Video: Did Barack Obama give Chuck Todd the Finger?

At a joint press conference in Jerusalem, Chuck Todd was playfully cajoled by Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after attempting to ask too many questions, one of which involved asking Obama why he "failed" to achieve Middle East peace. After the laughter died down, Todd asked Netanyahu why Obama hasn't been accepted by the Israelis as much as America's last two presidents (Bush and Clinton). Obama obviously didn't like that question and as he laughed while accusing Todd of being "incorrigible", Obama seemed to give Todd the middle finger.

Judge for yourself.

Via Weekly Standard:

Good News: Rand Paul rankling his father's Supporters

This is really a sight to behold - on so many levels. For starters, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is rightfully opposing the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Barack Obama's next Secretary of Defense. The more time that goes by, the more obvious it becomes that Hagel is anti-Israel at best and anti-Semitic at worst. Something else that is becoming more apparent is that the more we learn about Hagel, the more we seem to confirm about the Ron Paul crowd.

When you even hint that the Pauliens oppose Israel, they do what so many on the left do - they twist themselves into knots by making some obscure argument that we should allow Israel to protect itself because that is in Israel's best interest. The thinking apparently goes that isolationism is good for everyone, including a small tract of land at the center of multiple countries who have an unfathomable hate for everyone on that tract of land.

Consider the 2011 statement by Eric Dondero, a former senior aid for Ron Paul. He made it quite clear during the last presidential campaign that Rand's father was anti-Israel.

Via Right Side News:

Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.

He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

The Pauliens know that agreeing with this outwardly is a loser, so they dismiss Dondero's claims while denouncing Rand's opposition to Hagel, despite the latter apparently lining up almost exactly with the Ron Paul that Dondero describes.

That leads to the Pauliens' problem with Rand, via the Daily Caller:

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s vote to temporarily block Chuck Hagel’s nomination for secretary of defense elicited blowback from an unlikely source: antiwar conservatives and libertarians, many of them supporters of his father’s GOP presidential campaign.

Paul, the son of former Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul, joined all but four Republican senators Thursday in voting against a motion to end debate over Hagel’s nomination. GOP leaders are saying that they will not filibuster Hagel indefinitely, but instead want to delay a vote until they have more information about his speeches and finances.

“That is also why I voted to not end debate on the Hagel nomination,” Paul said in a statement. “I do not believe Sen. Hagel has adequately explained his activities and their financing since he left the Senate, and I believe this criteria is especially important when dealing with the revolving door between government and the private sector.”

That explanation wasn’t good enough for Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com and a strong supporter of Ron Paul. “It’s time for libertarians to treat Rand Paul like the turncoat he is: boycott,” Raimondo tweeted. “No $$, no support, and start calling him Paul the Lesser.”

It appears the longer Hagel is scrutinized, the more the Pauliens show their true, anti-Israel colors as well.

How is CNN different from makers of anti-Muhammad video?

On September 11, 2012 attacks on U.S. embassies took place all across the Middle East, most notably in Cairo. Attackers blamed an anti-Muhammad video called Innocence of Muslims. Magically, those who laid siege were not responsible for their own actions. There was evidence of foul play in the video's production as well. In post-production editing, the words Muslims found most incendiary appeared to be dubbed in; the actors said they were duped.

We have now learned that CNN is responsible for putting forth egregious propaganda... on video. It is the kind of propaganda that, in the past, has been blamed for - you guessed it - violence in the Middle East. Like in the year 2000, it involves the exploitation of a young Palestinian boy.

In 2000, a Palestinian cameraman who was a stringer for France 2 shot what he claimed was news footage (rushes) at Netzarim Junction in the Gaza Strip. When Talal Abu Rahman sent the rushes to Charles Enderlin at France 2, he claimed to have footage of the now infamous shooting death of a young Palestinian boy named Muhamad al-Dura at the hands of Israeli forces. This news report was pointed to as being responsible for the second intifada; mass riots ensued.

