The charge was first alleged earlier this week in an article by Ryan Lizza in the New Yorker. In essence, Lizza claims that gang of 8 Republicans in the Immigration debate (he names Rubio and McCain specifically) have lobbied Fox News hosts to garner support for the Immigration Reform (Amnesty) bill.
McCain said that he, Graham, Rubio, and others also have talked privately to top hosts at Fox, including Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Neil Cavuto, who are now relatively sympathetic to the Gang's proposed bill. Hannity voiced support for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, which he previously dismissed as "amnesty," on the day after the 2012 election.
On his June 20th program, O'Reilly came out in his Talking Points Memo, right out of the gate, claiming that such a charge was ridiculous. He mocked the notion that he has 'colluded' with anyone, referring to his show as a 'no collusion zone' while also making reference to an off-air call he had with... wait for it... Marco Rubio. He then came out in full support of the Gang of 8's bill before going to a soft-shoe interview with another 'Gang of 8' Republican - Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ).
When someone is busted doing something untoward or wrong, the response of an unrepentant suspect is almost universally similar; he or she smears either the accuser, the charge, or both as ludicrous. While this is not proof of wrongdoing, it is a trait of wrongdoers. People who are wrongfully charged, rightfully have similar reactions; this is what makes the response so effective.
Right after O'Reilly's powder puff interview with Flake, he had talk show host Laura Ingraham on to debate the issue further. O'Reilly had not one sound argument in response to Ingraham and came across as incoherent before ending the interview by telling Ingraham he disagrees with her "100 percent".
Interestingly, one of the biggest talking points to come out of the Gang of 8 and by extension - the Republican Party establishment - has been that immigration reform must be passed or the Party will destroy itself with Hispanics. You know who else has been making this argument?
Far left Democrats like Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who is also in the Gang of 8:
In an article by Michael D. Shear at the New York Times, he reports that the Obama administration itself is the driving force behind the Gang of 8. Again, the same fatally flawed argument was put forth:
Passage of immigration legislation is critical to Mr. Obama’s legacy but could also help Republicans repair their image with Hispanics — a rare confluence of political interests that has stoked optimism among supporters that it will pass the Senate in the next several weeks.
So, a primary reason why the Republicans need to pass the bill is to prevent the destruction of its own Party and this is the same argument put forth by the opposing Party?!
To recap, in response to reports that O'Reilly talked privately with Republican Gang of 8 members who allegedly lobbied him hard / colluded with him to support the immigration bill, the Fox News host does the following:
Admits to having at least one private phone conversation with Marco Rubio but attempts to dismiss it.
Follows that up by giving another Republican Gang of 8 member a platform on which both men publicly align with each other on the Gang of 8 bill.
Interviews Laura Ingraham shortly thereafter and defends another Republican Gang of 8 member - John McCain - without offering one coherent response to Ingraham's problems with the bill.
O'Reilly appears to be looking out more for the Gang of 8 than for the folks.
It would appear that Speaker John Boehner is feeling some heat directly from a Republican Senator in Lindsey Graham (R-SC) over getting to the bottom of the Benghazi attacks. During this interview, which took place last night, Graham said he would be meeting with House leaders "tomorrow" which is today. Can't wait to hear how that went.
Take note at the 3:00 mark. Shortly thereafter, Graham says:
"To my House colleagues, please, for God's sake step up your game when it comes to Benghazi."
I'd like to make a suggestion to Senator Graham. Pick of the phone and call Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee. I'm guessing Issa is sure to give you an earful about how Boehner did more harm than good when it came to helping with the Fast and Furious investigation.
If I had to sit and listen to Alan Colmes spin Democratic Party talking points every week, I'd have a similar type of meltdown here. The argument started with O'Reilly asking Colmes where Obama committed to cutting federal spending. The only thing Colmes could come up with was an empty promise Obama to cut medicare. When O'Reilly asked for specifics, Colmes couldn't deliver.
The only missed opportunity from O'Reilly was that Obamacare does the exact opposite with medicare. In fact, the Democrats double-counted to get the CBO to score the cost under $1 trillion.
Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren sat down with outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss - among other things - Egypt and Benghazi. Those expecting Greta to be a bit tougher on Clinton than was the stable of gelded Republican Senators and Congressmen last week were disappointed but there were some revealing moments.
Commentary after the video:
After exchanging niceties, Clinton refers to the post-Arab Spring in general - Egypt in particular - as a "period of adjustment" and that it's important "not to see these revolutions hijacked by extremists". What she didn't say was that countries like Egypt are adjusting to Sharia law and that the hijacking of those revolutions is a foregone conclusion and was predictable to so many with much less information than Clinton had at her disposal during the early stages of the Arab Spring.
