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

Monday, July 30, 2012

Is this how Fast and Furious ends?

Hundreds of dead Mexicans; whistleblowers who put their necks on the line; Justice Department officials who committed perjury; evidence that Fast and Furious was authorized at the highest levels of DOJ; a President who asserts Executive Privilege to prevent the production of documents in response to a lawful subpoena; and an Attorney General found in criminal contempt of Congress. Yet, Congressional investigators appear to be content with letting five ATF leaders take the fall. "Miscarriage of Justice" doesn't begin to explain this.

Via Los Angeles Times:
WASHINGTON -- Republican congressional investigators have concluded that five senior ATF officials -- from the special agent-in-charge of the Phoenix field office to the top man in the bureau’s Washington headquarters -- are collectively responsible for the failed Fast and Furious gun-tracking operation that was “marred by missteps, poor judgments and inherently reckless strategy.”

The investigators, in a final report likely to be released later this week, also unearthed new evidence that agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Phoenix initially sought to hide from the Mexican government the crucial information that two Fast and Furious firearms were recovered after the brother of a Mexican state attorney general was killed there.

According to a copy of the report obtained Monday by The Times, the investigators said their findings are “the best information available as of now” about the flawed gun operation that last month led to Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. being found in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over subpoenaed documents.

Two more final reports, they said, will deal with “the devastating failure of supervision and leadership” at the Department of Justice and an “unprecedented obstruction of the [congressional] investigation by the highest levels of the Justice Department, including the attorney general himself.”
On one hand, Issa fought both the DOJ and Republican leadership valiantly. In the end, however, it was Republican leadership that carries the most disgrace. Nonetheless, this news amounts to an armistice on the part of Issa.

It's a sad day when not enough political will can be mustered to get to the bottom of a program that led to the death of at least one Border Agent (Brian Terry) and hundreds of Mexicans, all in the name of a gun control agenda.

We've come to expect the Democrats to close ranks and defend their own, no matter the cause; we've come to expect Republicans will cry and wilt when it's time to fight but this is the first time they've done so in the face of a potential mass murder conspiracy. If John Boehner is really worried about future generations, he has a strange way of showing it. Fast and Furious appears to be winding down without justice being served and much of that reality can be laid right at the feet of Boehner, who has turned his back on those who stuck out their necks and sacrificed their children:

Once again, I give you John Boehner's 'fight or flight' response:

It's Time for Karl Rove to come clean

After publishing this post yesterday, which included a photo circa 2000 that shows Abdurahman Alamoudi meeting with George W. Bush and Karl Rove, I decided to look into the book that Rove was quite likely given by the delegation seen in the photo. It's entitled, The Cultural Atlas of Islam and was written by a man named Ismail Al Faruqi in 1986.

Now, obviously, Karl Rove cannot be held accountable for accepting a book from a group he met with; it happens all the time. In fact, in 2009, Barack Obama accepted a far left-wing book from Hugo Chavez. That made news because Chavez wanted to make a public spectacle of himself.

However, there were red flags raised by the Secret Service and Intelligence officials relative to both Alamoudi and Sami Al-Arian. Yet, Bush and/or Rove met with them on more than one occasion after this book was put into Rove's hands. If there were suspicions about Alamoudi prior to these meetings, wouldn't it have been prudent to investigate the author of material this group felt was important enough to put into Rove's hands?

According to Newsweek, via History Commons:
...Alamoudi and the AMC had been previously criticized for their ties to Hamas and other militant groups and figures (see March 13, 1996). Bush and/or Rove will meet with Alamoudi on other occasions (see (see July 2000, June 22, 2001, September 14-26, 2001). US intelligence learned of ties between Alamoudi and bin Laden in 1994 (see Shortly After March 1994);
Yes, Alamoudi visited the White House after 9/11. As it turns out, Al Faruqi is identified as the founder of one of the Muslim Brotherhood front groups listed as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial (HLF). That group is the Association of Muslim Social Scientists of North America (AMSS). Here is what Discover the Networks says about AMSS:
Established in 1972 by Temple University professor Ismail Raji al-Faruqi and University of Pennsylvania graduate student Abdulhamid AbuSulayman, the Association of Muslim Social Scientists of North America (AMSS) is a constituent organization of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and a sister organization of the International Institute of Islamic Thought.

AMSS describes itself as “an independent membership-based organization that encompasses the United States and Canada.” It has no corporate, legal or financial relationship with any organization bearing the name of AMSS in any other country. Its mission is “to provide a forum through which Islamic positions on various academic disciplines can be promoted, with an emphasis on the social sciences and humanities”; to further “the continuity of the Islamic intellectual heritage”; and “to serve the interests of the larger Muslim community by bringing together Muslim and non-Muslim scholars in an academic setting to examine and define Islamic perspectives on issues of global concern that contribute to the prosperity of Muslims around the globe and the betterment of humanity.”

AMSS collaborates with the International Institute of Islamic Thought to publish the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS), which is distributed in more than 50 countries around the world. Launched in 1984, AJISS is an interdisciplinary publication of scholarly research on all facets of Islam and the Muslim world: politics, history, economic philosophy, metaphysics, psychology, religious law, and Islamic thought.
So, the author of the book given to Rove in 2000 was closely affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that has pledged to work toward the destruction of the United States. The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), another unindicted co-conspirator in HLF also lists al-Faruqi as its founder.

Are we to believe that the Bush administration did not know of the nefarious intentions of these individuals and groups?

Take a look at an article written by Franklin Foer on November 12, 2001 that was published by The New Republic:
On the afternoon of September 26, George W. Bush gathered 15 prominent Muslim- and Arab-Americans at the White House. With cameras rolling, the president proclaimed that "the teachings of Islam are teachings of peace and good." It was a critically important moment, a statement to the world that America's Muslim leaders unambiguously reject the terror committed in Islam's name. 
To the president's left sat Dr. Yahya Basha, president of the American Muslim Council, an organization whose leaders have repeatedly called Hamas "freedom fighters." Also in attendance was Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who on the afternoon of September 11 told a Los Angeles public radio audience that "we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list." And sitting right next to President Bush was Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who last fall told a Washington crowd chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans, "America has to learn if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come." Days later, after a conservative activist confronted Karl Rove with dossiers about some of Bush's new friends, Rove replied, according to the activist, "I wish I had known before the event took place."
Again, it's time for the highest members of the Bush administration - including Karl Rove - to come clean about who they met with, what they knew about them, and why they continued meeting with them after they knew it.

The stakes are too high and the jig is very close to being up.

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Cheney says it was a 'mistake' for McCain to pick Palin in 2008

Just some comments before I get to the video of Dick Cheney telling Americans that McCain's decision to name Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008 was a 'mistake.'