Osama bin Laden pointed to the death of al-Dura as a motivating factor in the 9/11 attacks; Daniel Pearl's murderers blamed the al-Dura shooting for Pearl's murder; and two weeks after al-Dura was allegedly gunned down by Israelis, two Israeli soldiers were literally torn to pieces by an angry Palestinian mob in Ramallah.

There was one problem. The world was set on fire over a lie. The rushes captured nothing more than manufactured scenes that were passed off as news.

Boston University professor Richard Landes had a chance encounter with Enderlin in 2003 when the latter thought he had an ally in Landes after the professor was introduced to Enderlin by the Israeli ambassador to France. Upon visiting the France 2 studios, Landes was exposed to staged scene after staged scene. In 2006, he produced the first of three documentaries that would reveal the truth about a conspiratorial culture he identified as "Pallywood".

Fast forward to 2012. As Israel bears down on Gaza after having to endure rocket attack after rocket attack, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Egypt's Prime Minister Hisham Kandil attempted to capture some of the al-Dura / Pallywood glory while Kandil was visiting Gaza. Photos of the two men holding and kissing a dead Palestinian child appeared to lay the foundation for the narrative that Israel's attacks on Gaza was responsible.

It wasn't. The child was killed by Hamas, the same group led by Haniyeh, who was all too willing to exploit the young boy over a lie. In hindsight, perhaps the propagandists wish they hadn't included Kandil in the photos; there were no Israeli rockets fired into Gaza while he was there.

CNN's Sara Sidner, in much the same way that Charles Enderlin did in 2000, produced a news report that echoed the narrative of Hamas, saying that the boy's death was the result of Israeli rocket fire. You can watch that report here.

This report from Sidner is an outright lie, Pallywood style:



That is not the only example either. Earlier, the BBC had captured video of a large man, allegedly injured, being carried away by several Palestinians. Moments later, the man was walking around as if nothing happened. During a CNN report anchored by Anderson Cooper, the footage of the man being carried away, as if injured, was used to portray Palestinian suffering at the hands of Israelis.

In a word - fraudulent.

CNN is now officially complicit in Pallywood. If, as many on the left believe, a video can spawn outrage in the Middle East, then CNN is using fraudulent footage of a boy's death that could lead to the same outcome.

Can someone please explain how CNN, Anderson Cooper, and Sara Sidner are any different from the makers of Innocence of Muslims?

If you haven't seen the 2006 Pallywood documentary, please have a look:

Pallywood is back... in Gaza

The term "Pallywood" was coined by Boston University professor Richard Landes, who by an encounter that resulted from sheer happenstance, was exposed to raw video footage (rushes) shot by a stringer for France 2 in the Gaza Strip in 2000. What Landes uncovered was jaw-dropping. He was exposed to a tactic of war used by Palestinians and captured a glimpse, via those rushes, of what goes on behind enemy lines.

In essence, Palestinians were caught staging scenes for the cameraman, who then proceeded to send the footage to France 2, who would use those scenes in a news report that ultimately favored the actors and made the Israelis look bad. What Landes subsequently discovered what that this phenomenon was actually part of the Palestinian culture. It is gross journalistic malfeasance and he blew the lid off of it with his 2006 Documentary, Pallywood: ...According to Palestinian Sources.

Now, fast forward to today. As Israelis seem to have reached their breaking point again, killing Hamas Military commander Ahmed al-Jabari. Pallywood is now back. Watch this short video, shot by the BBC. In 30 seconds, you will understand fully what Pallywood really is. This is not an isolated incident but a stratagem of war.



Unsung Davids consists of an entire chapter on Richard Landes, along with his discovery of and fight with... Pallywood.

h/t Shoebat

***UPDATE*** Warner Todd Houston over at Breitbart has noticed that CNN is using the footage from Pallywood above, in its newscast (Anderson Cooper in particular).

Video: Pamela Geller interview cut short when she discussed CAIR

I know this may be a day or so late but we had technical difficulties with the blog yesterday and thought this too important not to post (there is also a new development anyway).

