Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Sunday, February 28, 2010


Although the seven hour health care summit was utterly ponderous, there were some good clips to come out of it. Whether it was Nancy Pelosi calling the Obamacare monstrosity a "jobs bill", Paul Ryan basically implying that Obama is a hukster, John McCain on the wrong end of a smack-down with Obama, or Louise Slaughter exploiting for political gain the story of one woman having to wear her sister's dentures, here are a few highlights.

Louise Slaughter on New York...

Congressman Paul Ryan from Wisconsin...

Obama exposing himself as a Time Socialist....

Obama not respecting his elders.....

Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee gets Democrats to choke on their own words. Take note that as Alexander is quoting Harry Reid, the latter can't bring himself to look at Lamar.

h/t to Free Republic


Living and broadcasting in Texas, I've been able to watch the dynamics of our Gubernatorial campaign unfold for the past several months. In particular, the Republican primary between incumbent Rick Perry, sitting Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and libertarian favorite Debra Medina has been very interesting to watch. Medina was surging and there was much talk about her ending up in the run-off with Perry.

Then came the Glenn Beck radio interview. Beck deserves credit for getting Medina to reveal that which she wasn't to eager to reveal. However, based on how strongly Beck rejects the Truthers - have you ever wondered why he doesn't lay it all out on his television show?

Ben Barrack

Prior to Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina appearing on Glenn Beck's radio show, she was surging in the polls. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was reeling, in large part due to her inability to give a 'yes' or 'no' answer with respect to her position on Roe v. Wade in each of two televised debates. Speculation was mounting that Medina would make the run-off with incumbent Rick Perry unless something drastic happened.

Something drastic did happen thanks to Glenn Beck. At the end of his interview with Medina, Beck asked if she believed the United States government was in any way responsible for the attacks on 9/11 – he asked her if she was a “truther”. Medina's answer was reminiscent of how Kay Bailey Hutchison responded to the abortion question and it had the same effect. Beck was right to pose the question because it exposed a fatal flaw in an otherwise appealing candidate.

While Medina espouses returning to the Constitution and reducing the size of government, she gave Islam a virtual pass by implying that her own government may have orchestrated the 21st century's version of Pearl Harbor. The irony is that the real perpetrators of 9/11 not only wish to destroy the U.S. Constitution but insist on replacing it with Shariah law, a fate Medina doesn't seem to comprehend.

Beck however, must comprehend it. Otherwise he wouldn't have laughed Medina off the phone after giving her enough rope to hang herself in the form of a question she didn't want to answer. That is precisely why Beck may be guilty of the greater sin. He understands the Islamic threat and won't use the increasingly huge platform he now has to break it down on a chalkboard.

After Medina hung up, Beck's point was that if anyone believes the U.S. Government was responsible for 9/11, there should be “no bigger priority” than exposing it. Why isn't the converse true as well? If Beck knows that Islamists are the ones who hit us, shouldn't exposing their intentions be a priority above which there is none bigger?

Beck doesn't go there. When is the last time you saw the Glenn Beck show on Fox dedicate a show – or even a segment – to exposing the dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood? Has he had experts like Dave Gaubatz or Walid Shoebat on his show to explain how groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the Muslim Students Association (MSA), and many others are front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood? The answer is no.

Glenn Beck has raised the bar. He is going where no journalist has gone before and should be commended for it. However, there is a realm he continues to avoid and it is a realm he obviously understands because he demogogues the other side – the 9/11 truthers.

It was recently learned that the same Saudi prince who offered Rudy Guiliani $10 Million after 9/11 – which Guiliani rightly refused - is now the second largest shareholder of Newscorp, the parent company of Fox News. Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal has an interest in what airs on Fox News and may not want the truth about 9/11 to be explained. Perhaps it is time for Glenn Beck to raise the bar a little more by educating Debra Medina on why she is wrong about 9/11 while simultaneously giving a certain Saudi prince the number to the red phone.
As I've stated in a previous post, it may be time for talk radio and the blogosphere to shift gears and start focusing their efforts on what Fox News is clearly averse to doing.


Well, if Fox News won't address the Islamic threat to our nation, maybe that responsibility will fall to talk radio and the blogs. WBT 1110 in Charlotte, NC has a talk show host named Keith Larson who - while talking on-air and in-studio with a Muslim named Jibril Hough on February 26th - witnessed quite the site. Larson presented Hough with some facts the latter simply could not refute, which resulted in his painting himself into a corner.

North Carolina is also home to Representative Sue Myrick, who has been one of the few leaders in this nation with the courage to confront the Islamic threats that face our nation. I wrote about her in a previous post. When it comes to Myrick, it appears that Hough has been using Alinsky tactics.

World Net Daily reports:
For years, Jibril Hough has represented himself and his North Carolina mosque as "moderate," while putting Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., on the defensive as an anti-Muslim fanatic who "shoots from the hip" when sounding the alarm about homegrown Islamic terrorism. Myrick, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, co-founded the Capitol Hill caucus after 9/11 to educate Americans about the growing threat from jihadists.
Until now, Hough has painted Myrick as unstable, Islamophobic, and paranoid about threats to her nation. Again, that is Alinsky, Rule #5 to be exact, which states:

Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It's hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

As that rule failed to be successful against Andrew Breitbart at CPAC, it has also apparently backfired here as well. During the interview, Larson produced evidence that the mosque Hough belongs to is not at all moderate, as Hough has claimed.
The North American Islamic Trust holds the deed to ICC, an 800-member Sunni mosque located on five acres at 1700 Progress Lane in Charlotte. The U.S. Justice Department recently blacklisted its owner NAIT as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror finance case in U.S. history. The government also identified NAIT as a front for Hamas and the radical Muslim Brotherhood in America.
As an aside, that "largest terror finance case" had the Holy Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) as the defendant. HLF was found guilty on all counts. Click here for more information on that trial. Not only is NAIT an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial but it is a subsidiary of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. To be clear, if Hough is connected to a mosque with ties to NAIT, it would not be all that dissimilar from an individual having ties to the KKK.

Back to WND:
Saudi-funded NAIT owns the title to hundreds of radical mosques across the country, including the notorious 9/11 mosque in Northern Virginia – Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center (deed) – which helped some of the hijackers obtain housing and IDs and also counseled the Fort Hood terrorist and several other known terrorists.

Hough, ICC's spokesman, at first expressed surprise when confronted with the information, claiming he'd never before seen the deed and did not know NAIT was named in a federal terror probe.

"I'm not aware of this information here," he said, reviewing the documents.