On today's program, I looked at the string of head-scratching incidents relative to the Bush administration's refusal to deal with the Islamic threat to the United States by the likes of Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef. If you've ever wondered about the root causes of the animosity for the Tea Party that exists within the Republican establishment, the intelligence available to the Bush administration both before and after 9/11 about the perpetrators of 9/11 is something the establishment doesn't want Tea Partiers like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann getting too close to.

Naseef had distinct ties to the Saudi Arabian government; he was named in a civil lawsuit in 2004 by the families of 9/11's victims. However, he wasn't identified by the Bush administration as a target of American ire after 9/11, which he definitely should have been. Here is what Andrew McCarthy had to say about Naseef's history of escaping U.S. accountability relative to his ties to al-Qaeda:
…in 2004, he was named as a defendant in the civil case brought by victims of the 9/11 atrocities. (In 2010, a federal court dropped him from the suit — not because he was found uninvolved, but because a judge reasoned the American court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.)
The questions I posed were simple: Why was Naseef merely relegated to being a defendant in a civil case? Why wasn't he targeted by the Bush Administration? Why wasn't he prosecuted by Bush's Justice Department like, say, Abdurahman Alamoudi, who had been a State Department employee during the Clinton administration? In October of 2003, Alamoudi was arrested and ultimately convicted of financing terrorism.

If Alamoudi's background was given even a cursory look, it would have become obvious that Naseef was a bigger fish the administration should have been very interested in; it wasn't. Naseef skated and the threats posed by him and his underlings to America are graver than they've ever been. There was the reality of Bush granting access to Alamoudi despite big red flags. Here's a photo of Alamoudi standing with George W. Bush, circa 2000.

From History Commons, via Newsweek:
Presidential candidate George W. Bush and his political adviser Karl Rove meet with Muslim activist Abdurahman Alamoudi. The meeting is said to have been brokered by Republican lobbyist Grover Norquist. Little is known about the meeting, which will not be reported until 2007. At the time, Alamoudi is head of the American Muslim Council (AMC), which is seen as a mainstream activist and lobbying group. But Alamoudi and the AMC had been previously criticized for their ties to Hamas and other militant groups and figures (see March 13, 1996). Bush and/or Rove will meet with Alamoudi on other occasions (see (see July 2000, June 22, 2001, September 14-26, 2001). US intelligence learned of ties between Alamoudi and bin Laden in 1994 (see Shortly After March 1994); he will be sentenced to a long prison term in 2004 (see October 15, 2004).
Then, of course, there was Bush's decision to stand with CAIR six days after 9/11, at a mosque:

In 2002, a terrorist entity known as the SAAR Network was targeted by U.S. authorities. Both Naseef and Alamoudi were connected to SAAR (Alamoudi was an executive assistant). Yet, despite all of the evidence required to convict Alamoudi, we're to believe that the Justice Department just overlooked Naseef?!


Alamoudi wasn't the only terrorist who was given access to Bush. Sami al-Arian was another, via History Commons:
Sami al-Arian attends a meeting in the White House complex with President Bush’s adviser Karl Rove. Al-Arian is one of 160 members of the American Muslim Council who are briefed on political matters by Rove and others. Al-Arian had been under investigation for at least six years by this time, and numerous media accounts reported that US investigators suggested al-Arian had ties to US-designated terrorist groups. Yet al-Arian passes the Secret Service’s stringent security check, enabling him to attend the meeting.

NEWSWEEK, 7/16/2001; WASHINGTON POST, 2/22/2003] “A law-enforcement official… [said] the Secret Service had flagged al-Arian as a potential terrorist prior to the event,” Newsweek later reports. “But White House aides, apparently reluctant to create an incident, let him through anyway.” [NEWSWEEK, 3/3/2003] In 2005, al-Arian will be found innocent of serious terrorism charges, but sentenced to almost three years in a US prison on lesser charges (see December 6, 2005). Abduraham Alamoudi is also at the meeting. US intelligence have suspected Alamoudi of ties to bin Laden and Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman since 1994 (see Shortly After March 1994). Rove and Bush met with Alamoudi in 1999 and 2000 as well (see 1999 and July 2000). Alamoudi will later be sentenced to 23 years in a US prison for illegal dealings with Libya (see October 15, 2004). [WASHINGTON POST, 2/22/2003]
Here's a photo of Alamoudi (far left), George W. Bush (center), and Karl Rove (far right):

So what does all this have to do with Dick Cheney telling ABC News that selecting Sarah Palin as the VP running mate in 2008 was a mistake? It's anecdotal as much as anything. The Republican establishment in general and the Bush administration in particular messed up in a major way by not going after the government of Saudi Arabia after 9/11. Any serious attempt to find out the truth would have led to Abdullah Omar Naseef - an al-Qaeda leader who was connected to the Saudi government.

We're left to conclude that the establishment will fight tooth and nail to prevent the truth about what it did (and failed to do) both before and after 9/11. Until these people come clean and 'fess up, America will be placed in ever increasing danger.

When the establishment relinquishes power within the GOP, the Tea Party movement will not only seize it but will finally have access to all of the intelligence about how the establishment so roundly miscalculated; that establishment will do all it can to prevent that from happening.

Take a look at what Cheney said today, when viewed within that context:

Of course, if you remember being taken aback by what Barbara Bush said about Sarah Palin back in 2010, maybe we're getting closer to understanding why. Perhaps it has something to do with the threat to the establishment of the group Palin represents. That threat very well could be the truth about our flawed post-9/11 strategy being revealed:

**UPDATE** In light of this angle, I thought it relevant that Liz Cheney would tweet in disagreement with her father about Palin:

Friday, July 27, 2012

Huma Abedin's sister (Heba) also connected to Muslim Brotherhood

It has been learned that the sister of Huma Abedin (Heba Abedin), like Huma, has served on the Editorial Board of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) as an Assistant Editor; Heba continues to serve in that capacity after Huma left in late 2008 to work for Hillary Clinton at the State Department. Please note that in 2002, Heba was referred to on the IMMA website as "Heba A. Khaled" and not by her familial last name.

Today, the spelling of Heba's last name is slightly different ("Khalid" instead of "Khaled").

In this screenshot from 1997, Heba is identified by her original last name as a "Contributor" to an issue of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (Vol. 17, No. 1), along with her brother Hassan:

We have already demonstrated that both of Huma Abedin's parents (Syed Z. Abedin and Saleha Abedin) were / are very closely connected with the Muslim Brotherhood (her father is deceased and her mother is a leader with the Muslim Sisterhood) and that her brother (Hassan Abedin) has served as a fellow at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS) with the Brotherhood's spiritual leader, Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Chairman of the Board, Abdullah Omar Naseef, who founded IMMA. All of these Abedins have served or continue to serve in various capacities at IMMA.