People in the media business know the downsides and pitfalls of recorded interviews. They can be edited to distort or alter context or, in some cases, relevant material omitted altogether, which is what happened with an interview between CNN's Erin Burnett and Pamela Geller.

First of all, evidence of CNN running interference for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is not new. They were caught red-handed in 2011 collaborating with CAIR according to a man who was the target of a CNN smear levied by Anderson Cooper and Drew Griffin, a proven liar.

On the September 20th, the cable propaganda network aired an interview between Burnett and Geller that had been pre-recorded. The subject of the interview was a judge's ruling to allow Geller's anti-Jihad ads to be posted in the New York City subways. The full-length interview was somewhere between 12 - 14 minutes. However, CNN only aired the first nine minutes of the interview. One might be inclined to say it was for the sake of time and that a programming decision was made to allow for the airing of other content.

That might seem legitimate to some but it was indeed interesting that the interview that aired was cut off at precisely the time when Geller referred to CAIR and the group's involvement in the Holy Land Foundation trial - CAIR's biggest soft spot. The other red flag is the degree to which Burnett is willing to take the opposing view. There is a clear line between playing devil's advocate and being in the tank. Burnett crossed it in this interview.

Geller posted a YouTube on 9/21 that included the entire interview. After the point when CNN cut off what aired live, you only hear the audio, which was recorded by a separate source.

Via Atlas Shrugs:



Later on the 21st, as Geller points out, CNN did post the entire interview.

Video Proof: Half of Democrats Godless and anti-Israel

It's more than safe to say that well more than one-third of Democratic Party delegates are both godless and reject Jerusalem as being the capital of Israel. The video below will clearly demonstrate that.

First, this all started when it was learned that the Democrats took out of the Party platform any reference to 'God' or to 'Jerusalem' being the capital of Israel. This caused such a backlash that Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa ultimately presided over a voice vote on two amendments introduced by former Ohio Democrat Governor, Ted Strickland, to have those two words placed back into the platform.

For Strickland's motions to be passed a two-thirds 'Aye' voice vote from the floor was required. As you will clearly see, Democratic leadership had an agenda to put those two words back into the platform for only one possible reason - political expediency. Two-thirds should be quite easy to discern for Mayor Villaraigosa. Yet, he had such a difficult time doing so that he called for three voice votes before coming to the conclusion that the 'ayes' had it.

The very fact that Villaraigosa had to do so should have given it to the 'no's'. It was as if he was trying to discern a 50/50 vote.

As you will both see and hear, the notion that two-thirds of the delegates wanted 'God' and 'Jerusalem' back in the platform is absurd. It's obvious that at least half did not, which, once again reinforces the views of most conservatives; it's the Democratic Party that is the party of godlessness and is anti-Israel. One very plausible reason for the anti-Israel sentiment could include a rise in the number of Muslim delegates at the Democratic National Convention. Newsmax reports that the number has climbed to 100 in 2012 from 43 in 2008.

Via C-Span:



DNC Chairman and the Democratic Party's most blatant and perpetual liar - Debbie Wasserman-Schultz - essentially proved that the removal of Jerusalem from the platform in the first place was not a technical oversight. Why? Well, because she said that it was. Some people lie so often that it's a much safer bet to believe the opposite of what they say. Wasserman-Schultz is such an individual.

Note also what Wasserman-Schultz says about Obama himself believing that Jerusalem "is and always will be the capital of Israel". If that's true, Debbie, then why did at least two people who are essentially mouthpieces for the Obama administration - Secretary of State spokesman Victoria Nuland and White House press secretary Jay Carney - intentionally avoid identifying Jerusalem as Israel's capital?

Here is Nuland in May of this year:



Here is Carney in July of this year:



If Obama's position is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, why did both of those individuals refuse to express that view?

That brings us back to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz being a liar.

Did I mention it's best to believe the opposite of everything she says?

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.