Shortly thereafter, Greta brings up Morsi's 2010 comments, which included him saying the Jews were descendants of "apes and pigs", and that Egypt must "nurse its children on hatred of the Jews". A few hours before Greta's interview, reports came out that a close Morsi aid said the Holocaust never happened and that the Jews secretly moved to the U.S.
Hillary's response?
At the 1:58 mark, she says "We were quite concerned about those statements" and that "the Egyptian presidency has repudiated" the comments.
What more proof does one need that the Democratic Party has more contempt for Christians and conservatives than for the Muslim Brotherhood? Virtually the entire Barack Obama administration, for more than four years, has been engaged in class warfare that involves much more critical and relentless criticism of conservatives who haven't even come close to talking like Morsi.
At the 3:30 mark, when asked about Morsi personally, Hillary said:
"I think he has a lot of the right intentions".
Wait a minute. A leader of the Muslim Brotherhood who also happens to be the President of Egypt has pure intentions?! The intentions of the Brotherhood include the annihilation of Israel and establishing a global caliphate.
Shortly after the 4:00 mark, while mildly defending Morsi, said:
"It's not what somebody says. It's what they do."
You mean like saying Al-Qaeda has been decimated while actually fueling the group's resurgence by siding with the Muslim Brotherhood all over the Middle East?
At the 4:40 mark, the conversation shift's to Morsi's welcoming of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, who is responsible for mass genocide in his country. Clinton doesn't just excuse Morsi for doing so by saying such meetings take place all over the Middle East but check out this quote, delivered by her at about the 5:20 mark:
"He (Bashir) does need to be held accountable for what happened on his watch as President."
Interesting to hear such language coming from Clinton, which makes a nice segue to the question about Benghazi, which is asked shortly after the 12:00 mark. It was a two-part question and just as open-ended as many of the questions asked by Republican Senators and Congressmen at last week's hearings.
1.) Can Americans feel confident that security at embassies and consulates will be sufficient, moving forward?
2.) Should we go back to Benghazi?
Clinton's answer ultimately led to a sales pitch for more money to help keep these installations more secure. Again, like what happened at the Senate and House Committee hearings, that pitch went unanswered by Greta, despite earlier testimony from Charlene Lamb, a State Department bureaucrat, who testified that a lack of funds was not the reason for a lack of security in Benghazi.
In that hearing, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) asked Lamb if lack of security due to budget concerns. Her answer (at about the 1:45 mark) was "no sir":
Breitbart was not too happy with Van Susteren's failure to ask any follow-up questions of Hillary about Benghazi.
There are no better projection artists than communists and leftists. Why? Lying is a part of their fabric. It's like breathing. As such, they understand intimately everything they keep hidden; they understand motives; they understand intent; and they understand how badly it will go over if it is revealed. That is why it's so effective when they project those motives onto their opponents, who don't understand them and don't know how to refute them.
Those who do understand are rarely, if ever, ensnared.
Rush Limbaugh and Fox News just received a major badge of honor, courtesy of Barack Obama. Conversely, the likes of Republican establishment leaders - to include John Boehner - should feel driven into the arms of conservatives, in part, because of what Barack Obama told Franklin Foer in an interview.
“If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it,” he said. “I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.”
To illustrate the point further, check out this quote from Obama in the article:
“The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they're really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies,” the president said in an interview with The New Republic.
This perfectly demonstrates the projection dynamic of Communists. Republicans are in sharply gerrymandered districts? The implication here is that Democrats are not. The exact opposite is true. Republican Party leadership actually bought into this argument, which is why good, conservative Tea Party congressmen like Allen West and Joe Walsh were... wait for it... re-districted out by their own party. Did this assuage the Democrats? Not in the least. It provided them with more fuel for their communist fire.
In reality, it's the Democrats that are very comfortably entrenched in gerrymandered districts. How else does one explain Jesse Jackson, Jr. getting re-elected with well more than 60% of the vote AFTER he claimed he was a re-incarnated chariot driver?
The intellectually-vacant vote was gerrymandered into a Democrat's district but we're to believe that Republicans are gerrymandered?
Until Republican leaders like Boehner admit to themselves - and then publicly to others - what we're up against, Obama's strategy of 'divide and conquer' when it comes to the Republican Party will continue to be effective. To this point, establishment voices not only refuse to rebut socialists' lies but think appeasement will cause them to stop.