As we reported yesterday, Heba has been quite public in her support of a petition to demand that Rep. Michele Bachmann apologize. Perhaps her motives for doing so extend beyond just defending her sister.

This is significant for another reason. Unless Huma has another sibling, it means that every member of her family - including herself - has served on the Board of an organization founded by an al-Qaeda Godfather, Abdullah Omar Naseef and a liberal western media continues to run interference for that family by demonizing Bachmann.

Heba has also been identified as one "the Girls of Weinergate."

Assistant Attorney General blatantly avoids defense of First Amendment

Two very important names here. First, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is one of the five Congressmen who signed five separate letters to various IG's. Those letters call for investigations into the potential of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. Government. Second, Thomas E. Perez is the Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

At what appears to be a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Franks asked Perez a very simple question about whether the latter would pledge to never move forward any policy that would criminalize criticism of any religion, which is prohibited by the First Amendment (note: there is a movement afoot to criminalize criticism of Islam). Believe it or not, Perez would not answer the question, a reality that should send chills down your spine (not a tingle up your leg).

Perez has an interesting history but first, this video is a must-see (h/t WZ):

If you remember the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) voting rights case from 2008, Thomas Perez was at the center of it. J. Christian Adams actually resigned his position as an Attorney at the Voting Rights Section back in 2010, in large part because of the actions of Perez. Check out this interview he gave to Fox's Megyn Kelly two years ago. Pay attention at the 1:30 mark where Adams implies (without saying it) that he resigned when it became obvious that Perez was going to commit perjury.

For the record, the NBPP is a Muslim organization.

In December of 2009, Perez spoke at the Muslim Public Affairs Council's (MPAC) National Conference in Long Beach, CA. Yes, MPAC is linked to CAIR, a Muslim Brotherhood front group whose leader (Nihad Awad) expressed support for Hamas.

Here are some excerpts from Perez's speech to MPAC:
As‐Salamu Alaykum to all of you. Thank you, Salam, for that introduction and for your dedication and your hard work leading MPAC. MPAC is an organization that represents not just the best of the American Muslim Community, but the best of America.
Really? How about CAIR, Mr. Perez? How about this?
Today, I am here to assure you that as the Muslim‐American community continues to fight against forces of bigotry, fear and hate that are far too prevalent in our nation, you have the power of the United States Government behind you.
That is truly a scary statement in light of the exchange between Perez and Franks. As for bigotry and hate, the founder of MPAC (Salam al-Marayati) suggested that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks and he did so on the same day they took place. Leader / Board Member Mahdi Bray has consistently expressed anti-Semitic positions and helped to raise money for Hamas in a Florida mosque. Does Perez not see Hamas as bigoted or hateful?

Perez also talked about the Fort Hood massacre, which had taken place only weeks before...
For the last few weeks, we as a nation have been grieving the loss of thirteen brave men and women at Fort Hood, and are praying for the swift recovery of the wounded. I know that Muslim Americans are not only grieving, but are also fearful of irrational and unjustifiable acts of misplaced vengeance. Since the day of the tragedy, the Civil Rights Division has kept in close contact with the community to insure that we act swiftly against any incidents of backlash.
As we now know, this type of thinking is what prevented Nidal Malik Hasan from being dealt with prior to his bloody Jihad.

On a side note, Perez's name was at the top of the lawsuit filed against Joe Arpaio back in 2010.

Here is Rep. Franks' website.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

The Tale of the three John Espositos who Defend Huma Abedin at the Washington Post

The Washington Post has published an op-ed by an individual named John L. Esposito, who vehemently defends Hillary Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin against what he calls 'xenophobic' attacks against her character by the likes of Michele Bachmann.

What neither Esposito nor the Washington Post offers the readers is a full disclosure. There is one organization to which we know that Huma Abedin has belonged (from 1996-2008) that connects her to Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef; that organization is the Islamic Instituted of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). What Esposito doesn't tell you is that as of today, he is still a member of the IMMA's Advisory Editorial Board. Another thing he doesn't tell you is that his name now appears on IMMA's website as "John I. Esposito" and it used to appear as simply "John Esposito." We will explain why that distinction is significant, shortly.

Here is a screen shot from 7/26/12:

As far back as 2002, the name "John Esposito" appeared as being on the same Board. Also note who else appeared on the board as well - none other than Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef:

Ok, now that we've established that "John Esposito" served on a board with an Al-Qaeda leader, it's important to keep that fact in mind before you read his op-ed in the Washington Post today, where is name is spelled as, "John L. Esposito."

Via Washington Post:
So what can we learn from the Bachmann’s witch hunt and why it backfired this time? The first lesson is that in America today a culture of ignorance and anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry can target Muslims and non-Muslims alike, whatever their credentials, however visible or invisible they are, from Huma Abedin to President Obama. Fortunately this time the target was an American Muslim, born in a distinguished family and and educated in America, respected in Washington circles due to her long working relationship with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And who are Huma Abedin’s family members accused by Bachman and others?

Hassan Abedin, Huma’s brother, earned his PhD at the University of London, was a fellow at Oxford University’s Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies for many years and is currently at the Muslim Minorities dept. of the OIC.
The good news is that one of the three Espositos is forced to admit a portion of the truth. The unfortunate news is that he doesn't focus on Hassan's time at OCIS with Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef.

Back to Esposito's less-than-objective position...
Both of Huma’s parents earned doctorates at the University of Pennsylvania and both taught in the United States. Huma’s mother, Dr. Saleha Abedin, currently Academic Vice Dean at Al-Hekma College, the first private women’s university established in Saudi Arabia which now has academic affiliations with major American universities and foundations, including Harvard and Columbia University as well as University of California, Berkeley, Wellesley College, Babson College and many others. She was part of the team that designed the college with its American liberal arts curriculum, training young women for career opportunities, financial independence and social mobility. Karen Hughes, under secretary of state for public diplomacy of the Bush administration, and more recently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have spoken at Dar al-Hekma College.

Huma’s father, Dr. Syed Abedin was the founder of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs and the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which focuses on the challenges for minority Muslims living in non-Muslim societies and for non-Muslims living in Muslim societies.
Actually, we have already discovered that Syed Abedin did NOT found the IMMA; Abdullah Omar Naseef did. As for Huma's mother - Saleha Abedin - Esposito is correct about her being a Vice Dean at Al-Hekma but what he conveniently leaves out is that she is also a major player in the Muslim Brotherhood and at the International Islamic Committee for the Woman and Child (IICWC), a group that sanctions marital rape and female genital mutilation.

We on the right in no way excuse the actions of Karen Hughes, which is what Esposito wants so that those who do can be labeled as 'hypocrites.' She was wrong and so was the Bush administration in too many ways to count when it came to dealing with the Islamic threat. Nonetheless, Huma Abedin helped to coordinate Hillary's visit to Dar Al-Hekma and that is relevant but you'd never know that by reading Esposito's piece.