Pressed by Larson, the ICC spokesman later admitted NAIT is the "parent" of his mosque, but quickly added that he was not a member of the mosque when NAIT took control in 1992.

"I was not involved in the decision to allow NAIT to be the (title) holder," he said.

Asked if he were a member of NAIT, Hough paused before answering: "Not necessarily."

Larson said it looked as if his mosque was acting as a "front" for an organization tied to terrorism, and wondered why Hough was not more concerned.

"It's concerning, yes," Hough conceded.

"To everybody else it looks not just concerning but absolutely damning," the host responded. "Do you understand that?"

"What else can I say?" Hough said.

"Will you disassociate yourself" from NAIT? Larson asked.

"I told you I was going to look into it and was going to take it to my board," Hough snapped.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, none of the commentators on the Fox News Channel are covering these issues, including Glenn Beck, who is doing some otherwise extremely good work. Perhaps it is time for talk radio and bloggers to start peeling off the layers of this onion.

Ever wondered why Fox News doesn't cover the Islamic threat and the ties many of these groups have to the Muslim Brotherhood, to include the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). It very well may have something to do with the fact that Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is the 2nd largest shareholder of NewsCorp, parent company of Fox and has already demonstrated that he can influence Fox programming.

Keeping that in mind, look at how Neil Cavuto handles Saudi prince bin Talal during an interview in January, 2010. Someone please try telling me bin Talal has no influence on Fox after watching Cavuto suck up to him for almost six minutes. By the way, this is the same Saudi prince who tried offering Rudy Guiliani $10 Million after 9/11. Rudy didn't accept it when bin Talal blamed the attack on U.S. policies in the middle east.

Read the whole story.

Saturday, February 27, 2010


**CONTENT WARNING: LANGUAGE** Andrew Marcus posts a video montage of Andrew Breitbart's run-ins at CPAC in which the latter was visibly angry. However, language aside, it is extremely refreshing to see someone like Breitbart go on offense. He does so, in part, because he understands the tactics of Saul Alinsky. In particular, the Alinsky tactic that applied at CPAC is Rule #5, which states:

Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It's hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

In the twisted mind of the Alinsky-ites, that's a "heads I win, tales you lose" tactic. In the mind of someone like Breitbart, who knows what they're doing, it's an invitation to Layeth the Smaketh Down and finish it off by calling them out for using Rule #5.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Breitbart is THE MAN!

via Big Government


Yes, Maxine Waters does it again. On display for the entire world to see is her complete inability to understand where money comes from. After watching this, I found myself resenting Waters not just because she's part of the problem in Washington but because she actually made me feel bad for Ben Bernanke, which I also resent people making me do.

Thanks a pile, Maxine.

Also, keep your eye on the guy sitting in front of Maxine. Watch as he turns around to look at her - presumably in an attempt to better understand her nonsense - then turns back, with his expression in full view of the camera and displays a priceless look that basically says, "what the %@*&^ is she talking about?"

Via CBS, of all places...

Watch CBS News Videos Online

In the mood for more Maxine beauties? Remember these? Admission that she's socialist while talking to Oil company leaders.....

Jumping out of her skull with Bank CEOs after she can't figure out how credit works....

Friday, February 26, 2010


During the infamous Obamacare summit at the Blair House, Andrea Mitchell was interviewing Chris Matthews about the likelihood of a Health Care bill passing. Matthews, visibly saddened, almost insisted that there was no way a bi-partisan bill would be passed. When you factor in the election of Scott Brown, Matthews is necessarily admitting that no bill will be passed unless done so via reconciliation.

In fact, he takes it a step further and says if it doesn't pass, it will be the end of the Democratic party.

via NewsBusters:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

On January 22nd, Matthews berated Democrat representative Alan Grayson about the possibility of the nuclear option (reconciliation) being used to pass Obamacare. Frankly, based on Grayson's antics and vitriol, I didn't feel the least bit sorry for him as Matthews embarrassed him by belittling his knowledge about how the senate works.

In short, Matthews not only scoffed at the notion but said it was impossible.

Take a look. If Matthews is correct in this exchange with Grayson, he knows it's a foregone conclusion that Obamacare is dead. If he was wrong while berating Grayson, the latter will be calling him for a very public apology in the future. Five minutes of sheer blue vs. blue.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

That video via Hot Air

Thursday, February 25, 2010


Although I have soured on Sarah Palin for her support of incumbent Republican progressive John McCain in his primary with J.D. Hayworth - as well as her endorsement of Rand Paul, Senatorial candidate in Kentucky - she has stood strong against relentless attacks. Another woman who is standing up to the vitriol of a merciless liberal yak machine is Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota.

There is another, less known woman from North Carolina who is fighting a battle neither Bachmann nor Palin has waged thus far. U.S. Representative from North Carolina, Sue Myrick (R-Charlotte) is coming under fire for her courage in standing up to Islamic extremism in the United States.

According to the Raleigh Observer:
Myrick, a Charlotte Republican and former mayor of the city, contends that extremists are working their way into U.S. Muslim communities, infiltrating government institutions and influencing American citizens to attack their own country. Her activism earns plaudits from some conservatives - but criticism from Muslim constituents who fear that her tone endangers a community 3 million strong and deeply imbedded in the nation's fabric. Tonight, months after pledging to do so, Myrick will meet with Charlotte's Muslim community.
As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Myrick has proposed a plan to take this Islamic threat to the United States head-on with a program called, "Wake Up". According to the Observer...
It suggested cutting off exchange programs and munitions sales with Saudi Arabia, passing legislation that would make calls for death to American citizens a form of treason, and investigating the selection of Arabic translators working for the Pentagon and FBI. In recent months, Myrick has taken on the Muslim law known as Shariah, suggested universities are being influenced by the austere brand of Islam common to Saudi Arabia known as Wahhabism and warned that Muslims have infiltrated political and military circles.
Predictably, this has prompted calls of McCarthyism from the left and the Islamic community. Those who know the truth know that this is nothing more than a tactic designed to distract people from focusing on the facts. They want to shut down debate by invoking Joe McCarthy.

When you consider what's in the closet of the Muslim Brotherhood right here in the United States, it's obvious to see why that is the objective. Myrick also wrote the foreword to the Muslim Mafia, a book about how the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Students Assocation (MSA), and others are nothing more than front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood. For some context, Hamas is a Muslim Brotherhood group. Click here to see how friendly they are. The author's son posed as an intern for CAIR and was able to retrieve approximately 12,000 pages that prove just that according to Dave Gaubatz.