Boehner is certainly not too old to understand what communism is. He was 35 at the height of the cold war in 1984. This necessarily means that he understands the threat of the ideology. He should also know that it cannot be negotiated with. The second you compromise with a communist is the second you've lost a battle. The only problem he has at this point is admitting that communism is back and it's taken root in the government he serves in as Speaker. It's a difficult reality for him - or anyone - to face but it is reality nonetheless.
Instead of Boehner seeing Obama's comments as incentive to go back to the conservative base and try to bring them to the middle, it's time for him and other establishment guys to come to grips with the fact that while the base may not be as politically polished or savvy as the seasoned politicians, it has been right all along.
The fence cannot be ridden any longer. Compromising with Obama or moving to the center is what Obama wants, not because the base is too radical. It's what he wants because he knows it will destroy the Republican Party. Obama learned a great deal by watching the Republican base stay home in 2012. He's attempting to replicate that in 2014.
When then-Rep. Allen West said there were dozens of Communist Party members in Congress, he was scorned and mocked by... communist sympathizers - the left. He was berated by a media that's in the tank for the president, who spent years of his childhood learning from a member of the Communist Party USA and later sought out Marxists in college (his own words).
Establishment Republicans didn't come to West's defense, even though he was right. The Gateway Pundit website proved the communist / Democrat nexus when the names of 70 Congressmen were found to be registered members of the Democratic Socialists Caucus of America (DSA) in 2009. These are individuals who aspire to the Communist ideology. Their membership in such a caucus should not be dismissed, massaged, or interpreted differently. They cannot and should not be compromised with. When Obama or any other Democrat accuses conservatives of being extremists, it's projection. Communists know they themselves are extreme and they know how to enunciate that extremism when they're honest (usually, only among themselves).
There was only one member listed on the DSA Caucus who wasn't a Democrat - Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a registered socialist (at least he's one of 70 who were honest about something) and he caucuses with Democrats.
By the way, Jesse Jackson, Jr. was one of the 70 members listed with the DSA Caucus.
Communists know they can't enunciate the truth about themselves, even though they're exhausted from hiding it for so many years. They're like pressure cookers. The best way for them to let it out is to enunciate it perfectly... while applying its agenda to their opponents.
The debate du'juor is Gun Control. Obama wants it and the conservative base says no way. You know who else wants it?
To fully appreciate Geraldo Rivera's two appearances on Fox News (Fox & Friends and then the O'Reilly Factor) to discuss Benghazi-gate, consider three issues relative to the attack:
The lack of security for months leading up to the attack
The attack itself coupled with the Obama administration's failure to respond
The decision to point to the anti-Muhammad video for two weeks after the attack
Rivera has decided to side with the administration lock, stock, and barrel but he obviously believes that a vigorous defense of team Obama on issue number 2 is the best course. He obviously wants to talk about the other two issues as little as possible. When Eric Bolling brings up issue number 3, Geraldo shamefully doubles down on issue number 2 while also implying that Tyrone Woods' father is a liar but only because the father of the slain Navy SEAL has been misled by right-wing partisans (yes, that sounds like an insult to Charles Woods' intelligence).
Geraldo has no answers for issues number 1 and number 3 (this becomes blatantly obvious in his interview with O'Reilly, who made Rivera look like an unhinged adolescent who was growing increasingly frustrated with his inability to successfully argue with an adult).
That night, Geraldo appeared on the O'Reilly Factor to discuss Benghazi-gate in general and his exchange with Bolling in particular. To call what Geraldo did filibustering would make a seasoned politician blush. O'Reilly kept pushing Rivera to talk about issue number 1 but the Fox News liberal simply couldn't go there until about three minutes in and even then, he meandered around the issue and actually said he hates to agree with O'Reilly, which could explain why he refuses to lower the self-constructed firewall he's placed in front of the common sense region of his brain.
O'Reilly makes mincemeat of Geraldo here. Actually, Geraldo does it to himself and O'Reilly seems to enjoy watching him do it.
In this exchange between a very pale-looking David Axelrod, senior adviser to Barack Obama, and Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Axelrod is asked to respond to Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter's remarks that the Benghazi attack is such a big story is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Expectedly, Axelrod doubles down and charges that Romney has politicized the attack and points to an interview Ambassador Chris Stevens' father gave to Bloomberg in which the senior Stevens denounced the politicization of his son's murder.
Axelrod then implies that anyone who discusses the attack isn't honoring the wishes of Stevens' father by saying everyone should wait until the investigation into the attack is completed. Forget the fact that the administration, at minimum, has a conflict of interest when leading any such investigation because it's shaping up to be a major scandal. Simply leaving it in the hands of people who answer to the administration is not acceptable.