In short, whether 'John Esposito,' 'John I. Esposito,' or 'John L. Esposito' wrote this piece it was biased in favor of the IMMA Board on which 'John Esposito' and 'John I. Esposito' has served. Apparently, 'John L. Esposito' is supposed to be objective because he didn't (wink, wink) serve on the IMMA.

Then again, all three Johns failed to address our concern about Huma serving on the board of the IMMA with an al-Qaeda Godfather.

Huma Abedin's Sister (Heba Abedin) comes to her defense

It appears that Huma Abedin has a new defender - her sister. Heba Abedin, known on twitter as @hebs23 is pushing her followers to sign a petition demanding that Michele Bachmann apologize for raising very legitimate questions about Huma Abedin connections to Muslim Brotherhood groups and individuals.

One can certainly understand why anyone would come to the defense of his / her sibling. However, in this case, the evidence of Huma's connections is so strong that her family members should be demanding that she disprove them. Does Heba know that her mother is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood? Does Heba know that her sister served on the Board of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) for at least six years? Does Heba know that her brother is connected to both Abdullah Omar Naseef and Yusuf al-Qaradawi through the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies? What does Hema know about the IMMA that her parents jointly headed for many years and her mother leads now? Does Heba know about her mother's involvement with the IICWC, an organization that condones marital rape and Female Genital Mutilation?

Nonetheless, Heba is siding with the likes of John McCain and Ed Rollins and lining up against Michele Bachmann. Perhaps this is nothing more than family loyalty but at some point, people choose sides after all of the facts are out there. When it comes to Huma there are a LOT of very disturbing facts available.

Here is a screen shot of some of Heba's tweets on this matter:

It seems that Heba is on the same page as CNN's Anderson Cooper and Arianna Huffington as well. After receiving a snarky tweet from Arianna Huffington, Heba tweeted Arianna a link to the petition that's demanding an apology from Bachmann:

Heba also re-tweeted what appeared to be a tweet from a jubilant Anderson Cooper, who appeared to love McCain's deplorable attack on Bachmann:

On a separate but semi-related note, as the Weiner 'sexting' scandal was breaking last year, both the Daily Mail and Global Grind identified Heba Abedin as one of "the Girls of Weinergate." Heba was apparently a follower of Huma's husband.

The NY Daily News also identified Heba as Huma's sister.

While writing this post, twitter went down and we have not been able to pull additional screen shots.

Cross-posted at

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

James Sensenbrenner the latest Congressman to attack Bachmann

Count Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) as being among the most irresponsible Republicans in Congress when it comes to refusing to lend credence to Rep. Michele Bachmann's warnings about the background of Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin. The others include John McCain, Scott Brown, Marco Rubio, and John Boehner.

Via JS Online:
In a town hall meeting Sunday, U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) offered a vigorous defense of Hillary Clinton aide and Muslim Huma Abedin and the First Amendment after a constituent echoed U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann's suspicions that Abedin has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Said Sensenbrenner: "The First Amendment prohibits the government from making a distinction between what is 'good religion' and what is 'bad religion.' That’s none of the government’s business. Religion is a personal issue to every one of the people who lives in the United States, whether you practice a faith, how you practice a faith, whether you don’t practice a faith, whether you say you’re a member of a faith but don’t practice it, it’s none of the government’s business."
Mr. Sensenbrenner's decision to invoke the First Amendment is either ignorant or disingenuous on his part. Islam is not just a religion; it is a political system, which is why matters relative to Islam do not apply to the First Amendment; they apply to Article VI, which states:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;
If Mr. Sensenbrenner were either educated or honest, he would admit publicly that Islam seeks to be the supreme law of the land in whatever land it's in.

Here is video of Sensenbrenner at the Town Hall:

Incidentally, I was interviewed by Mark Halvorson on WOGO in Chippewa Falls, WI yesterday about Sensenbrenner's position. This morning, Halvorson had Senator Ron Johnson on the program and played a portion of my interview to get Johnson's reaction. Halvorson played a clip of Johnson's response and let's just say that if one could personify the word "punt," he made it blush and tried to re-direct attention and focus to the economy exclusively without taking a real position.

Michele Bachmann has more guts than these men.

Is the President's real name Barack Marshall Davis?

At the "Lenin and Sharia" conference on July 19th in Washington, D.C. the theme was vetting Barack Obama. One of the speakers / presenters was Joel Gilbert, the man behind the film Dreams from my REAL Father. Gilbert expounded on the theme of his film, which was that the Birthers have been making the wrong argument. Instead of arguing that Obama is not a citizen, says Gilbert, they should concede that he is one but that his father was actually a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) - Frank Marshall Davis.

Via America's Survival:
Davis, perhaps the central figure in Obama’s early life, was referred to merely as “Frank” in Obama’s book Dreams from My Father. That cover-up was blown four years ago, when the identity of “Frank” was revealed and his 600-page FBI file was disclosed. Still, such figures as Dana Milbank of The Washington Post continue to refer to Davis as just a non-controversial “author.” Like many in the liberal media, Milbank has been determined to sanitize Obama’s relations with a Communist Party USA operative who was called before Congress to explain his involvement in “Soviet activities” in Hawaii.

These pro-Obama “journalists” understand that while the threat of communism does not pack the same kind of punch it did years ago, it would be extremely damaging for Obama to have it known that he was raised and trained by a Communist operative with loyalties to the old Soviet Union. Indeed, Obama’s loyalty to the U.S. might be questioned as a result.

Despite the failure to explain Davis’s Communist background and strong influence over Obama in his youth, the new Obama biography by David Maraniss, Barack Obama, the Story, confirms an Obama poem about “Pop” was about Davis, not the Kenyan or Obama’s grandfather. The poem talks about Davis and whiskey, and stains and smells on their “shorts.”
An interesting find by Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Cold Case Posse is the number "9" written in pencil next to the box of the Birth Certificate that is supposed to contain the race of the father. The document released by the Obama administration says "African" in that box, which raises another question and Mike Zullow was able to track down the 95-year old woman who signed the document as the local registrar at the time.
Gilbert was the first to assemble evidence that the “African,” Barack Hussein Obama, was not Obama’s real father, and to offer a coherent explanation as to why the cover-up occurred.

Once it was decided that Davis could not be listed as the father, after the birth, the Kenyan Obama, who had a wife and children in Kenya, agreed to a “sham marriage” in exchange for certain benefits, Gilbert says.