Obama position on Honduras in 2009 and on Egypt 2012 quite similar

Barack Obama wants the virulently anti-Semitic and very dangerous Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Egypt. In 2009, he wanted Manuel Zelaya, a Hugo Chavez stooge, to be reinstated as president of Honduras after Zelaya was constitutionally removed from office and replaced by a man named Roberto Micheletti. At one point, it was reported that Israel and the Mubarak- led Egypt were two of only four countries that supported Micheletti.

Today, Mubarak is gone, and two entities are fighting for power in Egypt - holdover forces from the Mubarak regime and the Muslim Brotherhood; Obama is openly siding with the Brotherhood.

Via Los Angeles Times:

U.S. officials said Monday that they were "deeply concerned" by an Egyptian military decree giving its ruling generals sweeping powers to pass laws and decide whether to go to war, issued just as Egyptians finished casting their votes for its new president.

“We have, and will continue, to urge the [Supreme Council of the Armed Forces] to relinquish power to civilian-elected authorities and to respect the universal rights of the Egyptian people and the rule of law,” Pentagon Press Secretary George Little told reporters.

And of course, let's not forget the quotes from the woman who refused to acknowledge that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel, State Department spokesman, Victoria Nuland:

"This is a critical moment in Egypt, and the world is watching closely," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was quoted as saying by the Associated Press on Monday. "We are particularly concerned by decisions that appear to prolong the military's hold on power."

Chavez is anti-Semitic; so was Manuel Zelaya. It was reported that Zelaya's Chief Propagandist endorsed Hitler and the Holocaust. At one point, while holed up in the Brazilian embassy, Zelaya had delusions of persecution about Jews poisoning him with radiation beams. That's the guy the Obama administration supported in 2009.

Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is frothing at the mouth to attack Israel. the Military, though not in love with Israel, is certainly more rational. It wants the Brotherhood on a leash. Clearly, Obama does not.

It was this same Los Angeles Times that refused to release a tape of Obama at a Party for another virulent anti-Semite - Rashid Khalidi - in 2008, before the election.

Khalidi worked for the media arm of Yasser Arafat's PLO and even dedicated his book to Arafat in 1982.

h/t FPM

Israeli Officials reject Obama's Stuxnet account

Back in 2010, when news surfaced that Iran's nuclear program had been targeted by the very crippling Stuxnet virus, the origin of Stuxnet remained a mystery, though the U.S. and Israel were primary suspects. Now, thanks to the Obama administration seemingly wanting to take credit for the cyber attack in a way similar to how it has milked the bin Laden raid for political advantage, much of that mystery is gone. At least some Israeli officials feel that it would be better that the truth be known than to let Obama use the virus as a political weapon on the eve of an election.

Via Israel Spy:

They (Israeli officials) said that it was Israeli intelligence that began, a few years earlier, a cyberspace campaign to damage and slow down Iran’s nuclear intentions. And only later they managed to convince the USA to consider a joint operation — which, at the time, was unheard of. Even friendly nations are hesitant to share their technological and intelligence resources against a common enemy. In our book, Spies Against Armageddon, we will reveal much more about the special strategic relations and cooperation between the CIA and the Mossad and the importance given by the Aman (military intelligence) to cyberspace warfare.

Yet my Israeli sources understand the sensitivity and the timing of the issue and are not going to be dragged into a battle over taking credit. “We know that it is the presidential election season,” one Israeli added, ”and don’t want to spoil the party for President Obama and his officials, who shared in a twisted and manipulated way some of the behind-the-scenes secrets of the success of cyberwar.”

Obama is getting sloppy and desperate. Unfortunately, national security is being sacrificed in the process.

h/t GWP

Video: CBN's Erik Stakelbeck gives College Students the spankings they didn't get as children

There's something ironically creepy about leftists taping their own mouths shut in the name of free speech but that's what they do; they're leftists. CBN's Erik Stakelbeck was speaking at the University of Portland and the pro-Palestinian crowd had their mouths taped shut with various messages on the tape. However, when they decided to walk out like a pack of lemmings, Stakelbeck's pleas for someone to debate him fell on deaf ears (perhaps stuffed with tape).