Wallace, who was visibly agitated at the insinuation, stops him and points out that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told five different Sunday talk shows on September 16th that the attack was in response to a video, which proved to be demonstrably false.
The 9/11/12 attacks on our embassy in Libya that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including our Ambassador, were coordinated and planned ahead of time. The narrative that the anti-Muhammad video was responsible is not just one that proponents of Sharia law wanted pushed after the fact. It is now obvious that it is a narrative the White House wanted to push as well. The Obama administration did so while knowing the narrative was false.
Why would it do so unless it agreed with the motivations of those Sharia law proponents, which include a usurpation of our first amendment rights?
Here is video of Catherine Herridge on Fox News explaining her find.
In an interview with Fox News Channel's Bret Baier at the Democratic National Convention, Senator Dick Durbin was asked to explain why all references to 'God' or 'Jerusalem' were removed from the 2012 Democratic platform. Instead of answering the question, Durbin accused Baier of having an agenda that involved concluding that the Democratic Party is 'Godless' and doesn't support Israel. If you ever want to see a case study in defensiveness, this is it.
Durbin knows his position is indefensible so he does what any despicable Democrat does; he attempts to impugn the questioner as having a political agenda. Aside from the fact that Baier is as an objective reporter as there is today, Durbin's performance here would make Nathan Thurm blush. In fact, Durbin appears to be sitting on a defective whoopi cushion (see Nathan Thurm vide at bottom).
One of the consequences of Karl Rove's over-the-top comment about the murder of U.S. Senate candidate in Missouri, Todd Akin, has been a closer examination of the entire Akin controversy. What we're learning is that Akin is more of a Tea Party candidate than perhaps most of us knew; his bonafides in that regard may just be the the burr under Rove's saddle. If so, it would also show that Bush's "brain" knows how to hold grudges, has a long memory, and is far less conservative than many realized.
Cliff Kincaid over at USA Survival has some interesting information about Akin's propensity for not yielding to political pressure when casting votes in the House. Kincaid quotes John Putnam, the state coordinator in Missouri for the Tea Party Patriots:
Putnam says the reason the Republican officials wanted him (Akin) out of the race had nothing to do with abortion. Rather, he said, Akin voted as a member of Congress against several Bush Administration big government proposals, has a record of opposing “the party establishment,” and figures to be a Tea Party senator in Washington, D.C. if he wins the Senate race against Democrat Claire McCaskill.
Putnam says he thinks the GOP establishment doesn’t want any more independent voices in the Senate Republican Caucus. “I look at the role of the Tea Party senators who have come along the last couple years. They have shifted the balance away from the more moderate Republican establishment. I have to wonder how afraid they are to elect more of these Tea Party types,” he said.
Akin, who represents Missouri’s 12th District and has been described as an “avid student of the U.S. Constitution,” voted against President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” bill to expand the federal role in education; against Bush’s extravagant expansion of Medicare through what is called Part D, or prescription drug coverage; and against Bush’s federal bailout of Wall Street after the economic collapse in September 2008.
Akin’s website describes him as “one of just 16 legislators who opposed the series of bailouts which rewarded irresponsible behavior with taxpayer dollars in 2008 and 2009.”
Moreover, it appears that a George Soros-funded Super-PAC is responsible for tracking Akin and starting the whole 'legitimate rape' / abortion flap in the first place. The Republican establishment then jumped on it and apparently decided to use this information to attempt to force Akin out of the race, not because of the abortion issue but because the Missouri congressman doesn't seem to compromise on matters the establishment deems important.
The controversy over Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin’s abortion comments was started by a George Soros-funded Democratic Party Super-PAC and the “bait” was taken by Republican Party officials who wanted him out of the race for other reasons, says John Putnam, Missouri state coordinator for the national Tea Party Patriots group.
The Super-PAC, American Bridge, was started by former conservative turned liberal and homosexual activist David Brock, who also runs the Soros-funded Media Matters group. American Bridge sends “trackers” to follow conservative and Republican candidates in the hope that the candidate makes some controversial statements that can be distorted or taken out of context and used for partisan political purposes.
In this case, Putnam says, Republicans are the ones who used the material against Akin disseminated by American Bridge. “The first few days after the Democrats put out this distorted [abortion] comment, it was the Republican hierarchy that really acted like sharks in the water, striking this fresh meat,” Putnam said.
Isn't it interesting how...