He explains, “The Kenyan Obama applied only to extend his visa and for a work permit, instead of citizenship which he would have done if it were a real marriage and if the child was his.  Frank Marshall Davis, a married man with five children, wanted the paternity covered up, while ‘Gramps,’ Stanley Dunham, needed a cover (Davis being under FBI surveillance) due to his government employment. Stanley Dunham knew the Kenyan Obama from his work with Operation Airlift Africa, as evidenced in the photo in the film. No father was named on Barack Obama’s birth certificate because it was not acceptable for Davis to be named as the father, while the Kenyan was not accepting responsibility for the child, only to assist in the cover up for short term benefit.”

Gilbert tells AIM that, in addition to all of this, “I corresponded and spoke several times with an elderly friend of Frank Marshall Davis named Stephen T. Murin, who was 93 years old. When I asked him about the Obama birth certificate, he told me, ‘as far as I know they didn’t put any father on it.’ Unfortunately, Murin passed away suddenly and I never got a chance to interview him on camera.”
If there is any truth to these charges, the issue is not one of Obama's citizenship but of his loyalty to the United States and the production of a fraudulent Birth Certificate to conceal that disloyalty.

Producing a fraudulent Birth Certificate would likely be an impeachable offense.

Here is the trailer for Gilbert's film:

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

More Evidence Bachmann is right: Muslim Brotherhood calls charges 'Ridiculous'

This is an incredibly laughable piece over at Slate, which posts a link to the original story at Global Post. The logic is that somehow a credible source to debunk Michele Bachmann's charges that the Muslim Brotherhood could be infiltrating the U.S. Government is... the Muslim Brotherhood.

From Slate via Global Post:
Michele Bachmann has again ignited a political firestorm in the US, claiming last week that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has “infiltrated the highest levels of US government,” including the White House.

The Muslim Brotherhood's response?

“I haven’t heard these rumors, but they strike me as ridiculous,” said Ahmed Al Nahhas, a long-time Brotherhood activist and leader in Egypt’s second-largest city, Alexandria. “Surely the United States government selects its employees very carefully.”
 Al Hahhas wasn't the only Brotherhood activist heard from:
“The Muslim Brotherhood can’t even penetrate the Egyptian government,” said a Brotherhood leader in Egypt’s Daqheleya province, Ibrahim Ali Iraqi, in response to the accusations his group had infiltrated top US agencies.

Indeed, having assumed the presidency following a year of economic tumult and political upheaval, the Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi is grappling with severe domestic problems — not least of which is his battle with the ruling military for executive power.

“We are in a period of darkness because the country is still governed by the Supreme Council of Armed Forces — and they have a long history of support from the United States,” Iraqi said. “So it’s ridiculous that these accusations are leveled at us.”
When a bank robber is caught running from a bank, wearing a ski mask, holding a bag of money from a bank that has just been robbed two blocks away, isn't he going to try to make the claim that it's ridiculous to accuse him of robbing banks?

The answer is yes and this is a "ridiculous" attempt at credible reporting.

Huma Report UPDATE: Huma Abedin served on Editorial Board with Al-Qaeda Godfather

I hate deleting posts but thought it best in this case to delete from yesterday that linked to the initial report on Huma Abedin's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and replace it with this one to avoid confusion. Yesterday, a report was published on the Shoebat website that exposes the ties of Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff - Huma Abedin. Since that report was posted, additional bombshell discoveries have been made and they've been incorporated into the new, revised report (I refer you to pp. 14-15 specifically).

Among the discoveries...
  1. Huma Abedin served as Associate Editor on the Editorial Board of IMMA from at least 12/02/02 - 9/24/08
  2. Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef served on IMMA's Advisory Editorial Board from at least 12/02/02 - 12/03/03. This means, unequivocally, that Huma Abedin worked with Naseef for at least one year.
  3. On October 12, 2001 the U.S. Treasury Department identified Naseef as being connected to Al-Qaeda, more than two years before Naseef left IMMA and Huma continued to serve.
Paging John Boehner, John McCain and all the rest of you spineless establishment Republicans.

Here is the Revised Report

This might just become the official theme song for this scandal.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Bachmann goes after Keith Ellison's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood

Patrick Poole at Pajamas Media reports on Michele Bachmann's decision not to back down in the face of attacks from her own party who object to her raising legitimate questions about Huma Abedin. Instead, Bachmann appears to have turned her sights on Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison and his connections to the Muslim Brotherhood through CAIR.

Rep. Keith Ellison Rewrites History on his Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR Ties.

As I wrote here, Ellison's decision to go on the Congressional record with his public letter to Bachmann that defended individuals like Suhail Khan, Mohamed Magid, Huma Abedin, and others may ultimately be a decision he will regret.

If his ties to the Brotherhood are exposed, his defense of those individuals only implicates him further.

Poole has much more evidence in his article but here is video of Ellison giving a videotaped address to a CAIR National fundraiser shortly after he won his election back in 2006:

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Was Aurora Theater a 'Gun-Free' Zone?

Gun control advocates are always quick to pounce when people are shot en masse at the hand of a deranged gunman. What these whack jobs don't see are the benefits of second amendment rights. In fact, if one was to use the logic of such whack jobs (not blaming the person responsible but some amendment or law), then we could technically blame the movie theater for not allowing patrons to be armed so they could defend themselves... if that were the case, right?

Via WND:
Gun advocates say the movie theater where a Colorado gunman opened fire Friday, killing 12 and wounded 58, has a strict policy against firearms on its premises – even for patrons with concealed handgun permits.

Cinemark Holdings Inc. owns 459 theaters and 5,181 screens in the U.S. and Latin America – including the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colo., scene of the mass shooting.

The company does not appear to post its firearms policy on its website. WND’s after-hours calls and emails to Cinemark had not been returned at the time of this report.

Dudley Brown, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, told ABC News the Aurora Century 16 movie theater’s policy prohibits firearm carry.

Since 2006, some pro-gun bloggers have complained about their own experiences with Cinemark gun policies.

On the Defensive Carry blog, one Alaskan moviegoer posting under the name “SubNine” claimed Cinemark managers asked him to put his firearm in his vehicle if he wanted to see a movie. According to his post, the managers showed him a cardboard sign near the ticket counter that said, “No firearms allowed.”
If the left wants to go down the road of someone other than John Holmes being responsible for killing 12 and wounding 58, it's sad but it's not without a sufficient retort.

If you gun control freaks want to blame the Second Amendment, you might want to start building your case in defense of Cinemark because those of us who believe in the Constitution are ready to get down in the mud with you if that's what we have to do. How many fewer people would Nidal Malik Hasan have murdered if firearms were allowed on base?

The argument that Cinemark has blood on its hands is about as sound as the argument that gun rights advocates have blood on theirs.

Just remember, you went there first.

