negotiations. Shapiro has taken three days to make his pitch on Iran, while Netanyahu has less than a week to decide whether he can again trust the US president’s new promises after they were not exactly upheld in the way the Bushehr reactor was allowed to go on stream or the modalities for the negotiations with the Palestinians.While preparing the Shapiro mission, the administration let it be known that the security gifts on offer would be dramatic and make the IDF one of the strongest and most advanced armies in the world.

Advance notice came in a series of leaks to former CIA officer Bruce Riedel, who is very close to President Obama, for an article he published in the influentialThe National Interest on Aug. 25 under the caption If Israel Attacks.Riedel urged the US to do everything in its power to stop an attack happening as it would spell catastrophe and advised Israel to adjust to the fact that the development of an Iranian atom bomb can no longer be halted.To make Israel feel secure in the new reality, Riedel proposed four steps for strengthening the Israeli armed forces and lending it a second-strike capability – even against an Iranian nuclear attack.

1. The US must spread a nuclear umbrella over Israel that would entail the installation of American nuclear depots in Israel to show Tehran that a nuclear attack on the Jewish state would meet with a US nuclear response.

2. American nuclear submarines would be supplied to the Israeli Navy as the backbone of its nuclear counter-strike capability. There are two categories – ballistic missile submarines and attack submarines.

3. The Israeli Air Force would receive US F-22 Raptor stealth jets, the most sophisticated warplane in the skies today. They would be equipped with all the systems and ordnance needed to strike the Iranian nuclear program.

4. The US would arrange for Israel’s full membership of NATO, so rendering an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel subject not just to US retaliation but a declaration of war by the 26-member alliance.

To qualify for these American security perks, Riedel made it clear that Israel would be required to come to terms with a nuclear-armed Iran and eschew military action against it, a provision which debkafile’s military and Jerusalem sources say the Netanyahu government is most unlikely to accept.For the Riedel analysis, which runs to 3,600 words, has a built-in contradiction. He portrays the Iranian leadership as consisting, behind their fiery rhetoric, of reasonable people who, when it comes down to it, will react to military and political pressure situations in a way that will not endanger their regime and their country’s very survival.However, this proposition does not take into account the Islamic Republic rulers’ persistent threats to wipe Israel off the map (without regard to the hazards this would incur) or his own and the Obama administration’s conviction that if Israel attacks Iran, Tehran will hit back at US targets and interests (even more hazardous).debkafile’s sources ask: Why would a reasonable regime risk going to war with America instead of limiting its military action to Israel? And what good would all the wonderful new military systems be to Israel for a second-strike capability when an initial Iranian nuclear attack would suffice to destroy the tiny Jewish state?

Accepting the unacceptable
August 27, 2010, 3:13 AM

Last weekend the mullahs took a big step towards becoming a nuclear power as they powered the Bushehr nuclear reactor.Israel's response? The Foreign Ministry published a statement proclaiming the move totally unacceptable.So why did we accept the totally unacceptable? When one asks senior officials about the Bushehr reactor and about Iran's nuclear program more generally, their response invariably begins, Well the Americans...Far from accepting that Israel has a problem that it must deal with, Israel's decision makers still argue that the US will discover - before it is too late - that it must act to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power in order to secure its own interests.As for Bushehr specifically, Israeli officials explain that it isn't the main problem. The main danger stems from the uranium enrichment sites. And anyway, they explain, given the civilian character of the Bushehr reactor; the fact that it is under a full International Atomic Energy Agency inspections regime; and the fact that the Russians are supposed to take all the spent fuel rods to Russia and so prevent Iran from using them to produce weapons-grade plutonium, Israel lacked the international legitimacy to strike Bushehr to prevent it from being fuelled last weekend.

BEFORE GOING into the question of whether or not Israel's decision makers were correct in deciding to opt out of attacking the Bushehr reactor to prevent it from being fuelled, it is worth considering where the Americans stand on Iran as it declares itself a nuclear power and tests new advanced weapons systems on a daily basis.The answer to this question was provided in large part in an article in the National Interest by former Clinton Administration National Security Council member Bruce Riedel. Titled, If Israel Attacks, Riedel -- who reportedly has close ties to the administration - asserts that an Israeli military strike against Iran will be a disaster for the US. In his view, US is better served by allowing Iran to become a nuclear power than by supporting an Israeli attack against Iran.He writes, The United States needs to send a clear red light to Israel. There's no option but to actively discourage an Israeli attack.Riedel explains that to induce Israel to accept the unacceptable specter of a nuclear armed mullocracy, the US should pay it off. Riedel recommends plying Israel's leaders with F-22 Stealth bombers, nuclear submarines, a mutual defense treaty and perhaps even NATO membership.Riedel's reason for deeming an Israeli strike unacceptable is his conviction that such a strike will be met by an Iranian counter-strike against US forces and interests in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. While there is no reason to doubt he is correct, Riedel studiously ignores the other certainty: A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten those same troops and interests far more.Riedel would have us believe that the Iranian regime will be a rational nuclear actor. That's the regime that has outlawed music, stones women, and deploys terror proxies throughout the region and the world. That's the same regime whose supreme leader just published a fatwa claiming he has the same religious stature as Muhammed. Riedel bases this view on the actions Iran took when it was weak.