The establishment tells conservatives not to eat its own, to get behind establishment candidates like Mitt Romney, et. al. when they win the primary? Tea Party candidates are painted as extremists who are more interested in cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Yet, if this report is correct, it will have meant that the Republican Party establishment jumped on information provided by a 'tracker' paid by a Soros-funded Super-PAC to get a conservative Tea Party Senatorial candidate out of the race.
Can anyone see the Tea Party doing such a thing?
In fact, during the same fundraiser at which Rove made those despicable comments about Akin getting 'murdered', he encouraged the Party not to go hard after Obama so Republicans could woo independents. Ironically, Rove has no compunction about going hard after Akin by utilizing information provided by a George Soros-backed Super-PAC. Why is Rove not worried about wooing Tea Party voters?
It's the establishment - not the Tea Party - that is looking increasingly like the entity that prefers the whole loaf over the half loaf while wanting to have its cake and it eat too.
Meanwhile, the conservative media appears to have little interest in going after Rove while having no compunction about going hard after Akin.
Yes, that includes Sean Hannity. More irony is that when someone like Hannity sticks by Rove in instances like this, it reinforces the views of independents who think the talk show host is just a partisan hack. Again, such things drive independents away; they don't move them to the right.
As we demonstrated with The Abedin “Affairs” with Al Saud, there is a movement afoot in the West that seeks to transform Muslim minority lands into Muslim majority lands. And while the Right points fingers at the left on an array of issues, we need to seriously examine this movement’s spigot—Saudi Arabia and the Royal family.
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is a member of that family. He acquired 5.46% of Fox News Channel's parent Company - Newscorp. - in 2005. He is also its second largest shareholder. It was Fox News that provided a platform for perhaps the most stinging rebuke of Rep. Michele Bachmann's questions about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in general, and Huma Abedin's background in particular. Edward Rollins - Bachmann's former campaign chief - denounced Bachmann with a piece entitled, "Shame on you, Michele" while Fox provided no counter-balance to speak of.
The Fox News website also reported the rebukes of Bachmann by John McCain and Republican House Speaker John Boehner, yet Bachmann's position was all but ignored.
So much for “Fair and Balanced”.
Alwaleed has purchased significant influence at major U.S. Universities and has contributed to CAIR. How does this all work? Well, it was explained by Al-Walid himself. In an article that appeared on Accuracy in Media's website, Diana West quoted from an interview the Saudi Prince granted to Arab News:
“Arab countries can influence U.S. decision-making ‘if they unite through economic interests, not political,’ (Alwaleed) stressed. ‘We have to be logical and understand that the U.S. administration is subject to U.S. public opinion. We (Arabs) are not so active in this sphere (public opinion). And to bring the decision-maker on your side, you not only have to be active inside the U.S. Congress or the administration but also inside U.S. society.’”
Even the very liberal, Soros-backed Think Progress, reported on bin Talal's influence over the Fox News Channel. In 2005, during riots in France (and two months after bin Talal acquired 5.46% of Newscorp.), the banner being run on Fox said, “Muslim riots.” Think Progress quoted bin Talal as saying the following:
“I picked up the phone and called Murdoch… (and told him) these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty. Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.”
In 2001, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly interviewed Sami al-Arian and aggressively pursued al-Arian when the latter seemed to implicate himself as being involved in terror fundraising. Al-Arian was eventually convicted and O'Reilly's efforts played a key role. It would be O'Reilly's high water mark on such matters.
In an exchange with bin Talal in 2011, Fox News host Neil Cavuto made the pecking order quite obvious when he referred to the Saudi Prince as “Your Highness”.
Then, in May of 2012, conservative host Sean Hannity welcomed none other than Ground Zero mosque imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf to his program to... promote his book. To his credit, Hannity was not as deferential as Cavuto was with bin Talal but he did provide Rauf with the platform to market his book.
Why?
The Democratic Party is lost and it has gladly welcomed Islamists so why are there Islamists with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood registering with the Republican Party? Part of the answer is that the Republican establishment is allowing them in. It is the Tea Party, which predominantly understands the Islamic threat that rejects Brotherhood elements.
Let us look at some examples.
NEZAR HAMZE
CAIR's Executive Director for South Florida is a man named Nezar Hamze. As such, Hamze is furthering the cause of CAIR's leadership. The group's national Executive Director and co-founder is Nihad Awad, a man who has expressed support for Hamas; he denounced the convictions of Islamic fundamentalists found guilty of the 1993 WTC bombing and did so while expressing a belief that the Mossad was behind that bombing. Prior to that Awad was the Public Relations Director for a Hamas front group. Incidentally, Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel.