Forty years ago, Archie Bunker was laughed at for making the case against Cinemark's alleged position:

Huma Abedin's IMMA Membership and John McCain's shameful speech

The Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) was led by Huma Abedin's parents, both of whom had the active support of Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef, according to Jorgen S. Nielsen, Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Copenhagen. We already know that Huma's mother is a leader with the Muslim Sisterhood and Huma's brother served as a Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS) with Naseef (Chairman) for at least five years (2004-2008) and probably more.

Yet, Senator John McCain said the following on the floor of the Senate just this week:
"The letter in the report offer not one instance of an action, a decision, or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State Department or as a member of then Senator Clinton's staff, that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti-American activities within our government."                     - Senator John McCain - July 18, 2012
Perhaps if Senator McCain were a bit more intellectually curious, he would seek to inquire about Huma Abedin's time and "public position" as an Assistant Editor with the IMMA as recently as 2008, alongside two of her family members, who have confirmed ties with Muslim Brotherhood entities and individuals.

Then again, he would apparently rather impugn Michele Bachmann's character.

Moreover, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) may want to re-think speaking out in defense of Abedin until they examine all the facts as well. After all, their legacies are at stake.

Video: Rep. Louie Gohmert smacks down Janet Napolitano

Rep. Louie Gohmert is one of the five signatories - including Michele Bachmann - to five letters to various Inspectors General about the stealth infiltration of the U.S. Government by Muslim Brotherhood agents. One of those June 13th letters was addressed to the IG for Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

In that letter, the name Mohamed Elibiary is identified as someone who used his security clearance to access classified information that he subsequently shopped to news reporters to be used against Texas Governor Rick Perry. This caught the attention of Gohmert last year and he is apparently still getting stonewalled by Napolitano and at this July 19th House Judiciary Committee hearing, it's clear he's had about enough of it.

A must-watch:

Here is Gohmert grilling Napolitano on the same subject last November:

Thursday, July 19, 2012

More Disgrace: Boehner sides with Huma's Al-Qaeda-connected family against Bachmann

The Republican establishment appears to be lining up with Huma Abedin against Michele Bachmann. Yesterday, it was John McCain and Bachmann's former campaign Chief Edward Rollins throwing her under the bus. Today, it's none other than Speaker John Boehner, who is coincidentally still trying in vain to find a spine over Operation Fast and Furious.

Via The Inquisitor:
House Speaker John Boehner has also rushed to the defense of Abedin, warning lawmakers against making serious reputation-tarnishing allegations without hard evidence to back them up, reports the Huffington Post. “From everything that I do know of [Abedin], she has a sterling character and I think accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous,” he said.
Senators Scott Brown (R-MA) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) have also decided to line up against Bachmann. These politicians are etching their names in a book that will disgrace their legacies, whether they know it or not.

**UPDATE** Here's the video of Boehner defending Huma and chiding Bachmann. Note that he doesn't even know how to pronounce Abedin's first name. That could be a clue that Boehner is clueless about the facts but maybe that's just me.

John McCain defending family connected to Al-Qaeda

Imagine a scenario in 1943 in which both parents and sibling of the closest adviser to the Secretary of State had extensive and direct relationships with the godfather of the Nazi Party. That is essentially what we have in 2012 if one equates Al-Qaeda / Muslim Brotherhood with Nazis, which is actually an extremely apt comparison.

Now imagine that a Representative in the U.S. Congress in 1943 sent a letter to the State Department demanding to know how someone with such familial connections to a declared enemy of the United States got the job. A Senator who once ran for President of the United States objects to the inquiry and goes to the Senate floor to denounce the Congressman for smearing the State Department employee as someone whose family is connected to Nazis.

Wouldn't this cause the American public to question the loyalty of such a Senator? That is exactly what should be done relative to Senator John McCain in 2012, after he defended the family of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's closest advisor - Huma Abedin - when he said the following about a letter sent from Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other Congressmen to the Inspector General of the State Department:
“The letter (from Bachmann and four other Congressmen) alleges that three members of Huma’s family are ‘connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations…’ These sinister accusations rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma’s family”.
Simply put, McCain is defending the family of Huma Abedin by asserting something that is demonstrably false. Huma's brother - Hassan Abedin - served on a board chaired by none other than Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef. Both of her parents founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) with Naseef's support. Huma's mother - Saleha Abedin - is a confirmed leader of the Muslim Sisterhood and is a close colleague of Najla Mahmoud, the wife of Egypt's new Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Mursi.

What conclusion are we left with other than one that says McCain is running interference for a family connected to America's enemies?

Why would he do this?

If one is able to accept the premise that Al-Qaeda and the Nazis share much in common - to include a desire to rule the world after ridding it of Jews - McCain is defending the indefensible and he is on dangerous, on-the-Senate-record, territory.

Once considered a war hero, John McCain is working toward a legacy that could overshadow that history.

In WWI, France had a war hero. He was a General named Philippe Pétain. In 1940, he was essentially brought out of retirement to help fight the Nazi army. Pétain became a Nazi collaborator, likely because he was successfully intimidated and / or subjugated.

Via BBC:
In May 1940, with France under attack from Germany, Pétain was appointed vice premier. In June he asked for an armistice, upon which he was appointed 'chief of state', enjoying almost absolute powers. The armistice gave the Germans control over the north and west of France, including Paris, but left the remainder as a separate regime under Pétain, with its capital at Vichy. Officially neutral, in practice the regime collaborated closely with Germany, and brought in its own anti-Semitic legislation.
This is the legacy that McCain will be working toward if he is not careful. Huma Abedin's family has an undisputed history of collaborating with an Al-Qaeda Godfather and McCain is saying that isn't true in order to protect the Deputy Chief of Staff for Hillary Clinton.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Disgrace: McCain rips Bachmann, defends Abedin family

He has defended the Libyan rebels, calling them his 'heroes'. He has called for the arming of the Syrian rebels. Now, he is coming to the defense of Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin while ripping Rep. Michele Bachmann for raising legitimate questions about Abedin's familial connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.

There is no evidence - other than a screen shot that shows Huma as an assistant editor of a group founded by her now deceased father - that Huma herself either is or embraces Muslim Brotherhood. Both of her parents - and her brother - are quite a different story.

The Institute on Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) - the group founded by her now-deceased father - had the quiet support of Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef, who was also General Secretary of the MWL, a group that supported Al-Qaeda. Huma's mother, Saleha Abedin, is a confirmed member of the Muslim Sisterhood. Those facts make this statement by McCain on the Senate floor demonstrably false:
“Huma Abedin represents what is best about America,” said McCain. “The daughter of immigrants who has risen to the highest levels of our government on the basis of her substantial personal merit and her abiding commitment to the American ideals that she embodies.”

“I am proud to know her,” McCain continued. “And I am proud – even with some personal presumption – to call her my friend.”
Abedin's parents were not immigrants; they were infiltrators with confirmed - and very close - connections to an Al-Qaeda leader.