At the end of this first clip, one woman finally answers the cameraman after several attempts to get the protesters to respond. When asked why she wouldn't debate Stakelbeck, she said, "because we don't debate racists."

Children in adult bodies...

Via Fox Nation:



In Part 2, you will see the pro-Palestinian lemmings gather in their own echo chamber...

Video: Have Ron Pauliens become PSYOP Victims?

Ron Paul supporters are a very passionate bunch. They're all in for their guy. A large majority of them are 9/11 Truthers who believe the United States government is responsible for 9/11. When you point out to them that there are a lot of Muslims and communists who share that view, they dismiss it. When anti-Semitic musings were revealed to have been published in his newsletters, his supporters dismissed it. When Eric Dondero, formerly a very close aid to Ron Paul, wrote that the Republican presidential candidate is "most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general," his supporters dismissed it. When it was discovered that Ron Paul quoted Robert Pape on his website as someone whose foreign policy views he respects, his supporters dismissed the fact that Pape has close ties to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). When Ron Paul says it's our fault that the Muslim world hates us, his supporters nod in agreement.

The examples are endless but here is what could be the perfect case in point for why the Pauliens are unwitting dupes. His name is Yousef al Khattab. Formerly known as Joseph Cohen, Khattab converted to Islam from Judaism. He co-founded a website named Revolution Muslim with a man named Younus Abdullah Muhammed, formerly named Jesse Curtis Morton. Younus was recently convicted of using the Internet to solicit murder. Since that conviction, Yousef has reportedly toned down his rhetoric.

Here is a Fox News report from 2008. In it, Khattab expresses support for the beheading and murder of Daniel Pearl, saying that he was a spy and was rightly convicted and executed. Note something else. According to Fox News reporter Rick Levanthal, Khattab completely rejects the United States constitution and America's founders.



What does this have to do with Ron Paul? Well, in 2012, Yousef al Khattab is suddenly a libertarian who supports the constitution and passionately supports Ron Paul. Here is a video from Khattab's YouTube channel. Pay particularly close attention at the 2:45 mark where he says he's a libertarian and a Ron Paul supporter. Then, at the 5:10 mark, Khattab says he believes in less government and that everything should be done constitutionally. He reiterates his support for Ron Paul and calls Israel a "terrorist enemy."



I have increasingly come to the conclusion that Ron Paul supporters have essentially become the victims of Islamist PSYOP techniques. The secret to this technique is to appeal to the preconceived notions of your enemy while getting that enemy to support your main agenda, either through acquiescence or activism.

Via Sipsey Street, this excerpt is straight out of the U.S. Army Field Manual:

Deception (military or political) includes manipulating, distorting, withholding, or falsifying evidence available to an opponent. History has shown that it is far easier to deceive by reinforcing an opponent’s existing preconceptions than it is to persuade him to change his mind. PSYOP personnel should encourage the opponent that the most likely way of achieving the objective will in fact be adopted (thereby diverting his attention from an alternative plan). Given two options, one of which reinforces our existing point of view, people are more likely to believe what they already suspect. Psychologically, they are gratified by evidence that confirms their preconceptions. People generally attach undue importance to evidence supporting their point of view and reject that which does not. PSYOP personnel should avoid deception that requires persuading a target audience of something it is not already predisposed to believe. -- U.S. Army Field Manual FM 33-1-1, Psychological Operations Techniques and Procedures, Appendix A, "Deception Operations."

Ron Paul has increasingly become an apologist for Islam while appealing to the righteous position of adhering to the U.S. Constitution while calling for things like a smaller government with drastic cuts in spending, which are positions that actually resonate with clear-thinking individuals.

The vast majority of Paul's supporters think the Islamic threat to America is "overrated" and that's just the way the Islamists like it.