Another CAIR co-founder - Omar Ahmad - was actually quoted by the San Ramon Valley Herald on July 4, 1998 as saying something that should be considered antithetical to both political Parties in the United States:
“Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran…should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
If Hamze will not denounce the views of his group's leadership, he has no place in the Republican Party. Yet, Republican Party leadership will not denounce him.
MOIN "MOON" KHAN
When Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) made comments critical of CAIR and would not apologize, Moon Khan – a Muslim Republican who is a precinct committeeman and York Township board of trustees’ member – invited Walsh to his home for some 'dialogue' with some other members of the Muslim community. Walsh ultimately visited Khan's home and addressed more than 80 Muslims but did not apologize, though not for lack of trying on Khan's part.
SUHAIL KHAN
The son of Mahboob Khan, Suhail Khan, was born to a man who co-founded two Muslim Brotherhood groups in the United States – the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA). Despite this undeniable truth, while at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2011, Suhail said on camera that, “there is no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.” With that one sentence, Khan denied his father's work and obviously did so because he didn't want the truth about it revealed.
Besides founding two Muslim Brotherhood groups, Mahboob Khan was an anti-Semite who agreed with the primary goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in America – overthrow the United States from within. The elder Khan never hid his true colors. In fact, as Paul Sperry wrote in Front Page Magazine, his son Suhail pledged to carry on his “dear father's shining legacy”. Conversely, at CPAC, Suhail denied his father's work. Yet, of all the people the Republican Party goes out of its way to distance itself from, Suhail Khan gets a pass.
GROVER NORQUIST
Then we have Grover Norquist who is perhaps the most prominent Republican to avoid accountability for his Islamist ties. Norquist is founder of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a conservative group formed at the behest of Ronald Reagan in 1985. Then, something happened circa 1998. Norquist began to be influenced by two men who would later be convicted on charges related to terrorism – Abdurahman Alamoudi and Sami Al-Arian. According to Center for Security Policy's Frank Gaffney, Alamoudi's deputy – Khaled Saffuri – co-founded an organization called the Islamic Free Market Institute (IFMI), with Norquist. In 2005, Gaffney reported that he made it known to Norquist that the ATR founder was consorting with Muslim leaders who had unseemly ties. Gaffney wrote at the time:
The idea that Norquist was unaware that he was aiding and abetting Islamists became untenable after I, among others, made known to him that his outreach effort was reaching out not to peaceable, tolerant, pro-American Muslims... but to those who are none of the above – i.e., adherents to an Islamofascist ideology and/or their sympathizers, financiers and apologists.
Less than two months after the 9/11 attacks, in a an article published by the New Republic, writer Franklin Foer wrote about how Saffuri, Norquist's co-founder at the Islamic Free Market Institute, began ushering Islamic leaders into the White House shortly after George W. Bush's inauguration nearly one year earlier with the help of none other than Suhail Khan, an administration advisor at the time whose job was to help with Muslim outreach.
Moreover, as recently as 2009, Khan was listed as a Board member of both Norquist's IFMI as well as CPAC's American Conservative Union (ACU).
In 2011, when much of the backgrounds of Khan and Norquist were available for public consumption, it was reported that Gaffney was the one who had been banned from CPAC while Khan and Norquist proudly attended.
The Republican Party's silence over such an egregious, two-pronged affront was not just deafening; it was a damning indictment of itself.
GEERT WILDERS
Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders launched his anti-Islam Party known as the Freedom Party (PVV) and has seen tremendous success. Formerly a member of the right wing, yet liberal VVD Party, Wilders broke away because VVD supported welcoming Turkey into the European Union (EU). With the passage of time, Wilders is vindicated on a near daily basis in that regard.
American politicians can learn much from Wilders' path. VVD's support for Turkey's ascension to the EU is indicative of Islamic influence on the Party. When Wilders formed the PVV Party, he eliminated that possibility by identifying his Party as being “anti-Islam”. In 2010, The Week reported that Wilders would be launching his Party in both the USA and the UK.
IN CONCLUSION...
As long as agents of the Muslim Brotherhood are able to successfully portray anyone who opposes them as racist, Islamophobic, or intolerant, Brotherhood apparatchiks will continue to make strides in much the same way that Nezar Hamze, Moon Khan, Suhail Khan, Grover Norquist, and Alwaleed bin Talal have made strides.
Conservatives will one day be faced with a decision. When that day comes, they will have to decide if the Republican Party can be sufficiently held accountable for identifying groups and individuals sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood. If it cannot, the birth of an anti-Islam, Tea Party will be in order.