Since Iran didn't place its American hostages on trial in 1980, it can be trusted with nuclear weapons in 2010. Since Iran didn't go to war against the US in 1988 during the Kuwaiti tanker crisis, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can be trusted with nuclear bombs in 2010. And so on and so forth.Moreover, Riedel ignores what any casual newspaper reader now recognizes: Iran's nuclear weapons program has spurred a regional nuclear arms race. Riedel imagines a bipolar nuclear Middle East with Israel on the one side and Iran on the other. He fails to notice that already today Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan and Turkey have all initiated nuclear programs. And if Iran is allowed to go nuclear, these countries will beat a path to any number of nuclear bomb stores.Some argue that a multipolar nuclear Middle East will adhere to the rules of mutual assured destruction. Assuming this is true, the fact remains that the violent Iranian response to an Israeli strike against its nuclear installations will look like a minor skirmish in comparison to the conventional wars that will break out in a Middle East in which everyone has the bomb.And in truth, there is no reason to believe that a Middle East in which everyone has nuclear weapons is a Middle East which adheres to the rules of MAD. A recent Zogby/ University of Maryland poll of Arab public opinion taken for the Brookings Institute in US-allied Arab states Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the UAE shows that the Arab world is populated by jihadists. As Herb London from the Hudson Institute pointed out in an analysis of the poll, nearly 70 percent of those polled said the leader they most admire is either a jihadist or a supporter of jihad. The most popular leaders were Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Hizbullah chieftain Hassan Nasrallah, Syrian President Bashar Assad and Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden.So if popular revolutions bring down any of the teetering despotic regimes now occupying the seats of power in the Arab world, they will likely be replaced by jihadists. Moreover, since an Iranian nuclear bomb would empower the most radical, destabilizing forces in pan-Arab society, the likelihood that a despot would resort to a nuclear strike on a Western or Israeli target in order to stay in power would similarly rise.All of this should not be beyond the grasp of an experienced strategic thinker like Riedel. And yet, obviously, it is. Moreover, as an alumnus of the Clinton administration, Riedel's positions in general are more realistic than those of the Obama administration. As Israeli officials acknowledge, the Obama administration is only now coming to terms with the fact that its engagement policy towards Iran has failed.

Moreover, throughout the US government, the White House is the most stubborn defender of the notion that the Iranian nuclear threat is not as serious a threat as the absence of a Palestinian state. That is, President Barack Obama himself is the most strident advocate of a US Middle East policy that ignores all the dangers the US faces in the region and turns American guns against the only country that doesn't threaten any US interest.And now, facing this state of affairs, Israeli leaders today still argue that issuing a Foreign Ministry communiqué declaring the fuelling of the Bushehr nuclear reactor unacceptable, and beginning worthless negotiations with Fatah leaders is a rational and sufficient Israeli policy.

WHAT LIES behind this governmental fecklessness?

There are two possible explanations for the government's behavior. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu may be motivated by operational concerns or he may be motivated by political concerns.On the operational level, the question guiding Israel's leaders is when is the optimal time to attack? The fact that government sources say that it would have been diplomatically suicidal to attack before Bushehr became operational last weekend makes it clear that non-military considerations are the determining factor for Israel's leadership. Yet what Riedel's article and the clear positions of the Obama administration demonstrate is that there is no chance that non-military conditions will ever be optimal for Israel. Moreover, as Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor shows, Israel can achieve its strategic objectives even without US support for its operations.From a military perspective, it is clear that it would have been better to strike Iran's nuclear installations before the Russians fuelled Bushehr. Any attack scenario from now on will have to either accept the prospect of nuclear fallout or accept leaving Bushehr intact. Indeed from a military perspective, the longer Israel waits to attack Iran, the harder it will become to accomplish the mission.So unless Israel's leaders are unaware of strategic realities, the only plausible explanation for Netanyahu's decision to sit by idly as Israel's military options were drastically diminished over the weekend is that he was moved by domestic political considerations.And what might those political considerations be? Clearly he wasn't concerned with a lack of public support. Consistent, multiyear polling data show that the public overwhelmingly supports the use of force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Then there is the issue of Netanyahu's coalition. It cannot be that Netanyahu believes that he can build a broader coalition to support an attack on Iran than he already has by bringing Kadima into his government. Kadima leader Tzipi Livni is not a great supporter of an Israeli attack on Iran. Livni views being liked by Obama more important than preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear state.