Big h/t to Jawa

Shoebat: Why Bashar Assad needs to stay in Power

Former PLO member and Muslim Brotherhood activist Walid Shoebat makes the case that despite the rising body count resulting from the Assad regime's crackdown in Syria, the best scenario is if Assad stays in power.

Via Shoebat:

More than 5,400 people have been killed in Syria since the uprising began in March. The number of dead in Homs alone is now over over 200 and climbing. The Assad regime says terrorists acting out a foreign conspiracy to destabilize the country are behind the uprising, not people seeking to transform the authoritarian regime. He’s right, it was Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood that claimed responsibility in December 2011 for two suicide bombings in Damascus that killed 44 people.

Yet, you have Israeli politicians like Moshe (Boge) Ya’alon telling Army Radio that the end of Assad’s regime could bring ‘relatively moderate’ Sunni elements into power, adding that he did not think radical Islam would take over the country if Syrian President Bashar Assad is ousted. Boge says that, “there could be different developments in such a situation, some of which could be positive as far as Israel is concerned, like a fissure in the Tehran-Damascus-Beirut-Hamas axis of evil… There’s a difference between Syria and Egypt,” says Ya’alon.

Syria is not a trophy for Iran exclusively; Turkey is waiting in the wings, ever ready to control the entire region. Turkey’s Prime Minister Tayyip Recep Erdogan has been urging Assad in Arabic, “Ya Bashar! Man dakka dukka.” In English, that means: “He who hammers will be hammered” or “what goes around comes around.” He reminded Bashar of what his father did when the Syrian army massacred 10,000 Sunnis in 1982; it will come back to hound him. Paradoxically and quite hypocritically, Erdogan neglects to confess the Armenian Genocide. 

It is no secret that Turkey has worked extensively with the Muslim Brotherhood and has set its sights on Syria. The Turkish Muslim Brotherhood Network, written last year by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, lays out an iron clad case for Turkey’s involvement in the Flotila and its collaboration with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Boge needs to study his region’s history. The Syrian regime’s arch-nemesis is the Muslim Brotherhood. Syria was the first nation after Egypt where the Ikhwan’s movement took root. It was the Arab nationalist Baath Party that banned the brotherhood and tightened state control over religious institutions to weaken its influence. Israel has two choices relative to Syria. It can support one side of the same two-sided tyrannical coin: Arab Nationalism or Islamist Utopianism. I opt for the first and Ya’alon opts for the second while affixing an oxi-moronic “moderate” label to his argument. This in not the first time that the Sunnis wanted to take control. Violent clashes between the Ikhwan and the regime ensued a short time after the Ba’athists came to power in April 1964 when violence erupted in Hamah, led by Marwan Hadid. In 1965, the events in Hamah ignited violence in Damascus as well. Subsequently, in April 1967, riots erupted among the Sunni population all over Syria, but the regime managed to suppress the violence. Law No. 49 stipulates the death penalty for membership in the Ikhwan. In February 1990 the establishment of an Islamist alliance, the “National Front for Saving Syria” (preceded by the “National Alliance for the Liberation of Syria”), ‘Ali Sadr al-Din al-Bayanuni’ declared that the main purpose of this body was to “topple the Syrian regime.”

Read it all.

Video: All American Muslim Imam Caught on tape Again

Remember this guy? When the controversy over Lowe's pulling its advertising from the TLC program, All American Muslim, we learned that they were justified in light of the fact that this Imam - Husham Alhusayni - has expressed support for Hezbollah and Iran. Now there is video of Alhusayni supporting terrorism and genocide.

Via Shoebat:

Video: Jimmy Carter Refusing to Relinquish 'Worst President Ever' Title

All this talk about Obama being worse than Carter appears to be offending Jimmy. In this news report from Al-Jazeera, Carter all but endorses a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt. In fact, he's going to help certify the elections. Check out how Carter has the gall to say that the peace treaty he brokered between Egyptian president Anwar Sadat and Menachim Begin has been honored over the years while the rights of the Palestinians have been ignored.