Many of those who call us racist are anti-Semites, which makes them racist projectionists.
Walid Shoebat is a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood and author of For God or For Tyranny
Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the book, Unsung Davids
Bill O'Reilly, once again, shows himself to be more interested in a public perception that he is above the fray than in taking a principled stand. First, he refers to Obama's granting amnesty to 2-3 million illegal aliens as "humane," spending no time on the fact that the president has circumvented Congress in an illegal and unconstitutional power grab to secure more votes (and put more illegals on Obamacare rolls - see Joe Wilson).
Then, he channels John McCain who, after Rep. Joe Wilson shouted, 'You Lie' at Obama in a 2009 during a Joint Session of Congress, demanded Wilson apologize. O'Reilly falls back on the same argument when talking about the exchange between Neil Munro and Obama in the rose garden, saying that regardless of what you think of the President, the office of the Presidency must be respected. That's a fair point but it's Obama who is disrespecting the office far more than Wilson or Munro.
At some point, doesn't Obama become responsible for these reactions? Lying to the country in 2008 about being a member of the socialist New Party should absolutely anger people. Perhaps Bill O'Reilly should crack open Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Use of those tactics by Obama is like breathing for most people. He knows that these overreaching actions will get reactions. Alinsky taught how to get your opponents to react to your advantage.
“The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.” -Saul Alinsky
Obama knows this and O'Reilly, who has taken the bait, does not.
This exchange between Michelle Malkin and Juan Williams came one day after Joe Scarborough, the man whose checks are signed by the propaganda arm of the Obama administration - MSNBC - lumped conservative bloggers into one big pot before ridiculing them for being ineffective and irrelevant. Translation? Those conservative bloggers are pretty darned effective and relevant.
Fast forward one day later. While discussing the White House national security leaks, Williams felt it necessary to identify himself as a 'real reporter' and 'not a blogger.' Naturally, Malkin to offense at this and then proceeded to thoroughly shred Williams for his condescension and for being - among other things - a 'snotty... liberal elite journalist'. The best part is that Williams proves her point with his condescending eye rolls in response.
The good news? A common theme is developing among the liberal media. The conservative bloggers are winning and people like Scarborough and Williams secretly know it. Whenever they ridicule bloggers, it's reflective of their inability to admit it publicly. The most egregious example is Fast and Furious. After 18 months, the truth about the scandal - as well as the truth about how the liberal media covered it up - is coming out.
This is an instant classic. Is it racist to enjoy watching a filipino, conservative, female, blogger rip a black, liberal 'real reporter' to shreds?
There are several reasons why high profile individuals do not speak the truth about something. It can be tactical or it can be for career preservation. Wikileaks all but proved it is rarely out of ignorance. Enter Sean Hannity. He has publicly stated his position that Islam is not the problem. Instead, it is "RADICAL" Islam.
Logan's Warning at Right Side News got into a twitter battle with the talk show host and made this patently apparent. Interestingly, it was Hannity who ultimately blocked LW because he apparently wasn't prepared to logically defend his position after LW quoted very specific verses.
Hannity ducked the verses, told me there are “different interpretations” and threatened to block me on Twitter.
I told him that is leftist talk, and asked him to show me just ONE version that does not call for the dominance over non-Muslims. Of course he did not respond.
He definitely did not like being challenged. But I was not going to bow to him because he is on TV. The truth is more important! The argument ended with Hannity ignoring all the facts I had sent him, and him stamping his feet as he stated he will NOT say Islam itself is the problem.
Then he blocked me.
Yes, Logan's Warning doesn't have the public profile that Hannity does so it's definitely more difficult for Hannity to take such a position. It was also difficult for Winston Churchill to take the position he did against the Nazis; he took it anyway - at great expense - until the time was right. Just because doing the right thing may be more difficult for Hannity than it is for LW doesn't make it any less right. Churchill stated very uncomfortable realities from a much higher public position than that held by Hannity.
We're rapidly approaching the point where everyone will have to choose sides. If you're not on the side of Islam, you will have to be on the side of Neville Chamberlain or Winston Churchill. Hannity has historically been very critical of Chamberlain. Considering his stance on Islam, Hannity may need to stop doing that if he is to avoid justified charges of hypocrisy.
Here is Hannity's recent interview with Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is promoting a book. If Hannity had Rauf on his show to expose the imam's true intentions, it would have been a good move. Instead, the talk show host only helped the radically deceptive imam sell more books while pushing his deceptive agenda.