The prospect of a Kadima splinter party led by former defense minister Shaul Mofaz joining the coalition is also raised periodically. Yet experience to date indicates there is little chance of that happening. Mofaz apparently dislikes Netanyahu more than he dislikes the notion of facing a nuclear-armed Iran, (and a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia and Egypt and etc., etc., etc.).Only one possibility remains: Netanyahu must have opted to sit on his hands as Bushehr was powered up because of opposition he faces from within his government. There is only one person in Netanyahu's coalition who has both the strategic dementia and the political power to force Netanyahu to accept the unacceptable. That person is Defense Minister Ehud Barak.Barak's strategic ineptitude is legendary. It was most recently on display in the failed naval commando takeover of the Turkish-Hamas terror ship Mavi Marmara. It was Barak's idea to arm naval commandos with paintball guns and so guarantee that they would be attacked and forced to use lethal force to defend themselves. Barak's ability to dictate government policy was most recently demonstrated in his obscene abuse of power in the appointment of the IDF's next chief of staff. Regardless of whether the so-called Galant document which set out a plan to see Maj. General Yoav Galant appointed to replace outgoing IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi was forged or authentic, it is clear that its operative clauses were all being implemented by Barak's own office for the past several months. So too, despite the fact that the document is still the subject of police investigation, Barak successfully strong-armed Netanyahu into agreeing to his lightning appointment of Galant.Even if Galant is the best candidate for the position, it is clear that Barak did the general no favors by appointing him in this manner. He certainly humiliated and discredited the General Staff.Barak is the Obama administration's favorite Israeli politician. While Netanyahu is shunned, Barak is feted in Washington nearly every month. And this makes sense. As the man directly responsible for Israel's defense and with his stranglehold on the government, he alone has the wherewithal to enable the entire Middle East to go nuclear.How's that for totally unacceptable?Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

Revolt against fraudulent spending and stupid taxes! By Laurie Roth AUG 24,10

Has California lost its entire mind? Are there any leaders that are even sane left in California? We couldn’t help notice the last few years the endless whining about money out of California…..delays on state checks and freezes in payroll, not meeting budget after budget. Their continued response to their state of bankruptcy and financial desperation is to continue to raise already huge taxes, fees and make more regulations. They do this while begging for major stimulus and federal money from congress, while denying illegal immigration is a problem.As a glorious backdrop to all this absurdity, we have seen thousands of businesses leave the state because they can’t afford to do business with so many taxes and regulations. At least some of those businesses have fled to Arizona to thrive and are actually making money now. You know…..that evil state that much of California boycotted because of their immigration law. Funny how things work out.

In the face of federal and state financial meltdowns,insanity continues

California is swirling down the financial toilet, so, what do they do? LA introduces their pride and joy. It is actually a first in the nation. Drum roll……..They have made in LA the costliest public school in the country, $578 Million dollars. It is said to be the Taj Mahal of schools, with deluxe everything. It is more expensive than China’s Olympic Stadium! It is SO deluxe in fact it would be a stunning resort set in an exotic island for most of us and the honeymoon dream vacation of a life time. We are talking stunning, manicured parks, amazing swimming pool, fancy food courts, orchestra-pit auditoriums and much more extravagance.This is at a time when the state is going bankrupt, freezing state checks and begging for federal money! The insanity with priorities goes on in other states as well. There was a high school, also an amazing resort put in Massachusetts for $195.5 million dollars.Everyone has their fund raising speeches about these absurd expenses, especially the last few years. What ever happened to a school having a cafeteria and you eat one or two choices that the cooks serve you? Now you have to have an award winning food court or the kiddies won’t make it??? Our achievement and education levels continue to go lower in the world, yet our answer is to spend more money, no, nutty levels of money we don’t have to entertain the kiddies.

TRY EDUCATING THE KIDDIES, TEACHING THEM TO FOCUS, LEARNING DISCIPLINE AND DOING SCHOOL WORK! Maybe some of their endless self esteem needs would take care of themselves if they actually did some real work, adjusted to reality and felt better about themselves as they REALLY achieved and got good grades. I know….I’m evil and mean spirited. Some say on my radio show I’m the antichrist, so what do you expect?

Sports are nice, but we don’t need 30 choices of boutique and rare sports to also choose from. Drama is nice, BUT, we don’t need a practical Universal Studio’s drama department.California and other states who justify building schools into the hundreds of millions only reflect our lame, exploitive tax hallucinations with this administration and the feds. Apparently the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. I have already screamed about the insanity peppered all throughout the stimulus bill and definitions of national tax emergencies i.e. studying the effects of cocaine on monkeys, mice in the bay area, yoga and hot flashes as therapy, millions for exotic pet disease research, millions for the ‘first Tee program, designed to teach little kids golf. We have seen painted graffiti walls, public swimming pools, money to teach children about rock music and endless millions for recreation. The U.S. is being hit by the largest spending Katrina the world has ever seen with the Obama administration and this congress! They spend money based on extravagance, their limited, acting out agenda and need for endless entertainment, controls and redistribution schemes.For our country to recover and stand upright again, financially and economically, we must throw the bums out of congress and vote out Obama. All who voted for the stimulus bill and Health care bill, along with other absurd waste must leave. They have demonstrated that they serve only excess, greed, socialism and themselves.We don’t need half a billion dollar public schools in any state! Until California and other states right themselves with their out of control debt and struggles, they should and must establish REAL priorities, not Hollyweird and Universal Studios priorities! They should fix the hemorrhaging of business leaving the state by cutting their endless taxes and regulations so business can actually make some money again. They should join Arizona and deal with the epidemic of illegal aliens in the work force taking U.S. jobs. Maybe we need to vote in only Mom’s, accountants, Vets and Grandmas into congress with money leadership positions. Obviously, so many in state leadership and most of our congress and White House don’t have a clue.