In by far one of the most under-reported stories, the Obama envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Rashad Hussain was not only caught lying about his sympathetic words about convicted Islamic terrorist Sami al-Arian in 2004 but he had to admit to getting a publication to edit his quotes from the story when POLITICO presented a recording of the MSA event to the White House.

Since that story broke, I have maintained that the most egregious aspect of it is not Hussain's attempts to cover-up his words but rather the fact that he was even at an MSA event to begin with. Click here to read about the MSA. Be prepared for an extraordinary amount of hyperlinks.

Aaron Klein, a Jew who manages to get Islamic extremists to tell him exactly what they plan to do, has written an article about how Islamists have infiltrated the United States government. Keep the MSA in mind as you read Klein's piece about the ISNA, which was founded by the MSA in 1981, the same MSA that sponsored the event where current Obama Islamic envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain spoke in 2004.

Not only that but the ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) trial in which defendants were found guilty on all counts relating to funding Islamic terrorism.

Quoting from Klein's piece:
Last week, President Obama's top adviser on counter-terrorism, John Brennan, came under fire for controversial remarks he made in a speech to Muslim law students at New York University. The event was sponsored by the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA.

ISNA is known for its enforcement of Saudi-style Islam in mosques throughout the U.S. It was named by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in its case against the Holy Land Foundation in Texas, which was found guilty in 2008 of raising money for the Hamas terrorist organization. Last year, Holy Land founders were given life sentences for "funneling $12 million to Hamas.
Got that? Obama's counter-terrorism czar John Brennan spoke at an event sponsored by an undicted co-conspirator with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and sounded like Neville Chamberlain in front of Hitler.

Now compare John Brennan with Sue Myrick.

Be sure to read Klein's entire article.


Making news recently was the fact that Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal has become the 2nd largest shareholder in Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp, parent company of Fox News. It has now been learned that the purchase of stock in ownership is being reciprocated on the part of Murdoch. Talal has a media company as well - Rotana Media - and News Corp has bought a $70m stake in it according to the Financial Times:
The move will mark News Corp’s most significant investment so far in the Middle East, where faster GDP growth, a young population and maturing advertising markets have begun to draw US and European media groups facing slow growth in their home markets.

”This is a qualitative leap not just for Rotana but for the whole Arab world,” Prince Alwaleed told a press conference. ”We are set to gain deep experience from News Corp ... on television, movie production and technology,” he said. ”They own MySpace ... We can learn from this, the new media field.”
It has widely been acknowledged that along with Talal's interest in News Corp. has come the ability to influence content. Diana West at the Washington Examiner reported on Talal's boasting that he was able to contact Murdoch by phone during the Muslim riots in France and successfully got the news channel to change the banner identifying the rioters as Muslim.
Alwaleed has bragged that it only took a phone call to ensure that Fox coverage of Muslim rioting in France not be described as "Muslim" rioting in France, a boast News Corp. has never denied.
Even more telling is when Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid, who is a News Corp. stockholder, questioned Murdoch about the incident at the 2006 annual meeting. Murdoch's answer was borderline absurd:
At the annual meeting of News Corporation, parent of Fox News, chairman Rupert Murdoch confirmed that a call from a Saudi Prince had resulted in a change in how the Fox News Channel covered the Muslim riots in France in 2005. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, a significant investor in News Corporation, told Murdoch he objected to highlighting the Muslim role in the riots. Murdoch said the change was made after it was determined that there was a Catholic role in the riots.
Yes, you read that right - "Catholic" car burners in France. Back to the piece in the Financial Times. Something increasingly worth paying attention to is the heir apparent to Rupert Murdoch, his son James.
The prince is not on News Corp’s board of directors, but last month anointed James Murdoch, head of News Corp’s European and Asian operations, as his father’s eventual successor.

“If he [Rupert Murdoch] doesn’t appoint him, I’ll be the first one to nominate him to be the successor of Mr Rupert Murdoch, God forbid if something happens to him,” the prince told Charlie Rose, a US television interviewer.
While Rupert has repeatedly shown that his allegiance to any form of conservatism is a distant second behind bottom lines, there has at least been a trace of the former. His son, according to the aforementioned piece in the Examiner, is...
a left-wing global warmist with virulently anti-Israel views
Considering the overwhelming anti-semitism toward Jews that exists in the Middle East, shouldn't this be a bit of a concern?

h/t to Free Republic

Wednesday, February 24, 2010


It's a sorry statement when this video has no impact on the American people anymore. The audacity of Harry Reid calling people arrogant, the gall of Chris Dodd to have a righteously indignant tantrum, Chuck Schumer warning of a Constitutional Crisis, or Obama declaring that Congress is acting in a way incongruent with what "the Founders intended", et. al add up to a level of hypocrisy that cannot be trumped.

I also find it quite telling that in 2005, the Democrats were successful in labeling the process of Reconciliation a "nuclear option". Even today, the Republican leadership refuses to return the favor. Instead, it's back to being referred to as "Reconciliation".

Shameless doesn't even begin to describe this. This is nothing more than mental pre-adolescents playing dress-up.

h/t to Breitbart


I first saw this yesterday and decided to post after further thought. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency, which is part of the Department of Defense has changed its logo. On its face, logo changes are not all that uncommon I guess but the new logo raises quite a few interesting questions relative to both the Obama 2008 campaign logo as well as the Islamic Crescent.

Here is the original logo:

Here is the new logo:

I noticed this story first on Hot Air Pundit which posted via Weazlezippers. Now the Washington Times has picked it up.

While the Times doesn't compare the new logo to the Islamic Crescent, it does call out the D.O.D. on the logo's likeness to the 2008 Obama campaign logo:

Now, how about that Islamic Crescent? There are many variations but to dismiss similarities out of hand would seem a bit premature. Note that the Islamic symbol, like the Missile Defense logo, has a star at two o'clock. The only difference between the two is that the crescent moon is inverted. I have a difficult time believing there isn't something to this.

For some reason, this all reminded me of the controversy surrounding the United 93 Memorial, which is set to open on 9/11/11. Many wrote about it, including Michelle Malkin back in 2005.


U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is building quite the reputation lately. Whenever he is being questioned by Senators or Congressmen, he comes across as virtually clueless in his defense of untenable positions. That might explain what seems to be a recurring theme with Holder - clamming up. Coming to mind is the inexplicable decision by the DOJ to drop charges against the Black Panthers in the voter intimidation case in Philadelphia.