Lost on Carter is the fact that Sadat was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood for signing the deal in the first place.



Here is an older report on Sadat's assassination:



h/t Verum Serum

Video: Chant at Egyptian Soccer Game - 'One Nation for a New Holocaust'

This video was apparently shot in April of 2011, not long after the removal of Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak. The chant is translated in English to mean, 'One Nation for a New Holocaust.' Interestingly, the banner itself is in English, which would seem to indicate that it was intended to be seen by western eyes.

Amazingly, the left wing media remains silent and not the least bit remorseful for what it has been instrumental in unleashing. Western media, along with every individual who went along with its agenda, to champion the 'Arab Spring,' has blood on its hands.

From MEMRI via Bare Naked Islam:

Alan Dershowitz Targets Ron Paul in Piece about Anti-Semitism going Mainstream Again

Alan Dershowitz has an interesting piece about why anti-Semitism is becoming more mainstream these days. He doesn't let Ron Paul off the hook.

Via Stonegate Institute:

For the first time since the end of World War II, classic anti-Semitic tropes—"the Jews" control the world and are to blame for everything that goes wrong, including the financial crisis; "The Jews killed Christian children in order to use the blood to bake Matzo; the Holocaust never happened—are becoming acceptable and legitimate subjects for academic and political discussion. To understand why these absurd and reprehensible views, once reserved for the racist fringes of academia and politics, are now moving closer to the mainstream, consider the attitudes of two men, one an academic, the other a politician, toward those who express or endorse such bigotry. The academic is Professor Brian Leiter. The politician is Ron Paul.

Later in the piece, Dershowitz expounds on his problem with Ron Paul:

Paul has, according to The New York Times, refused to "disavow" the "support" of "white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy." (These "anti-Zionists" believe that "Zionists"—Jews—control the world, were responsible for the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building, and caused the economic downturn, because "most of the leaders involved in the federal and international banking system are Jews.") He allowed his "Ron Paul survival report" to espouse David Duke type racism and anti-Semitism for years during the 1990s, claiming he was unaware that they were being promoted under his name. Edward H. Crane, the founder of the libertarian CATO Institute, has said, "I wish Ron would condemn those fringe things that float around" his campaign, but he refuses to reject the support of these anti-Semites who form a significant part of his base. The New York Times has criticized Paul for his failure to "convincingly repudiate racist remarks that were published under his name for years—or the enthusiastic support he is getting from racist groups," including those that espouse "anti-Semitism and far right paranoia."

Even now, Paul continues to accept contributions from Holocaust deniers, from those who blame the Jews for everything and from other bigots, thus lending some degree of legitimacy to their hateful views.

When Nazi anti-Semitism began to achieve mainstream legitimacy in Germany and Austria in the 1930's, it was not because Hitler, Goebbels and Goering were espousing it. Their repulsive views had been known for years. It was because non Nazis—especially prominent academics, politicians and artists—were refusing to condemn anti-Semitism and those who espoused it.

It has been said that "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Leiter and Paul may or may not be good men, but they are guilty of more than merely doing nothing. They are, by their actions, helping to legitimate the oldest of bigotries. Shame on them!

Paul's camp has been quite bold when it comes to running negative ads that target his Republican opponents. Huntsman, Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum can all attest to it.

If Paul continues to up the ante with negative ad campaigns (the ad against Huntsman was particularly egregious), he might start seeing ads from his opponents that focus on the support he gets from anti-Semitic individuals and groups.

Read it all.

Video: Palin says Ron Paul is 'Pro-Israel'

Is this Sarah Palin, the populist, defending Ron Paul as someone who is 'pro-Israel' but wants to protect them in a 'different way.' Palin portrays herself as a strong advocate for Israel, which makes this statement on her part all the more disturbing. It sounds like she doesn't believe the claims of former Paul aide, Eric Dondero, or the scores of corroborating videos / writings that show Paul as being anti-Israel.