This is our future-Recent terror threats have been stopped, but we have refused to heed the warnings By David Harris, Citizen Special August 28, 2010 8:37 AM

Police collect evidence at 91 Esterlawn Pvt. in Ottawa during this week's sweep of searches and arrests of terrorism suspects, Aug. 28, 2010.Photograph by: Julie Oliver, The Ottawa CitizenThis is your future. That was my wretched thought on behalf of Canadians as I watched Thursday's Project Samossa news conference. Samossa was the major national security investigation that erupted this week in counterterrorism raids and the arrest of four Muslim-Canadians. The government's charges against three of them imply a wealth of evidence that will shock the conscience of Canadians.These charges and limited revelations suggest that we could be front-row witnesses to the most vile of manifestations of the Islamist jihad in this country. The allegation is that people living among us and enjoying the immense privileges of Canadian citizenship, are siding with enemy forces aiming to kill and maim our boys and girls serving in Afghanistan -- and maybe residents of Ottawa and other Canadian centres, too.

We shouldn't be surprised.

The Toronto 18 showed us the savagery of the 7th-century war that is being imported into our 21st-century neighbourhoods. Defendants included those who should have been a credit to educated youth. From some we would have expected gratitude of immigrants who had been welcomed to a gentle and generous nation. Canadians' reward was instead a conspiracy to rent Toronto with explosives, and blast our Parliament with invasion and a prime ministerial beheading. Further hints -- and only hints -- of our growing predicament come from a series of recent convictions. Think of Momin Khawaja, the handsome Department of Foreign Affairs software consultant and moonlighter in international bomb-making. Then there was Said Namouh, Quebec-based Moroccan bomb-plotter, and the Groupe Fatah Kamel, which drove a French counterterror magistrate to pin Canada as an international centre of North African Islamic extremism. These threats were headed off by good luck and good security work, but are auguries of future violence, economy-defying instability and further pressure on civil liberties.But why must this be our future? Because we refuse to heed warnings, learn basic lessons and act in a responsible way to preserve our well-being.To understand this in the context of Islamic radicalism is to account properly for the main sources of Canada's escalating extremism. These sources are immigration and refugee influxes, and the homegrown extremist phenomenon.

Liberal politicians long ago turned immigration and refugee streams into vote-importing mechanisms. Conservatives continue to do so at the expense of Canadians' safety and tens of billions in net per annum immigration costs, plus attendant and overwhelming security costs. So pronounced is the pathology that not even a terrible recession could prevent Immigration Minister Jason Kenney from hiking immigration and refugee levels from what were already roughly the highest per capita in the world. These levels are too great to allow for reliable vetting in a world where war and ideological struggles rage, and we are a target. Then there is the near-intractable problem of homegrown or self-radicalizing extremism. Here, we need vigorous efforts by Muslims to take up the work of Dr. Tawfik Hamid and others. They must interpret constructively the portions of the Koran and Hadiths that are routinely invoked to justify brutalizing infidels and non-radical Muslims. This requires challenging those people who embrace the Koranic interpretative doctrine of abrogation by which later militant sword verses can supersede earlier, more open and charitable verses.As part of this, we must put a halt to Saudi funding and similar fundamentalist influence in Canada's Islamic and other institutions. Most emphatically, Islamist front organizations and fellow-travelling Islamic rights groups should be barred from the legitimizing table of security outreach. Outreach has difficulties, and there is concern that some of our police and other security elements may be taking the easy way out when it comes to counterradicalizing and connecting with interest groups. The useful tool of community policing periodically metastasizes into unhealthy outreach programs with Islamic front organizations, as officials seek to appease and humour the louder -- and sometimes aggressive -- influences.

At the Samossa press conference, Ottawa police Chief Vern White inadvertently illustrated the problem in response to a question about reported privileged terrorism briefings for leaders of Ottawa's Muslim community, among a few others. The chief asserted that this private access, part of ongoing community outreach, was to reassure fearful members of certain communities that they would not be subject to backlash. A reflection of the new politically correct policing, this remark suggests that some officials are accepting and feeding the Islamist victimology hype that has been repeatedly debunked by statistics showing that blacks and Jews continue to be the main targets of bigotry.