However, equally maddening is Holder's blatant arrogance and refusal to name the attorneys in his department who have defended Gitmo detainees in the past. This started in November when Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley (R) demanded that Holder release the names of ALL DOJ attorneys that have worked for detained terrorists in the past. Whether Holder got tired of being on the wrong end of logical arguments or simply had no answer, no answer was given. Grassley and his Republican counterparts grew increasingly agitated.

The Washington Examiner reports:
Finally, last week, Grassley and his colleagues got a response -- they wouldn't really call it an answer -- from the attorney general. Holder told Grassley that at least nine department officials formerly represented detainees. (It is "at least" because Holder conceded that he did not make a complete survey of DOJ's political appointees.) Holder confirmed that Katyal and Daskal worked on detainee issues -- something Grassley already knew -- but did not reveal the names of the other department officials involved. He did say that they are allowed to work on detainee issues.
That would equate to SEVEN department officials - still unnamed - who once worked for detained Islamic terrorists and are now working inside the United States Department of Justice and whose boss, Holder, refuses to name.

How about one of the two who are known, Jennifer Daskal (pictured)? She represented detainees while employed by Human Rights Watch. Check out what glowing things she had to say about the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
"What should have been a major victory in holding the 9/11 defendants accountable for terrible crimes has been tainted by torture and an unfair military commissions process," said Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch. "These five men are known to have been mistreated and tortured during their years in CIA custody, including the acknowledged waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed."
Or how about this beauty?
"In light of the men's severe mistreatment and torture, the judge should require a full and thorough factual inquiry to determine whether or not these pleas are voluntary," Daskal said.
How do citizens of this country become so emotionally invested in defending the plight of our enemies?

When I read things like this, the best explanation I can come up with for why someone like Daskal would choose the path she does is Stockholm Syndrome. It is a condition that can be described and identified but it is extremely difficult to explain. Here is an excerpt from a site that concisely explains it but then uses it as a justification for feminist activism (another condition entirely, not worth exploring here)
The term, Stockholm Syndrome, was coined in the early 70's to describe the puzzling reactions of four bank employees to their captor. On August 23, 1973, three women and one man were taken hostage in one of the largest banks in Stockholm. They were held for six days by two ex-convicts who threatened their lives but also showed them kindness. To the world's surprise, all of the hostages strongly resisted the government's efforts to rescue them and were quite eager to defend their captors. Indeed, several months after the hostages were saved by the police, they still had warm feelings for the men who threatened their lives. Two of the women eventually got engaged to the captors.
Here is a link to one of the more thorough explanations of SS if you have time.

But I digress.

What about the other known employee at the DOJ in question? That would be Neal Katyal, who represented Osama bin Laden's driver. Considering Katyal's history along with Daskal's predilections, shouldn't we be concerned that Holder refuses to name the other seven employees in his department who likely have similar backgrounds?

Grassley is not happy about it but being in the minority, there's not much he can do. I only hope that if the Republicans gain majorities in both houses of congress this year, they remember these things and go on offense instead of seeking some twisted brand of reconciliation. If they seek the latter, it very well could be a sign of Stockholm Syndrome.

h/t to Gateway Pundit for link to the Daskal dreck at Human Rights Watch.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010


Ibrahim Hooper is chief Spin-meister for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and not only is he conspicuously silent with respect to the deportation of one-time CAIR Board member Nabil Sadoun but so is the attorney for Sadoun that Hooper referred Dallas Morning News reporter Brooks Egerton to.

Quoting from Egerton's report at DMN:
When I asked national CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper for an interview, he responded with this e-mail: "Peace. Perhaps speak to his attorney. She is the best source of information on the case." Hooper did not respond when I followed up with written questions about CAIR's view of the deportation case and its relationship with Sadoun.

Sadoun's attorney, Kimberly Kinser of Richardson, didn't respond to my phone call and e-mail.
It may be a little early to celebrate media courage but CAIR seems to be increasingly on defense lately. It is still claiming that it was unfairly tied to the Holy Land Foundation trial as an unindicted co-conspirator. I blogged about this here. Egerton points out that Sadoun helped found a group with ties to Hamas.
Federal authorities say Sadoun, when applying for an immigrant visa in 1993, failed to disclose his role in founding the United Association for Studies and Research, my Dallas Morning News colleague Jason Trahan reports. The FBI says the UASR, based in a suburb of Washington, D.C., and now defunct, was formed to benefit Hamas.

The U.S. later designated Hamas a terrorist organization because of its support for suicide bombings against Israel.

Former leaders of UASR include a top Hamas official, Mousa Abu Marzook, who is wanted on terrorism charges in the U.S. and believed to be in Syria; and Abdurahman Alamoudi, who is imprisoned in this country on a 2004 terrorism financing conviction related to a Libyan plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia's crown prince.
For more on the UASR, click here.

Read the entire DMN piece too.


Politico has been all over the Obama administration's response to the controversy surrounding its appointment of Rashad Hussain to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Hussain was quoted in the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs (WRMEA) in 2004 as having made sympathetic remarks about convicted terrorist Sami al-Arian.

According the WRMEA editor Delinda Hanley, the quotes were extracted from the article on February 5th, 2009, eight days after Hussain took a job as associate counsel inside Obama's Department of Justice. Hanley also said that she was told that the quotes were mis-attributed to Hussain and that they were actually the words of al-Arian's daughter Laila.

On Friday, February 19th, Politico broke the story that after presenting the White House with an actual recording of the event, Hussain backtracked and admitted to making the comments.

Today, Josh Gerstein reported that Robert Gibbs - speaking on behalf of the White House - defended Rashad Hussain. The following is taken from the transcript of Gibbs' February 22nd press briefing:
Q On another issue, on Friday Rashad Hussain said, "I made statements to the panel" -- in '04 the White House has defended his appearance at -- "that I now recognize were ill-conceived, not well-formulated," this in reference to a man convicted of supporting -- or raising money for a terrorist organization. Were you misled? Do you maintain confidence in this man the President wants to be his delegate to the Islamic conference?

MR. GIBBS: We continue to have confidence. The statement says that the judicial process has concluded and that he has full faith in the outcome of that judicial process. This is an individual that has written extensively on why you have -- why some have used religious devices like the Quran to justify this, and why that is absolutely wrong, and has garnered support from both the left and the right. So we continue to obviously have confidence.
Ok, now for the curious part. When I went to the video of the February 22nd press conference in order to pull the aforementioned audio for my radio show, I discovered that the link pulled up the February 17th press briefing.

Here is a screen shot of the video. Note how the banner on the video at the bottom says, "February 17th" while the box in the top right says, "February 22nd".