Not sure what Palin is thinking here but this could cause her to drop a few pegs with the Tea Party base.

Via Breitbart:

Video: Far Leftist Joe Klein Agrees with Ron Paul

Add TIME's Joe Klein to the list of left-wing whack jobs who sit firmly in the Ron Paul camp when it comes to foreign policy.

Klein, who is completely willing to ignore Iran's holocaust denial and threats to wipe Israel off the map, argues that Iran only wants nuclear weapons so it can deter Israel and Pakistan.

If anyone has been consistently wrong about the Middle East, it's the left. Here's the latest example.

Via NewsBusters:

Report: Ron Paul said he would not have Intervened to end Holocaust

On the heels of the statement from former Ron Paul aide, Eric Dondero, that Ron Paul is anti-Israel, this alleged first-hand account of similar sentiment being expressed from Paul seems to bolster the charge.

Via Jeffrey Scott Shapiro at Big Government:

On the evening of Sept. 16, 2009, I was invited to a function for Rand Paul’s U.S. Senate campaign at the headquarters of Americans for Tax Reform. 

I had been invited by a friend of mine via Facebook who was a passionate supporter of Ron Paul. Within minutes of arriving, I saw Rep. Paul enter the room, followed by an entourage of several college students. 

I immediately walked up to Paul and introduced myself, and Paul smiled at me and shook my hand. I told him that I had always wanted to ask him a question, and that it was a hypothetical question, but I would appreciate his answer nonetheless. Paul smiled, and welcomed the question. At this point there were about 15 people surrounding us, listening. 

And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews? 

And the Congressman answered: 

“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”

Shapiro even writes that he contacted Dondero to see if the accounts of each men were consistent. Here is what Shapiro reports Dondero said in response:

“He told me numerous times it was not worth it to intervene to save the Jews in World War II,” Dondero said. “I don’t think that’s because he’s an antisemite. It’s because he’s an extreme isolationist and he’s trying to be 100% principled–he doesn’t think there’s any reason to intervene for human rights or any other reason anywhere on the planet.”

Beyond the fact that Israel is western civilization's eastern front against Islamic fascism, the spiritual element is at the core of passionate support for the nation on the part of Christians and Jews.

So, if Paul would have been in charge, Winston Churchill would have been on his own and the Nazis may have realized their goal.

Paul's warts are showing and they are growing.

Read it all.

Leader of Hamas Visits with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt

In light of Ron Paul's comments from 2009, in which he said 'Israel... started Hamas,' I found this bit of news a sufficiently salient retort to that insane point of view. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh recently sat down with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Via Jerusalem Post:

Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh received a warm welcome Monday when he arrived at the Muslim Brotherhood Headquarters in Cairo.

Haniyeh is on his first regional tour since 2007 that will take him to a number of Arab and Islamic countries.

Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Badei welcomed Haniyeh at a joint conference and said that his party was concerned with Palestinian issues.

"Your highness Mr. Prime Minister, our brothers, Ismail Haniyeh and his accompanying delegations -- you are welcome to our country; you are welcome to our headquarters," Badei said. "The general center of Muslim Brotherhood is paying attention all the time to the Palestinian issue as it pays attention to the issues of liberation all over the world."

Haniyeh responded with: "The Islamic resistance movement of Hamas, by definition is, a jihadist movement by the Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian on the surface, Islamic at its core and its goal is liberation."

An aide said Haniyeh's trip will also include stops in Tunisia, Bahrain and Turkey.

Before making his way to Egypt, Haniyeh gave a speech marking Hamas' 24th anniversary and said the long term goal of his group remains the elimination of Israel. Here is video from Haniyeh's speech via PMW:



A website known as Loon Watch, which has taken up the task of smearing those who warn about these sorts of things, had this to say about the fall of Hosni Mubarak back in February:

Is it any surprise that the Islamophobes are the most against this uprising. 

Hopefully now the Egyptians can reconstruct the system to be a free and Democratic nation.

Paging Loon Watch...

h/t GWP