Are we prepared to accept this as our future?

A lawyer with 30 years in intelligence affairs, David Harris is director of the intelligence program INSIGNIS Strategic Research Inc. He has consulted with intelligence organizations in Canada and abroad and served with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in 1988-90.The Ottawa Citizen Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/This+future/3452938/story.html#ixzz0xuoVOimo

A Convenient Stabbing, an Inconvenient Bombing
By Daniel Greenfield Saturday, August 28, 2010 CANADA FREE PRESS
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27064

Wasn’t it nice for Mayor Bloomberg to invite the Muslim cabbie who was stabbed over to City Hall, and for the media to give him the high profile treatment. But here are a few other New York stabbing victims who could have used that attention and concern. Unfortunately they weren’t Muslims, whom Bloomberg could exploit to score political points. There was Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax who saved a woman from a knife attack, only to be stabbed himself. He lay dying in a pool of his own blood for over an hour, while people walked by, until finally an ambulance came. Tale-Yax died. And Bloomberg didn’t even notice.Meanwhile this April, Ricardo Williams and Darnell Morel were stabbed on the Number 2 train. Their stabber, Brenddy Garcia claimed that he had been defending himself and got off. Bloomberg did not invite either Williams or Morel to City Hall. But then he couldn’t have, because both men were dead.

Anthony Maldonado was stabbed to death in Harlem. He was 10 years old. That little boy’s murderer was an ex-con who had been paroled. If Bloomberg invited his family to City Hall, no one heard about it. If he apologized for a parole board that let the little boy’s killer roam free, we never heard about it either.Mohamed Jalloh, a Muslim African immigrant was killed with a machete after a fight in Washington Heights. He was Muslim, but his attacker was Latino. Naturally neither Bloomberg nor the press showed much interest in his death, or lavished a fraction of the interest that they have on our politically convenient cabbie.Claudia Montoya was stabbed 17 times and had her throat cut. She left behind a 1 year old daughter. Perhaps Bloomberg could invite her to City Hall. This summer Kelvin Buggs, an off duty FDNY EMT was stabbed to death while trying to break up a fight. Then there was Kirk Holgate, stabbed to death on New Year’s Eve. 70 year old Fumitaka Kurita stabbed by his own son in his own apartment. All awful stories. None of their families seem to have gotten. the Bloomberg star treatment.

Then there was Naief Al-mateiry, a charming Saudi fellow who invited a 69 year old man to his Manhattan apartment, choked, beat and raped him. Then Naief Al-mateiry threatened him with a knife and forced him to withdraw 1,200 dollars from his bank account. The Saudi embassy offered to cover his bail. His high powered three man legal team painted his victim as a liar who took money in exchange for sex. It worked. Naief Al-mateiry is a free man. Bloomberg of course showed absolutely no interest in his victim. So take the media frenzy over the conveniently stabbed cabbie with a grain of salt. Bloomberg doesn’t care about stabbing victims. He cares only about the Ground Zero Mosque. Stabbing victims who don’t happen to be Muslim at a convenient time, hold no interest for him.Regarding the Cabbie stabbing, the knife supposedly used in this stabbing has supposedly not been found. The accused stabber was drunk, and with a history of run ins while drunk. He probably isn’t going to be able to give any kind of accounting of what happened. After Enright’s attack, the police found him sitting in the middle of the street blocking traffic. That does not suggest a man who had much of a clue as to what was going on.Calling this some kind of premeditated hate crime is a joke. If Enright didn’t have enough sense to flee the scene of the crime, or at least not sit down in the middle of the street, he obviously wasn’t functioning on anything resembling a conscious level. He was dead drunk. It’s possible he could have stabbed a man in that condition. It’s not possible that he could have done it because he read some negative news stories about Muslims.The cabbie has insisted that he was stabbed because he was a Muslim. That doesn’t add up. Enright was relating to the cabbie positively as a Muslim, by the cabbie’s own testimony. Greeting him in Arabic and asking about Ramadan, is exactly the kind of behavior you would expect from an art school liberal. Unfortunately Enright was drunk. His checkpoint reference suggests he might have thought he was in Afghanistan. Or the real version of events might have been a drunken Enright squabbling with a cabbie over the fare, which would also explain why the partition was open. And until the knife is found, it’s an open question of whose knife it even was.Enright has become a convenient tool for an Anti-American media narrative. And that’s all that really counts. That he was a drunken liberal who got into a fight with a cab driver, a ridiculously common event in NYC, doesn’t matter. Because this fight turned violent, and it all happened at a politically convenient time. There’s no real evidence for most of the charges against Enright, but again that doesn’t matter, because a politically convenient case means everyone patting themselves on the back.