Saleha Abedin, along with her late husband Syed Z. Abedin, were also founders of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a London organization that is known to have been close at one time to the Saudi Muslim World League.
John McCain is coming precariously close to a legacy similar to that of Henri-Philippe Petain, a French WWI hero who became a traitor in WWII when he conspired with the Nazis.

Yes, it's that serious. By ignoring the Brotherhood / Al-Qaeda connections of Huma's family, McCain is taking far too much on faith.

The connections of Huma's parents should have prevented her from passing a background check for the position she now holds. That's just a fact and McCain is egregiously wrong.

Via MediaIte:

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Romney brings up Fast and Furious; DNC Chair engages in Blatant Projection

The good news is that in this 7:13 clip from Mitt Romney's appearance on Fox and Friends, he brought up Obama's assertion of Executive Privilege with Fast and Furious in response to questions about the efforts of the president's campaign to paint Romney as "secretive" and less than transparent while implying that he may be a "felon." The bad news is that it doesn't come until the 6:40 mark and almost appears to strike Romney as an afterthought.

That said, Romney does deserve credit for bringing it up.

Here's the entire quote, via Breitbart:
“If we want to talk about transparency, the real issue is, why has this president used his presidential power and executive privilege to keep the information about the Fast and Furious program from being explained to the American people?” asked Governor Romney. “This is not some personal matter. This is the action of his administration.”
It's good to see Romney go here but he really should do it right out of the gate, especially after you see what Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said just a few hours later on MSNBC. In an election that is supposed to be all about contrasts, there isn't a starker one when it comes to releasing tax returns vs. releasing documents that could implicate high ranking administration officials in a mass murder scheme.

About four hours after Romney's appearance on Fox, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz actually doubled down on the Bain attacks so far, she actually teetered on the edge of an abyss, which could quite possibly mean there's little to no concern about Romney continuing down the Fast and Furious road.

From MSNBC, via WaPo, DWS engaged in the most palpable, smack-you-upside-the-head form of Projection that I just had to decode it. Romney should take Wasserman-Schultz's words, make the following changes and then issue a press release:
"All of these questions could be cleared up if he (Romney) [Obama] released multiple years of returns [the subpoenaed Fast and Furious documents] but obviously, there's something he's trying to hide. There's obviously something in those returns [documents Eric Holder was found in contempt for withholding] that he doesn't want the American people to see... Mitt Romney [Barack Obama] is obviously wanting to keep something under wraps and we're going to continue to hold him accountable for that... The little glimpse that we have gotten, from the one year he (Romney) [7600 of 140,000 pages of Fast and Furious documents Eric Holder] has released, he (Romney) [the Department of Justice] has a Swiss Bank Account lied to Congress... If it's not to avoid paying taxes in America [producing evidence that proves a coverup in a deadly operation approved at the highest levels of Justice], then the rest of the story - if he released those returns [subpoenaed documents] - would show us. He won't answer the questions. He's asking us just to take his word for it and, I'm sorry, you've got to come clean and show us when you're running for [you are the] President of the United States."
Here is the definition of projection:
Projection is a type of defense mechanism. In projection, a person experiences an emotion or thought that they aren't able to cope with. So, instead, they perceive the thought or feeling as if it had come from someone else. One example of this mechanism is the person who is angry at a friend, but does not feel comfortable with feelings of anger in himself. He may instead deny these feelings and imagine that his friend is the angry one.
Folks, I don't know who's advising Romney but if he's not bludgeoning the Obama campaign with this, he's not ready to be President.

Projection like this can usually only be found in psych wards.

The relevant portion begins at the 4:30 mark:

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

Monday, July 16, 2012

Why Mitt Romney desperately needs a Sarah Palin

Whether he does it or not - and he probably won't - the best thing Mitt Romney (M-I-double tizzle) can do when it comes to a running mate is follow the template the McCain campaign used in 2008. He might win by playing it safe but his odds of winning exponentially increase if he balances the ticket with someone who energizes the base, not someone who neutralizes it.

If someone tells you that Mitt Romney inspires them, they're lying. Honest people will say voting for Romney is all about defeating Obama. In that regard, it's the John McCain redux. The Republican Party establishment is convinced that it can ride anti-Obama sentiment - and little else - to the White House. Avoiding a fight with the media or the incumbent - save for a few jabs - is the inexplicably defensive strategy the establishment types at the RNC think is the best one.

Consequently, in a race where the Republican nominee should be up by ten or more percentage points, Romney is on defense in a neck and neck race. With the Democratic Party's proclivity for electoral hijinks, that's a recipe for failure.

The Republican primaries saw the Republican establishment do one thing much better than the Tea Party - pick one horse and ride it all the way to the nomination. The Tea Party picked several horses and diluted its votes (Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich). Had it been a two-man race between Romney and any one of those candidates, the former Massachusetts Governor would have been a landslide victim.

Flashback to 2008; John McCain was no more inspiring that Romney is today. Prior to selecting his running mate - Sarah Palin - the base was admittedly deflated. Once McCain selected the Alaska Governor, life was breathed back into that base. She then proceeded to steal the show at the Republican Convention. The media's collective mouth was agape as McCain / Palin actually pulled ahead of Obama / Biden. She had to be destroyed and McCain didn't let her fight.

It wasn't until the stock market crash in September - coupled with McCain's ill-fated and counterproductive plan to suspend his campaign and head back to Washington to create the optics that he was engaged in fixing the problem - that Obama pulled away for good. Yet, there is a delusional narrative afoot  among establishment types that Sarah Palin dragged John McCain down, that she prevented him from winning and that selecting her was a mistake.

The truth is that selecting Palin was the best thing McCain did. She prevented a shellacking and actually gave him a chance. She so electrified crowds that McCain never seemed to hit the stump without her. He knew better and would have been thoroughly embarrassed by the contrast in crowd numbers and energy.

In fact, had Palin been allowed to be the attack dog Vice Presidents are supposed to be, McCain may have pulled it out. Instead, Palin was told to avoid Obama's achilles heel - Jeremiah Wright. It wasn't until late in the contest that she was permitted to go after Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers. It proved too little, too late.

Obama's achilles heel in 2012 appears to be operation Fast and Furious. Yet, Mitt Romney's avoidance of it is palpable; it's the elephant in the foyer.

The Romney campaign is faced with two choices based on two realities - reality as it is and reality as his campaign wants it to be. A paradigm that says Palin prevented McCain from winning is delusional because the exact opposite is true; she almost dragged him across the finish line. The base didn't want McCain in 2008 and it doesn't want Romney in 2012, which is exactly why "M-I-double tizzle" should pick someone who would do for him this year what Palin did for McCain in 2008 - make people want to buy a Mitt Romney bumper sticker.