Hannity has unfortunately staked his very Chamberlain-esque position.
It's really kinda sad. It's also tragically ironic because Hannity has said countless times that journalism died in 2008.
For a long time, I've wondered why Bob Beckel gets so much air time. He started off as a novelty that wore off very quickly but for some reason, those with decision-making ability decided to give him his own show on Fox.
Coming back from a break on Hannity's television show, Beckel thought he was arguing with talk show host Neal Boortz off the air and dropped an "F" bomb. When Hannity demanded that Beckel apologize, the liberal - in typical liberal fashion - became indignantly childish and refused.
The best part came a short time later, when Beckel was assured that he did indeed curse on live television. He apologized and then quickly blamed Hannity for not doing a better job of letting him know they were on the air.
**LANGUAGE WARNING**
There are several clips of this exchange out there but MediaIte has the best one because of its length. The entire exchange is worth watching.
That clip reveals the typical liberal mind. Beckel did wrong and blamed Hannity. If you want to know why no Democrats voted to throw Bill Clinton out of office after impeachment, Beckel's mindset explains it perfectly. It was the Republicans' fault for demanding accountability.
Rep. Darrell Issa appeared on Megyn Kelly's show today to discuss the new revelations about ATF's involvement in the murder of ICE Agent Jaime Zapata on February 15, 2011. Incidentally, eleven days before Zapata's death, the DOJ sent the infamous February 4th letter in which they denied gun walking ever took place. Almost one year later, Assistant Atty General Lanny Breuer, the head of the Criminal Division, admitted that letter was inaccurate.
Here's the interview between Kelly and Issa. Note that Issa refers back to the DOJ IG being in possession of 80,000 pages of documents while his committee has only 6,000 pages. He makes it clear that all the IG would have to do to honor the subpoena is to hit a button.
Founder of the George Soros-funded Media Matters, David Brock, was approached about recent reports that the strategy for his organization in 2012 included hiring private investigators to look into the private lives of Fox News employees. As someone who is supposed to be in the media business, one might think Brock would be willing to emphatically deny any such claims.
Look for this to get significant play over the next couple of days. It's not often (perhaps never) that a wealthy businessman is this frank about his dealings with national politicians but Las Vegas hotel magnate, Steve Wynn does just that and it is more than just a little chilling. The fact that Wynn is this frank is trumped only by his charges which, in turn, are made all the more disturbing by the fact that he's so forthright about delivering them.
Here, Wynn tells what looks like an increasingly shell-shocked Neil Cavuto that politicians know they're doing wrong but do it anyway. He makes reference to Harry Reid hanging up on him and then his Congresswoman telling him during the Obamacare debate that while she didn't agree with the legislation, she voted for it for fear of being 'punished' by Nancy Pelosi. Watch the entire 1:30 of video. If you're not awake before watching this, you should be afterward.
A relevant follow-up clip comes from none other than Obama himself, who said these words while in Las Vegas. In light of what you heard Wynn say about Pelosi's tactics, consider the implications of Obama's words here when he says he is going to act 'with or without Congress.' It is long past time for the legislative branch to stand up for itself against this president.
This could mean the end of Hank Williams, Jr.'s Monday Night Football career but he doesn't seem to care much. This is VERY strong language from a celebrity on national television. The burr that seems to be most firmly placed under his saddle is the golf game earlier this past summer when the John Boehner, Barack Obama, John Kasich, and Joe Biden foursome hit the links together. Couldn't agree more with Hank Jr. on that one. It was a bad call on Boehner's part and I said it at the time. That wasn't all, though. Hank expressed his displeasure by saying it'd have been like Hitler playing golf with Netanyahu. Shortly after that, he calls Obama and Biden 'the Enemy.' Hank needs to be careful here but if he's right, Obama needs to be impeached and removed from office via Senate trial asap.
Once Chris Wallace and Comedy Central's Jon Stewart get the niceties out of the way, this interview begins its trek into the absurd rather quickly when Stewart actually asserts that he doesn't believe the likes of the New York Times, Washington Post, and other mainstream media outlets do not have a liberal agenda. Yes, he said that. He excuses MSNBC by saying that it is attempting the Fox News Channel model for programming. In other words, MSNBC is 'attempting' to push a liberal agenda because Fox is making them do it.
It goes even further downhill after Stewart tells Wallace the latter is 'insane.' One note before watching. During the interview, Stewart cites unnamed 'polls' that show Fox News consistently has the most misinformed viewers. Unfortunately for Stewart, George Soros is behind at least one of those polls.