Also as Sweetness and Light points out,

What swift and severe justice. Compare and contrast to the Beat Whitey attacks at the Iowa state fair, which have yet to even be deemed to be bias crimes.But of course we’re only concerned about politically convenient attacks, such as the Mexican robberies on Staten Island. And that is the problem with Hate Crimes in a nutshell, they’re political charges used when politically convenient. Politicians love hate crimes because they allow them to claim credit for fighting bigotry, but not all bigotry is created equal, and hate crimes mainly become an issue when someone has something to politically gain from bringing attention to an attack. Meanwhile ordinary people of all races, colors and creeds who are attacked don’t get the same benefit of attention and political pressure to get justice.Earlier this week the media made much of the murder of Yoseph Robinson. While his murder was indeed tragic, and his story was compelling, he was mainly a top story because of that story, rather than because of his death. It’s unfortunate when 72 people can be gunned, but they’re not interesting, unless one of them is individually interesting. Had Yoseph Robinson not converted to Judaism, or had he just been an Orthodox Jew, but not black, he would have never made the front of the daily tabloids. Being a curiosity made his death newsworthy. But people’s murders shouldn’t be newsworthy because they have a less common background, but because murder is an evil, a wrong that people should be aware of, and because murderers should be stamped out. Instead murder is a form of celebrity. Meanwhile while all the attention is on the Muslim stabby cabbie, opening statements began in the trial of 4 Bronx terrorists who wanted to burn synagogues and shoot down military planes. There is of course far less media interest in the case. And you can understand why. It’s politically inconvenient.Four would-be Bronx synagogue bombers prayed for success before setting out on their murderous mission, according to U.S. prosecutors.The four, 44-year-old James Cromitie, 34-year-old Onta Williams, 29-year-old David Williams and 28-year-old Laguerre Payen, were charged with conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction and attempting to use missiles to kill U.S. officers and employees.In his opening statement to the Manhattan Federal Court, Assistant U.S. Attorney Adam Hickey told the jury, They were prepared to go all the way through with their destructive and murderous plan, which included shooting down military planes.

The prosecution said it would show the jury a video of the defendants praying for success prior to setting out to attack two New York synagogues in May 2009.And what’s the media’s take on this. The same media which has been running non-stop and uncritical coverage of the cabbie stabbie case. How do you think the media covers politically inconvenient trials? Controversial Trial of 4 Terrorist Suspects Begins in New York” proclaims Voice of America. Just to be clear VOA doesn’t mean that being a Muslim terrorist or burning synagogues is controversial. It means that putting the 4 terrorists on trial is controversial.The article by Adam Phillips is extraordinary for not actually quoting what the government prosecutors said, despite the story being about the opening day of the trial with the government making its case. Instead the story quotes one of the lawyers, and one of the defendant’s aunts, and then dedicates half its length to allowing a Columbia law prof to discuss whether the men are unfairly on trial because of entrapment.What’s missing? Unlike the Muslim cabbie stabby stories, there’s no discussion of whether hatred in mosques feeds anti-Semitic violence. Such stories hardly if ever come up. The theme is that the men are probably unfairly on trial. The story questions the government case, giving a benefit of the doubt, that has not been extended to Enright.And considering the attitude of Judge Colleen McMahon, the Newburgh 4 don’t have anything to worry about.I have referred to the case for a number of months in the privacy of my chambers as the un-terrorism case, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon said. It turns out I was right.Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Halperin was quick to say that a lack of connections didn’t mean the men weren’t terrorists.

I think that’s an open question,Halperin said.Of course if they were Americans trying to bomb mosques, it would be an open and shut question if they were terrorists or not. And the case would be high profile news. Obama himself would be making a statement. But they were just trying to attack synagogues, which is basically not so bad.Colleen McMahon incidentally is a Clinton appointee. Her husband Frank Vincent Sica is a Senior Advisor to Soros Private Funds Management. Colleen McMahon is known for having fun in court, and pulling the usual Judge Judy antics that entitled judges tend to do when given a lot of power, and no standards of conduct to go with it. Colleen McMahon has been hostile to the government’s case on the Newburgh 4 from the very beginning. She won’t be able to just thrown open the door for the Newburgh 4, but defense isn’t going to have much resistance from the bench.But compare the two cases. One attempted murder vs four men who planned a reign of terror. Enright is charged with hate crimes, the There’s no talk of charging them with hate crimes, even though their crimes were motivated by hate and prejudice. But who cares about things like this? Cromitie told Hussain on the tape that the best target in New York had already been hit – an apparent reference to the World Trade Center that was destroyed during the 9/11 attack on New York by al-Qaeda terrorists in 2001. He added that he would like to hit another target, like the George Washington Bridge, a large military transport plane, or a synagogue.Above all, Cromitie said he wanted to hit a synagogue,Hickey said.