DISCLAIMER: I am not accusing the White House of anything untoward. I am simply pointing this out because the story is one of the biggest un-reported stories out there. I am also bitter that I was unable to pull the audio for my show.


Known as the other half of Obama's brain, she provides a glimpse into the thinking. Not only does she openly admit that the Tea Party movement is "extreme" but actually has the gall to say the movement is attempting to "scare people" when they're already scared and "angry". This woman is out of her skull, which would be explained by the fact she's in Obama's brain.

Sheer arrogance and projection.

h/t to Hot Air


Making the rounds this weekend were some videos of Andrew Breitbart confronting and fending off far left Alinsky-ites but if you didn't know what it was about, you'd only catch the theater without the context.

Thanks to Big Journalism, that context is provided here. Once viewing this video, the two I've posted below it will make more sense. I've always liked Breitbart but his stock is definitely rising. He's a true patriot.

Worth watching..

Here is the exchange between Breitbart and Blumenthal at CPAC. While Blumenthal's comments are inaudible, Breitbart's disgust with him is palpable. Frankly, Larry O'Connor gets the better of Blumenthal at the end of this clip anyway.

Also while at CPAC, Breitbart had to deal with another fine upstanding gentleman from Salon magazine who, after losing the argument came back at Breitbart with the tired, worn out, yet increasingly popular "racist" accusation which is as good as waving the white flag. Yes, I said "white flag". Does that make me racist?

h/t to Hot Air Pundit for the CPAC videos.


At some point, this saga has got to play out in the form of Republican talking points this election year. There is strong evidence that two candidates for political office - one former and one current - were offered jobs in the Obama administration in return for dropping out of their respective races. One of them, Joe Sestak, who is running against Democrat Senator Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary didn't take the gig and is making the claim strongly and publicly.

When these instances are lumped in with the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, and Gator-Aid - not to mention the Blago scandal - we have quite the Chicago-style trend going on. The central question involves the degree and blatancy of its illegality.

Courtesy of the American Spectator:
For the second time in five months, the Obama White House is being accused -- by Democrats -- of offering high ranking government jobs in return for political favors. What no one is reporting is that this is a violation of federal law that can lead to prison time, a fine or both, according to Title 18, Chapter 11, Section 211 of the United States Code.

The jobs in question? Secretary of the Navy and a position within the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The favor requested in return? Withdrawal from Senate challenges to two sitting United States Senators, both Democrats supported by President Obama. The Senators are Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Michael Bennet in Colorado.
Interestingly, Joe Sestak is coming forward about being asked to drop out of his race with Specter and Andrew Romanoff is not commenting one way or the other about being approached, though he did drop out of his race as well.
Sestak is standing by his story. Romanoff refused to discuss it with the Denver paper. In both instances the White House has denied the offers took place. The Sestak story in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reported by Thomas Fitzgerald, can be found here, While the Denver Post story, reported by Michael Riley, from September 27, 2009, can be read here.
Isn't it logical to ask what Sestak would have to gain by making such a claim if it weren't true? Similarly, why wouldn't Romanoff roundly deny such an accusation if it were slanderous? Someone is lying and with this president's track record, it should be obvious what is most likely.

Be sure to read it all, paying attention to the list of Watergate-like questions that the White House may have to answer.

American Spectator


I'd say this is the most outrageously under-reported story of the year but there have been so many, it's easy to lose track. Rashad Hussain was quoted at a 2004 Muslim Student's Association (MSA) event saying things sympathetic to Sami al-Arian, convicted terrorist fundraiser for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). However, the quotes attributed to him mysteriously disappeared from the report.

When the editor was asked about why, she said someone told her the quotes were not uttered by Hussain but by al-Arian's daughter, Laila. Delinda Hanley couldn't remember who told her, nor did she have an answer for why the quotes were removed instead of being re-attributed to al-Arian.

Then on Friday, February 19th, Hussain had to admit that he did, in fact, say those kind words about Sami in 2004 because Politico presented a recording of the event to the White House. Now that you're up to speed, here's the latest news. Surely, Hussain is going to be fired, right? Not quite.

Politico reports that on the contrary, the White House is standing by him:
The White House is expressing its confidence in a White House counsel’s office attorney President Barack Obama recently named as U.S. envoy to the Islamic Conference, Rashad Hussain, despite his concession last week that he made ill-considered statements in 2004 about Bush-era terrorism prosecutions.

“Were you misled? Do you maintain confidence in this man the president wants to be his delegate to the Islamic Conference?” Fox News’s Wendell Goler asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs at the daily briefing Monday afternoon.

“We continue to have confidence,” Gibbs said. “This is an individual that has written extensively on why some have used religious devices like the Qur'an to justify this [terrorism] and why that is absolutely wrong. And has garnered support from both the left and the right so we obviously have confidence.”
Notice Gibbs never answered the question about whether the White House was misled. If they were misled, it would seem to me that they would have NO CONFIDENCE in Hussain. If the White House knew about this or was in any way involved in having the quotes removed from the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs (WRMEA) publication, it would rise to the level of a conspiracy.

I am struck personally by the fact that this man was not only caught in a lie but has admitted to approaching WRMEA about the quotes and asked them to be removed. If the White House had no knowledge of that and was presented with an audio recording from Politico that clearly showed Hussain said those words, wouldn't one think there would be absolutely NO CONFIDENCE in Hussain from the Obama administration?

Of the incident, Hussain said:
“I made statements on that panel that I now recognize were ill-conceived or not well-formulated,” Hussain said.
There are so many problems with this that I'm losing count. He only admitted to making "ill-conceived" comments after he was caught via the recording. Prior to that, he went to WRMEA of his own volition and got them to remove quotes that were accurately and correctly attributed to him, instead saying that they were said by al-Arian's daughter.

Not only does the editor of WRMEA, Delinda Hanley, come off as looking bad but worse yet, how about the woman who actually wrote the article and was accused by her own editor - incorrectly - of dereliction of duty by misquoting someone? Here is what Politico reported about that on February 16th:
....the author of the article, Shereen Kandil, said Tuesday that she stood by her original report.

"When I worked as a reporter, I understood how important it was to quote the right person, and accurately," Kandil wrote in response to an e-mailed query from POLITICO asking about the possibility of a misquotation.

"I have never mixed my sources and wouldn't have quoted Rashad Hussain if it came from Laila Al-Arian. If the editors from WRMEA felt they wanted to remove Rashad Hussain from the article, my assumption is that they did it for reasons other than what you're saying," said Kandil, who also works in the Obama administration as a program analyst for the Middle East in the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of International Affairs.
So far, I have not seen or heard of any apology to Kandil from either the White House, Hussain, or her own former editor, Hanley.