The very first test would involve an answer to the following question:
Who could Romney select that would unhinge the mainstream media and drive it out of its collective skull?
The ensuing list would be a good place to start. People like Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, and Condoleezza Rice wouldn't be on it.

People like Rep. Allen West (R-FL), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker would be.

If Romney selects a 'Mini-Mitt (double, double tizzle), the establishment's paradigm would be torpedoed with a loss to Obama. Unfortunately, so might the nation.

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Video: SchmoYOHO Songifies Mitt Romney

The M-I-Double Tizzle likes lakes.

Bachmann fires off 16-Page letter to Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison

It looks like Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) may rue the day he decided to respond with a written letter to five congressman who have legitimate concerns about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration. In response to a 2-page letter from Ellison that accused Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) of only using one source to express concerns to five Inspectors General (State, Justice, DoD, DNI, and DHS) about the possible influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. Government, Bachmann sent Ellison a 16-page Bombshell.

Via SC Times:
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann is asking how a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got security clearance given what Bachmann describes as the aide’s family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood movement.

Bachmann also says an investigation of “potential Muslim Brotherhood infiltration” of President Barack Obama’s administration is needed because of interactions between federal agencies and what she calls U.S. front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Islamist group that recently came to power in Egypt.

The comments come in Bachmann’s new response to U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison’s call for Bachmann to back up the information on which she based a request for federal investigations into whether the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the U.S. government.
In his July 12th letter, Ellison attempts to assert that the charges / claims made by Bachmann and four other Congressmen are based solely on one source - Frank Gaffney. Ellison attempted to smear Gaffney in the letter before ending the 2-page letter thusly:
Despite Mr. Gaffney’s record of unsubstantiated allegations, you appear to have based your letters to the Inspectors General on his views. 
I request that you provide my office a full accounting of the sources you used to make the serious allegations against the individuals and organizations in your letters. If there is not credible, substantial evidence for your allegations, I sincerely hope that you will publically (sic) clear their names.
In her 16-page retort, Bachmann refutes the notion that she only has one source and includes 59 new footnotes. Bachmann writes:
I do note that the facts we presented in the Inspector General request letters are based on information presented by U.S. Government officials in court documents, court evidence, correspondence and briefings with Congress and public statements, in addition to known media reporting. These letters were far from sole-sourced as you maintain in your letter.

While I can't speak on behalf of the other signatories of these letters, nor am I able to get into the private discussions and documentation received by the various House committees represented by the signatories on these matters that motivated these letters to the various Inspectors General, out of respect to you I am happy to respond to some of your concerns, provide the sources you ask for, as well as clarify a few points that may have been misunderstood or misrepresented.
Of all the areas of concern in the letters to the various OIG's, the subject of Hillary Clinton's closest aide - Huma Abedin - having familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood may have struck the biggest nerve with Ellison. One of the sources Bachmann cites in her letter to Ellison is Jorgen S. Nielsen of the BYU Law Review:
Professor Syed Z. Abedin (Huma's father) took a different approach in dealing with the contemporary challenged to the traditional Islamic views. Trained in social science and being of Indian origin, Professor Abedin was the founder of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, an institution that had the quiet but active support of the then General Secretary of the Muslim World League, Dr. Umar Abdallah Nasif.
Incidentally, Nasif (Nasseef) is widely regarded as a Godfather of al-Qaeda. Bachmann continues:
For us to raise issues about a highly-based U.S. Government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organization is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin. In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. Government of anyone seeking a security clearance.
Something tells me that this is far from over but Ellison has put himself in a bit of a box by penning a letter that puts him on the Congressional record as essentially, defending enemies of the United States (Hamas / Muslim Brotherhood).

For more about Ellison's letter, click here.

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Keith Ellison sends reply to Bachmann; uses Republicans to make argument

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to U.S. Congress, has taken great offense at a series of letters sent to the Inspectors General of various Departments and Agencies demanding answers about Muslim Brotherhood influence in the halls of U.S. power.

Ellison has now sent a letter of his own to Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Thomas Rooney (R-FL), and Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA). The letter demands that Bachmann and her fellow congressmen reveal their sources and the evidence of their claims. One of those claims is that Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, has familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

You can read more about the case against Huma Abedin and Hillary here but it's also important to focus on the strategy Ellison is employing in his attack against Bachmann; he cites Republican Party officials who have been identified as being problematic in the fight against Islamic fundamentalism.

Ellison's letter, via Think Progress, states:
As evidence for these allegations, you reference, a Web site created by Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy (CSP).

Mr. Gaffney has a long history of making unsubstantiated anti-Muslim allegations, including:

• Accusing then-ISAF Commander General David Petraeus of “submission” to Islamic law because he condemned Florida pastor Terry Jones’ burning of a Quran;

• Accusing presidential candidate Herman Cain after meeting with ISNA of meeting with “the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in the United States” (language that appears verbatim in your letters);

• Accusing New Jersey Governor Chris Christie of “corruption” and “treason” for appointing a Muslim lawyer to be a judge;

• Accusing anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist of “enabling and empowering Muslim Brotherhood influence operations against our movement and our country”;

• Accusing former Bush Administration official Suhail Khan of conducting a “Muslim Brotherhood Influence Operation” against the American Conservative Union (ACU), the host of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), and

• Accusing Republican Virginia House of Delegates member David Ramadan of waging “stealth jihad” by seeking elected office.
The sad truth is that Ellison is right about Gaffney's claims, which is an indictment of the people whom Gaffney identifies. Starting at the beginning... In a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document penned by Mohamed Akram, The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood organization.

That document said, in part:
The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.
Ok, so instead of Ellison pointing to Herman Cain's visit with the head of the ISNA - Mohamed Magid - in 2011 as a refutation of Bachmann's concerns, Americans should be questioning Cain's decision to do so.

Of course, let's not forget Chris Christie's bombastic response to a legitimate question about why he appointed a Muslim with questionable ties to a county judgeship. His defense of Sohail Mohammed is definitely suspect.

Then, of course, there is the Grover Norquist / Suhail Khan dynamic. Here is video courtesy of Jay Mark Campbell from CPAC 2011. Note the absurd claim by Khan, whose father was an early founder of both ISNA and another Muslim Brotherhood group - the Muslim Students Association (MSA), that there is "no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States." Take note at the 2:45 mark, where Khan doesn't just lie but he pretends that the lifework of his father doesn't exist.

Isn't that a bit disrespectful?

Khan and Grover Norquist go way back. Conservatives who tend to blindly support the Republican Party as the best of two options should be extremely wary. In much the same way that the Democratic Party was infiltrated, there are forces at work that seek to do the same with the Republican Party, whether wittingly or unwittingly. By using the argument that he does, Ellison seems to be banking on those who blindly support the Republican Party.

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