And there you see the difference between the way crimes by Muslims are treated, and the way that crimes against Muslims are treated. The truth is that attacks on Muslims have been down, see the analysis on hate crimes at Elder of Ziyon. Can you imagine Time magazine having a cover story on the relatively large number, and increase, of anti-semitic crimes in America (at the very same time that anti-Islamic crimes were going down)? In New York State, the very spot where Islamic terrorists murdered nearly 3000 people, the number of anti-Islamic crimes were a mere six in 2008. The number of anti-semitic crimes? 129.But meanwhile in what is a true triumph of Separation of Church and State, New York City comptroller, John Liu said that the city might subsidize the Ground Zero Mosque.The Muslim center planned near the site of the World Trade Center attack could qualify for tax-free financing, a spokesman for City Comptroller John Liu said on Friday, and Liu is willing to consider approving the public subsidy.The Democratic comptroller’s spokesman, Scott Sieber, said Liu supported the project. The center has sparked an intense debate over U.S. religious freedoms and the sanctity of the Trade Center site, where nearly 3,000 perished in the September 11, 2001 attack.This isn’t too surprising as John Liu is a radical extremist and affiliated with ACORN, SEIU and the WFP. And possible controversial ties to the Chinese Communist Party. Chinese-Americans have protested against Liu in the past charging that he’s in the pay of Communist China. And the situation is potentially even uglier.Bizarre incidents have been afoot in Flushing, a city on the outskirts of Manhattan, over the last five months, as organized attacks against Falun Gong practitioners began taking place. Over 15 individuals have been arrested, and similar incidents are still occurring.Soon after the attacks began, a recorded phone conversation revealed that the Chinese consul general in New York had boasted of having encouraged and congratulated the attackers. City Councilmember John Liu and State Assemblywoman Ellen Young were also found to have met with and supported those accused of the attacks.

Before John Liu took his peculiar stand toward the violence against Falun Gong in his district, he was honored in China by the Chinese Communist Party and its media as a rising political star, even though his only political activities have been here in New York City.When Falun Gong practitioners were being attacked by large, organized crowds on the streets of Flushing, New York, they had tried to meet with their elected officials to ask for support.Attempts to meet with Council Member John Liu and State Assemblywoman Ellen Young were unsuccessful. It was then discovered that Liu and Young had others they preferred meeting with, giving advice to, and supporting—the very individuals who had been attacking the Falun Gong practitioners.

The meeting was announced on June 29, when an article published by China Press said that on the following day, John Liu would be holding an open office for any resident who wanted to present their cases. On June 30, during a press conference at his office, Liu denied knowledge of violence of the attacks. He also refused to condemn the attackers or offer support to the victims.Following the press conference, Liu kicked out Falun Gong practitioners who had come to his office to present their cases, and instead met with the attackers.Among those who met with Liu in his office that day was Victor Yao (a.k.a. Qiu Wei), who was arrested for allegedly attacking a Falun Gong practitioner with a metal steering wheel lock in Brooklyn.John Liu is the District 20 council member in charge of Flushing. He is also the first Chinese city council member in New York.With all this ugliness behind the scenes of the corrupt and rotten Democratic Party, it’s no wonder that Obama’s popularity is sinking fast. In January of 2009, Obama’s approval ratings were in the 70’s for everyone but Protestants and Mormons. Today the only people who still hold a 70’s approval rating for Obama... are Muslims.Obama Akbar indeed.At Sheik Yermani in Winds of Jihad, Daisy Khan says the money isn’t in the bank. Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism, which has been doing much of the lead investigative work on this case, is asking the real questions.The backers of the Ground Zero Mosque have virtually no money, one of the group’s leaders says, and plan to create another nonprofit organization that would further complicate the already labyrinthine financial network surrounding the project.Daisy Khan, one of the leaders of the project, told supporters over the weekend that the mosques organizers have nothing in the bank for their effort. Khan said there is no money and that she doesn’t know of anything that has been raised.

The finances are a sieve, as Emerson shows

Federal tax records show Rauf and Khan direct the two groups supporting the mosque project – the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA). Those two organizations, along with Soho Properties, which owns the site of the proposed mosque and community center, are coordinating the project.However, federal tax records show the Cordoba Initiative has not listed contributions from at least two charitable foundations that have supported its activities. In another case, a foundation gave money to Cordoba’s sister group, the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), that was supposed to go to Cordoba; that money was also not listed in Cordoba’s tax records.Cordoba has failed to list almost $100,000 in charitable donations since 2007, federal tax records show.

Keep reading

During that time, ASMA reported receiving $1,382,194 in grants, the financial statement shows. Donors included the United Nations Population Fund, $53,664; the Dutch government’s MDG3 Fund, $481,942; the Hunt Alternatives Fund, $15,000; the Carnegie Corp. of New York, $122,000; the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, $50,000; and the Qatar government fund, $576,312.

This is a sieve and the money could be going absolutely anywhere.