Speaking of Hanley, here is the text of a note she sent to Politico after they first reported on this story:
Our Web master thinks the change was made on Feb. 5, 2009, but that change could have been when our Web site began an ongoing redesign. We cannot find an e-mail paper trail and we have spent a long time checking on this. I probably asked for the change but I honestly can't recall who asked me to make it. As I mentioned, I had assumed it was the author. You have taught me a lesson: make a paper trail. The other lesson is that our magazine often has the only reporter at an event and we'd better get our article absolutely right!
Take note of the date of February 5th, 2009. That is somewhat relevant because Hussain was named Deputy Associate Counsel to the President only days earlier on January 28th. If Hanley is correct, that means that from 2004 - Early 2009, Hussain's quotes remained in the WRMEA piece and were not removed until he was tied directly to the president in the form of a position at the DOJ.

What are the odds the White House knew NOTHING about Hussain's comments in 2004? Again, if they didn't know about them or Hussain's attempt to cover them up, he should have been fired by now. This is disturbing on so many levels.

h/t to GMBDR

Monday, February 22, 2010


Glenn Beck caught a lot of heat from the likes of Bill Bennett for his keynote speech at CPAC. While Bennett made some good points in his critique, McCain has provided a living example of exactly what Beck was talking about. Beck likened the Republican party to an alcoholic who can't admit to having a problem. Inherent in that metaphor is an alcoholic that blames others instead of himself.

Enter John McCain and the 2008 bailout, courtesy of AZ Central:
In response to criticism from opponents seeking to defeat him in the Aug. 24 Republican primary, the four-term senator says he was misled by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. McCain said the pair assured him that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program would focus on what was seen as the cause of the financial crisis, the housing meltdown.

"Obviously, that didn't happen," McCain said in a meeting Thursday with The Republic's Editorial Board, recounting his decision-making during the critical initial days of the fiscal crisis. "They decided to stabilize the Wall Street institutions, bail out (insurance giant) AIG, bail out Chrysler, bail out General Motors. . . . What they figured was that if they stabilized Wall Street - I guess it was trickle-down economics - that therefore Main Street would be fine."
This is utterly pathetic. John McCain, the man who actually cast the vote is blaming someone other than himself for casting it? If McCain was misled by Paulson, how does he explain the fact that so many of his constituents were not?

How long is it going to take McCain to blame Obama for misleading him when McCain told a town hall on October 10th, 2008 that there was no need to be "scared" of Obama as president.

h/t to Free Republic


I'm beginning to get the sense that the Council on American Islamic Relations is on the brink of being completely exposed for what it is - a front group for Hamas and, by extension, the Muslim Brotherhood. P. David Gaubatz, author of Muslim Brotherhood obtained 12,000 documents from CAIR's offices when his son, Chris posed as an intern there and instead of shredding the internal documents, he kept them.

Recently, a judge ruled against CAIR when the latter attempted to re-file its suit against Gaubatz, saying such an effort was "moot" because there was nothing new to be brought.

Now CAIR is demonstrating the dogged determination of Alinsky-ites as well as the desperation of a trapped animal. WND reports:
On the heels of a major setback in federal court, the Council on American-Islamic Relations is "throwing a Hail Mary pass" to keep its "Muslim Mafia" lawsuit alive by issuing subpoenas to a prominent counter-terror expert, says a lawyer for the two men who probed the Muslim group's terror ties in a sting operation.

"The timing of their request is a sign of desperation," said Daniel Horowitz, representing former Special Agent P. David Gaubatz and his son Chris, who recovered thousands of pages of incriminating CAIR documents meant for a shredder while posing as a Muslim intern.
So who is the counter-terror expert CAIR wants brought into the case? Center For Security Policy's Frank Gaffney. It would appear that there is a touch of paranoia at work here too. CAIR has issued the subpoena for Gaffney's testimony because they want to know what was said / exchanged between Gaffney and the Gaubatzes. In addition to this having the feel of a "Hail Mary Pass" as Gaubatz attorney says, it is also indicative of how much money CAIR must have at its disposal.

Here is the subpoena calling for Gaffney's testimony.

Read the whole thing.

Sunday, February 21, 2010


Very interesting analysis of the roots of Barack Obama's narcissism by Joy Tiz, who holds a masters in Psychology. Tiz takes aim at Obama's book, "Dreams From My Father" and points to the fact that several of the people in Obama's life during his early years seem to collectively view the book as a work of fiction.

Writing for the Canada Free Press, Tiz states:
Traditionally works of fiction are identified as such. In his preface to the 2004 edition of Dreams From My Father Obama says he cannot honestly say that the voice in the book is not his or that he would tell the story much differently today than I did ten years ago (Pg. 4).

Chicago Tribune reporters Kirsten Scharnberg and Kim Barker interviewed more than forty of Obama’s former classmates, teachers, friends and neighbors and came to the startling conclusion that “several of his oft recited stories may not have happened the way he has recounted them.”
Pointing to many examples along the way, Tiz points to this altered reality being one of Obama's biggest problems. Let's face it, the guy had a traumatic and very disturbing childhood. The resultant consequences are rarely good but not insurmountable according to Tiz. I found this explanation for narcissism particularly interesting:
When children experience overwhelming trauma, they protect themselves as best they can with a variety of defense mechanisms. There is no question that life for little Barry Soetoro was traumatic, full of chaos and abandonment as well as genuine fear. The adults in his life betrayed him and taught him hate and mistrust. Otto Kernberg, in his research on narcissism states it evolves as a defense against a cold and unsympathetic parent. The child withdraws part of himself from the unavailable parent and turns it back towards himself creating a grandiose sense of self. Healthy emotional development was just not possible in young Barry’s environment. In Toxic Parents, Dr. Susan Forward describes the “Golden Child” who compensates for feelings of inadequacy by seeking external awards and accolades rather than his own inner confidence. Golden Children are commonly found in alcoholic families.
Tiz also notes that overcoming such trauma is not impossible but it requires the individual to face fully, the truth about his / her past. Considering how Obama tells lies multiple times daily, it would appear he's not yet willing to do that but when you hear his opponents say they pray for him, it might be good to pray that he comes to grips with the tumultuous and chaotic reality he faced as a child.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

h/t to JAWA


I've really been scratching my head, wondering how much smoke there must be before the American government sees fire with these Islamic groups that have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, etc. CAIR is one such organization and the ordered deportation of one of its board members provides another plume.

