REPORT: RUSSIA STONEWALLING PLANE CRASH INVESTIGATION

Forget conspiracy theories. I've long maintained that it doesn't apply when looking at the facts - and the odds. When a Polish plane carrying that country's president and 90+ senior officials, crashed on April 10th, the odds of it being an accident were likely longer than the odds of foul play. The reason President Lech Kaczynski was flying to Russia was to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Katyn massacres, in which over 20,000 senior polish officials were killed at the hands of Stalin's NKVD, which was a pre-cursor to the KGB, an agency Vladimir Putin was - and is - very loyal to.

The date, the location, the deaths of polish leaders, Putin's tendency to deal harshly with political opponents, and his dislike for Kaczynski are tragically ironic, yes but what are the odds that such a disaster was an accidental coincidence? Are they longer than the odds it was intentional? When factoring in all of those things, I'd bet they are.

As I have long said, under that premise, Russia's willingness to cooperate with the investigation will either extinguish suspicion or raise more flags. Now we have a report from the Irish Times that Poland is getting impatient with Russia's stonewalling:

POLAND HAS accused Russia of failing to hand over crucial evidence relating to the plane crash that killed Polish president Lech Kaczynski and 95 other people in April.

“The Polish side will be waiting for information and explanations about the reasons hampering the Russian side in forwarding the appropriate documents,” Polish prime minister Donald Tusk said yesterday. “Now, when the probe is entering its final phase, our co-operation is worse than at the beginning,” he added.

Mr Kaczynski’s aircraft crashed as it tried to land at fog-bound Smolensk airport in western Russia. The president and his group – which included his wife and many of Poland’s senior political, military and financial figures – were travelling to a commemoration ceremony at Katyn, where Soviet forces massacred more than 20,000 Polish officers in 1940.

Jumping to conclusions that foul play was involved is not advised. However, Russia could have gone a long way in dissuading people from doing so by being - shall I say it - transparent.

Read it all.

Click HERE for my April 10th post.

VIDEO: PROOF OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST?

An excellent case is indeed made in this video, which features footage of Herbert Philbrick, a man who infiltrated the Communist Party for the FBI in the 1940's in much the same way Larry Grathwohl did the Weather Underground in 1969. This video montage juxtaposes Philbrick giving a lesson on what communism is - with bullet points - and cutaways to Obama's most revealing and despicable moments. A very strong case is made that Obama's statements and alliances demonstrate that he has all the symptoms.

Via CommieBlaster

WILL THE REAL SHIRLEY SHERROD PLEASE STAND UP

Shirley Sherrod might want to start toning down her indignant rhetoric. Talk of lawsuits coupled with her claims that she thinks Breitbart wants to send black people back to the times of slavery will continue to keep her in the headlines but something tells me she's going to want less of that in the coming days. I also continue to suspect that the White House's knee-jerk reaction to force her to resign may have had less to do with being 'snookered' (NAACP's word) and more to do with what they actually know about Ms. Sherrod.

The background in question has to do with a group Shirley and her husband Charles founded, called New Communities. Tom Blumer at the Washington Examiner has been following this one very closely and has a very interesting update that features an interview with a man named Ron Wilkins, who used to work for the Sherrods. Quoting Wilkins via the Examiner:

Imagine farm workers doing back breaking labor in the sweltering sun, sprayed with pesticides and paid less than minimum wage. Imagine the United Farm Workers called in to defend these laborers against such exploitation by management. Now imagine that the farm workers are black children and adults and that the managers are Shirley Sherrod, her husband Rev. Charles Sherrod, and a host of others. But it’s no illusion; this is fact.

If true, this would mean that all of those oppressed workers the Sherrods allegedly fought for when New Communities joined on to the Pigford v. Vilsack lawsuit were actually mistreated by the Sherrods themselves. As part of the settlement in the Pigford case, each claimant was supposed to receive $50,000. Shirley and Charles received $150,000 each ($300,000 total) as part of the award of $13 million to New Communities.

As Blumer points out, wouldn't it be interesting to know how much of that $13 million went to the farmers that Wilkins speaks about?

This is another story that reminds me of John 12: 1-6

Read Blumer's entire piece.

THE JOURNOLIST CONTROVERSY CONTINUES TO FESTER

When the Daily Caller published several stories back to back that exposed a mainstream media conspiracy of collusion and collaboration about how to best push the leftwing agenda, it was like a mack truck of information hitting the alternative media. As the days have passed, however, the most egregious revelations to come out of it are rising to the top, causing many people to take a second look, and re-think some things.

Among them, and perhaps the most relevant to an issue that is at the forefront in America today is what Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent wrote on the Journolist Listserv that a good way to bury the Jeremiah Wright story in the spring of 2008 was to slander conservatives as racist.

Here is what Ackerman said, via Pajamas Media:

It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

Take note of that very last sentence because it virtually mirrors one of the Rules for Radicals authored by Barack Obama's ideological mentor, Saul Alinsky.

Rule #5 to be exact:

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Alinsky was a man who advocated slander and libel, which are nothing more than false attributions in order to destroy character. He did this not because it was ethical. On the contrary, in the world of Community Organizing, the ends justify the means.

Here is Andrew Breitbart talking about the leftwing media scandal exposed by Daily Caller.

Via Gateway Pundit.

VIDEO: CAIR LEADER LIES ON O'REILLY

Nihad Awad, Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) appeared on Bill O'Reilly's show on August 3rd and had the unmitigated gall to say that there are no links between Islam and 9/11. Awad is clearly attempting to put distance between his group and the extremists. The truth is that aside from means, there is no difference in the desired ends. Awad's group was an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism funding trial in our history.

Video via Breitbart:



Even former counter-terrorism advisor, Richard Clarke understood the linkages between the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, al Qaeda, and by extension, CAIR - a group with proven ties to Hamas.

As I wrote over at Big Peace, CAIR is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, which desires the destruction of western civilization:

Instead of declaring war on terror in the days after 9/11, it should have been declared on the Muslim Brotherhood – the umbrella under which al Qaeda resides. Even the term “terror” has become taboo when attempting to identify an enemy our military should engage. Proper identification would have put the onus on groups like CAIR to prove they were not affiliated with America’s enemies, instead of on Americans to prove they themselves were not racists; Islam isn’t even a race but let’s not quibble.

Such a declaration would not have been partisan, either. Richard Clarke notwithstanding, Democrat Senators Chuck Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Barbara Boxer of California, and Dick Gephardt – formerly of Missouri – all seemed to understand this. Schumer, Durbin, and Boxer all vocalized the connection between CAIR and terrorist groups in 2003 while in 1999, Gephardt withdrew the nomination of Salam al-Mayarati to a terrorism commission because of connections to MPAC.

The one common denominator is the Muslim Brotherhood – the enemy we won’t identify.

Awad has also had very endearing things to say about Hamas, a group with the desired destruction of Israel in its charter.

I hope you read it all.