And now the US government is paying for Imam Rauf to go on a fundraising tour to the Middle East for his Ground Zero Mosque project.But while they’re doing that, Z Street, a pro-Israel lobbying group charges that a special DC unit has been set up to investigate the tax exempt status of pro-Israel groups that are not in agreement with Obama Administration policies.

From the Z Street complaint.

14. In a letter dated May 15, 2010, IRS Agent Diane Gentry, to whom the Z STREET file had been assigned, sent an IRS Letter 2382 requesting additional information to aid her in her review of Z STREET’s IRS Form 1023 (the Application). Z STREET, by its corporate counsel, submitted a response on June 17, 2010, providing all of the requested information, most of which had already been provided in Z STREET’s initial application, including information about each of Z STREET’s board members. In fact, detailed personal information about each Z STREET board member had to be supplied to the IRS three times, a number in excess of the experiences of Z STREET board members for any other board on which they sit.

Detailed personal information, huh.

21. Agent Gentry also informed Z STREET’s counsel that the IRS is carefully scrutinizing organizations that are in any way connected with Israel.

22. Agent Gentry further stated to counsel for Z STREET: these cases are being sent to a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies.The radical anti-Israel Forward paper of course penned an article justifying such a move, though if the Bush Administration had treated the ACLU similarly, the left would have lost its collective mind in one long shriek of uncontrollable rage.But if true, this is a shocking case of the Obama Administration using the authority of the government to suppress dissent, and turning government agencies into Political Commissars. This isn’t completely surprising though. The New York Times penned a huge story which attempted to make the case against pro-Israel charities, and pushing for an investigation. The recently leaked CIA docs suggest that what we’re seeing may be a larger project within the government.

But while the Obama Administration and his media allies go after pro-Israel groups, the Ground Zero Mosque’s misplaced finances get a perfect pass. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.Much as trying to shoot down planes and attack synagogues merits a shrug, while a Muslim cabbie being slashed is the end of America as we know it.Daisy Khan charges that opponents of the Ground Zero Mosque are just like Anti-Semites, but if that were so, then the media would be giving them a pass, they way they do Muslims who try to attack synagogues.

Robert at Seraphic Secret says;The left, reliable idiots for transnational jihad—and yes, Daisy, in spite of her cute all-American name, is a stealth jihadist—always fall back on the same tedious attacks.If you oppose Barack Obama’s policies, it’s not because you have legitimate policy differences, but it’s because you are a bigot.

If you identify Islamist terrorists as, um, Islamist terrorists, that means you hate all Muslims.If you oppose the Ground Zero Mosque, it’s not because you think it’s inappropriate, boorish, and an insult to the memory of the murdered, no, it’s because you’re un-American, a hater, and an Islamophobe.Look, the majority of Americans are tolerant, decent people. They do not appreciate being demonized at every turn of the newscycle. Nancy Pelosi calls the Tea Party, astroturf. Barack Obama bloviates about those who “cling to their guns and religion. And now the political class is telling normal Americans that the desire to protect and honor the memory of 9-11 victims is, at the core, hatred.

This is Orwellian poison.

Orwell of course foresaw the perversion of language as a tool for the perversion of culture and government. And that is an all too accurate assessment of what we’re experiencing. Language as a weapon with no pretense of law or justice behind it. Just a worldview that justifies inequality in the name of politics. And there is no limit to how far that can go.In England the clock is slipping back to the 1930’s. Boycotts of Jews and the legal assaults on Jewish property have now become routine. Elder of Ziyon advises a response to it.Elder of Ziyon Blog offers free advertising to victims of anti-Israel aggression.In reaction to the vandalism of the Ahava store in London, the Elder of Ziyon blog announces free advertising for every Israeli store that is attacked.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRLog (Press Release) – Aug 26, 2010 – On the night of August 25, 2010, the Ahava cosmetics store in central London was attacked by vandals who splattered red paint on its windows.The vandals were part of a movement that wants to boycott all Israeli products.These groups are not interested in equality, or fairness, or even in the Palestinian cause. They simply want to put a self-righteous veneer on their hatred for the existence of a Jewish state and their opposition to the Jewish right of self-determination.In reaction, the Elder of Ziyon blog has announced a new policy: all stores and organizations that are similarly attacked will get free advertising in the blog.It is to be hoped that all right-thinking blogs will follow suit, so that these sorts of anti-Israel and often anti-semitic stunts end up helping the intended victims.The Elder of Ziyon blog is a popular Zionist website that draws thousands of pageviews daily. I’m reminded of the story of the menorahs of Billings, Montana, when in response to attacks on Jewish homes with menorahs in the windows, thousands of people, both Jewish and non-Jewish, put up menorahs in their windows. But it will take more than that here. A good deal more.Now in the days of the European Union, a personal dream of Mosley and the British Union of Fascists, Mosleylike behavior is becoming commonplace. As Mosley’s ideas about socialism have become the norm, his New Party is now the true dominant party, though it is long gone. And his violence has become the norm among those who adhere to Mosley’s socialism.