The GMBDR points to a Dallas Morning News story:
A Richardson man with links to the defunct Holy Land Foundation and the Palestinian militant group Hamas was ordered deported Friday at a hearing in Dallas.

Immigration Judge Anthony Rogers ordered that Nabil Sadoun, 50, be deported to his native Jordan. Sadoun was not present at Friday's hearing at the downtown Dallas federal courthouse. Authorities say he has already left the country.
CAIR has traditionally been willing to defend its members. Not sure what it means that Sadoun left the country before the hearing but it would seem to be some sort of admission of guilt. I wonder if CAIR will come to his defense soon.

More info at GMBDR


Actually, it can be argued that Andrew Breitbart, new media pioneer and man who helped James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles expose ACORN, merely primes the pump here. Liberal blogger Max Blumenthal confronts Breitbart and is completely smacked down before the latter leaves in disgust but it's actually Larry O'Connor who gets the best of Blumenthal when he calls him on his identifying O'Keefe as a "racist".

Initially, Blumenthal attempts to deny it but when O'Connor quotes directly from Blumenthal's blog in which the former actually said it, the squirming begins. FLAT BUSTED and Blumenthal knows it. Listen for an onlooker shout, "Oh, that internet is a Mother..."

h/t to Gateway Pundit

Saturday, February 20, 2010


I know the name, "Obama" and the word "Liar" have become virtually synonymous lately but this one may lower the bar even for him. At CPAC, California representative Darrell Issa (R) showed a video of Barack Obama privately addressing ACORN during the 2008 presidential campaign basically highlighting his past support of ACORN while pledging future support.

That video is at the end of a video posted by Gateway Pundit, which contrasts what Obama said publicly on the campaign trail about ACORN - distancing himself from the group - followed by what he actually said to ACORN in 2008.

There was a time when this would be a huge deal but in these insane times, everyone seems unfazed.

Of course, what Obama / ACORN post would be complete without this?

For the record, this photo was taken in 2004 and scrubbed once it was pointed out by the blogosphere.


Sent in by Barrackaid #34. Not sure why David Letterman isn't using this skit from March of 2008 to defend himself against allegations that he never pokes fun at Obama. Then again, I'm not sure why Chris Matthews doesn't use the video I posted below the fold to defend against accusations that he's in the Obama tank.

On second thought, Matthews simply has gone too far in the other direction to turn back at this point. He's fully invested emotionally in the Obama phenomena.

As for this video from Letterman's show, the money part is the timing of Keith Olbermann raising his eyebrows.

What happened to this Chris Matthews?


Very curious that this one comes out late Friday night but Politico is now reporting that Barack Obama's envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), Rashad Hussain has changed his story and has now admitted to making sympathetic comments about convicted terrorist fundraiser, Sami al-Arian.

Politico reports:
President Barack Obama’s new Islamic envoy, Rashad Hussain, changed course Friday – admitting he made sharply critical statements about a U.S. terror prosecution against a Muslim professor after initially saying he had no recollection of making such comments.

“I made statements on that panel that I now recognize were ill-conceived or not well-formulated,” Hussain said, referring to a 2004 conference where he discussed the case.

Hussain’s reversal came after POLITICO obtained a recording of his presentation to a Muslim students’ conference in Chicago, where he can be heard portraying the government’s cases towards professor Sami Al-Arian, as well as other Muslim terrorism suspects, as “politically motivated persecutions.” Al-Arian later pled guilty to aiding terrorists.
Isn't it interesting that it took an actual recording of Hussain uttering the words to actually get him to come clean? With that now out of the way, when will Hussain be fired? If he's not, will the media hold the Obama administration accountable? Politico also reported that the White House refused to comment on Obama's confidence in Hussain now that he's proven to be liar.
The White House declined to say Friday whether the statements or the controversy affected Obama’s confidence in Hussain.
That then leaves the matter of the publication that removed Hussain's quotes. That publication is the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs (WRMEA). All along, the person who attributed the quotes to Hussain has maintained that she accurately did so. Now we learn that it was Hussain himself who approached WRMEA about the comments being taken out of context. Note the tactic here:
It was Hussain himself, he said Friday, who contacted the publication to complain about the story.

“When I saw the article that attributed comments to me without context, leaving a misimpression, I contacted the publication to raise concerns about it. Eventually, of their own accord, they modified the article,” Hussain said of the article in the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs.
Out of context? Please. Doesn't that make you wonder how the editor of WRMEA must feel? Earlier this week, before this stunning admission by Hussain, the Fox News Website reported:
The Web version of the 2004 article in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs was later edited to delete all of Hussain's comments. Editor Delinda Hanley told Fox News she believes the change was made in February 2009, though she does not recall who requested the edit.

Hanley remembered telling the group's webmaster: "Let's just take out the quotes since they have been attributed to the wrong speaker."
So now we learn that thanks to a recording of the event, Hussain was busted and had to admit to being the one that went to WRMEA. However, what WRMEA said was that they took out the quotes because they were incorrectly attributed to Hussain and were actually said by Sami al-Arian's daughter, Laila. Again from Fox's website:
Hanley suggested to another media outlet that the comments attributed to Hussain were actually made by Sami al-Arian's daughter, Laila, who also attended the event. But the author of the piece, Shereen Kandil, told Fox News that she would never confuse the two people.

"If I quoted someone, it's because they said it," she said, adding that she no longer works for the magazine and was surprised to learn of the changes.

The White House also attributes the quotes to Laila al-Arian.
Who lied? It would appear that WRMEA is being thrown under the bus in true Obama fashion. If Hussain is now telling the truth - yeah, right - then that means Hanley should be fired. If Hussain is lying, then Hanley should call him on it. What about Kandil? Now that she is vindicated after being accused of one of the greatest sins in journalism, will she come out publicly and demand an apology?

What is getting lost in all of this is where Rashad Hussain said those things, taken out of context or not. He was at an event sponsored by the Muslim Students Association or MSA. Discover the Networks has plenty of dirt on the MSA. It has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, and quite a few other unsavory groups and characters.

Click Here for more on the MSA.

This story is eerily reminiscent of another "recording" that was made involving Barack Obama at a dinner with Rashid Khalidi. Anyone remember that one? The Los Angeles Times had in its possession, a tape that was allegedly incredibly damaging to then candidate Barack Obama but they refused to release it.

Gee, I wonder what would have happened if they had.

This is huge beyond words.

Click here for my earlier post on this.

h/t to GMBRD

Friday, February 19, 2010


I find this noteworthy only because the Al Sharptons of the world will likely be feigning false righteous indignation over it. Alec Baldwin's little brother Stephen - seemingly the only one in that family who is grounded - told an ABC reporter that "Homey" (Obama) is responsible for this mess.

However, prior to that, he admitted to praying for Obama every day.

h/t to Hot Air Pundit


This really is despicable on the part of Jonathan Capehart (pictured) at the Washington Post. In writing about Joseph Stack, the man who slammed an airplane into a building that houses multiple IRS offices, he takes intellectual dishonesty to an entirely new low. As has been so indicative of the left, the second there is some sort of extremist attack, its ideologues shift into guilt by group association mode. Unless, of course, the perpetrator happens to be a major in the military who murders 14 people while shouting, "Allahu-akbar". In that case, the individual just snaps and Islam is completely blameless.

I'll get to the parts about the Manifesto that Stack left behind which Capehart conveniently omitted in a moment but check out the last sentence in Capehart's first paragraph:
...after reading his 34-paragraph screed, I am struck by how his alienation is similar to that we're hearing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement.
Can you imagine Capehart writing a similar paragraph about Nidal Malik Hasan, a man discovered to be connected to an Imam named Anwar al-Awlaqi and Mutallab, the underwear bomber?

Ace of Spades finds an extremely overt and convenient omission in Capehart's piece. The majority of Capehart's piece consists of excerpts pulled from Stack's manifesto. Considering how many indications there are that he hated capitalism along with George W. Bush, Capehart is not only jumping the gun but appears to be exploiting this attack for political advantage. It's really not even open for debate.

The most blatant example is the excerpt Capehart takes from the end of Stack's manifesto. Here is what Capehart posts:
I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.
Joe Stack (1956-2010)
Here is what Stack wrote after "...sleep well." and before signing his name.
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
As you can see, Capehart not only cherry picked quotes from within the body of Stack's manifesto, which is understandable since it is six pages long, but the most egregious part in this example is the fact that he omitted parts within the quotes he posted. He also doesn't let the fact that Stack seemed to reject capitalism and revere communism - something that is not at all indicative of the Tea Party movement - get in the way of manipulating the event to suit his own agenda. It's obvious that he intentionally omits it.

Another interesting omission by Capehart worth noting. Stack assailed George W. Bush in his manifesto as well:
As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.
Capehart the ideologue was in a real pickle with this one. George W. Bush was a Republican so that didn't fit his paradigm but what about the fact that the Tea Party movement has outwardly expressed its disapproval with Bush's spending as well? That's true but that would have meant that Capehart would have had to take the position of defending George W. Bush. The thought of that probably made him physically ill.

h/t to Gateway Pundit

Thursday, February 18, 2010


The Lynn Woolley show just had an eyewitness to the plane hitting a building in Austin. This individual was in a building across the street from the crash and informed us that the building hit is home to the Austin IRS offices.

Lynn Woolley

NY Daily News

UPDATE: The man who slammed his plane into the IRS building has apparently left a manifesto / suicide note and signed it, "Joseph Stack".
If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn’t enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I’m not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.
Click Here to read the entire note.

UPDATE: Above link no longer works. Free Republic has posted the entire letter HERE.

People or groups who apparently drove Stack to this are: George W. Bush, Stack's wife, the IRS, Stack's accountant, and the Catholic church.

h/t to Free Republic


If this is true - and assuming that Santorum has learned from his mistakes - he could leapfrog many of the candidates now on the table for the Republican nomination. The 2012 election is nearly three years away and someone like Santorum entering the race is a prime example of why debating who the front runners are in early 2010 is a vain endeavor.

TPM Reports:
Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), who was defeated for re-election in 2006 by a whopping 18-point margin, has been slowly but surely re-emerging on the political scene -- and could be a presidential candidate in 2012.

Over the last few months, Santorum has built up a schedule of visits to the top three primary and caucus states: He has already made two trips to South Carolina, one in December and another in January; he visited Iowa this past October, and will be headed back in March; and he just announced a trip to New Hampshire on April 30.
What lessons will Santorum necessarily have needed to learn if he is going to make a serious run? I wrote about one of them not to long ago.
Then-Sen. Arlen Specter was in a primary against conservative and current Republican candidate Pat Toomey, who most closely aligned with – or so he thought – that state's junior Sen. Rick Santorum. However, along with George W. Bush, Santorum threw his support behind Specter in that primary. Not only did Santorum lose his seat in 2006, but Specter defected to the Democrats in 2009.
In 2010, Tommey is the odds-on favorite to win Specter's seat. For someone like Santorum, a professed conservative, to have on his record the endorsement of Arlen Specter over a real conservative in 2004 is something he cannot escape. Instead of spinning it, he needs to put his head down, humble himself, and admit wrongdoing. The only way Santorum proves viable is if he delivers a heartfelt mea culpa.

Santorum almost seems to make light of it here by doing it in a way that not everyone would get it.
"In 2004, President Bush and a Senate colleague from Western Pennsylvania made the difference for Specter. Those dogs don't hunt anymore," Santorum wrote, adding that the primary against Specter "will be fun to watch. And watch I will."
As TPM points out, Santorum was referring to himself as the "Senate colleague". Notice that Santorum focuses exclusively on Specter without alluding to Toomey. A public apology to the latter from Santorum would be a good start.

This is not something that Santorum can afford to be flippant about and needs to assert in no uncertain terms that he was WRONG and became a victim of inside the beltway groupthink. As we all know, politicians cannot be trusted and must be watched constantly. That includes Rick Santorum and he must feel the heat.

Sarah Palin is doing in Arizona, by endorsing John McCain over Tea Party favorite J.D. Hayworth what Santorum did in Pennsylvania in 2004 and I still believe it will hurt her with conservatives. She's also endorsed Rand Paul in Kentucky over a Tea Party conservative in Bill Johnson.

h/t to Hot Air

Wednesday, February 17, 2010


Vintage Glenn Beck today. First, he takes offense at Obama's metaphor about dogs by rapidly approaching the camera while barking. Later in that segment, he actually sounds like Scooby Doo as he continues with the dog theme. No one - except brainwashed liberals - can blame Beck for going off the rails though. Obama's post-mortem on the stimulus is conspicuously packaged as a celebration.

Now for the megaphone. No words necessary. Just watch.

h/t to Hot Air Pundit


One of those videos you'll want to watch more than once, and call others to see it with you. An obvious halftime show featuring the Toronto Rapture mascot and the Toronto Raptures cheerleaders takes a nasty turn when the former eats whole, one of the latter. The money quote from the announcer has to be when he asks, "Now what happens?" as the Raptor walks off after having consuming cheerleader sustenance.

Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive