21st Century Nuremberg Trial in Philadelphia

At the bottom of this post is an extremely important documentary entitled 3801 Lancaster. It is solely about the horror story that took place inside Kermit Gosnell's "clinic". Like many of the Nazis before him, Gosnell is essentially on trial for his crimes against humanity.

Godwin's Law states that the longer a debate goes on, the greater the possibility that comparisons involving Hitler or Nazis will be made and that the person who makes those charges actually ends / loses the argument. In the case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his Philadelphia aborturary, those comparisons are valid right out of the gate. Those who don't make said comparisons risk losing the debate.

The Limbaugh theorem states that no matter how much damage Barack Obama is directly responsible for, he always escapes culpability because he is so successful at keeping his fingerprints off the levers that cause such damage when they're pulled. Obama essentially pulls those levers while wearing latex gloves and then is seen as someone who is trying to fix the problem. That's not the case when one looks at his votes on abortion while a State Senator in Illinois.

Check out this excerpt from a 2008 Wall Street Journal article by Daniel Allott:

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions... Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

This brings us both to the trial of a 21st Century Nazi named Gosnell, who personally murdered countless babies that either survived abortions or were simply born alive before they could be aborted. Save for the conditions in Gosnell's Philadelphia abortuary and the death of at least one adult who was over-medicated, Obama cannot argue against what Gosnell did to those babies; the president opposed legislation that would make such things illegal in his state.

When one correctly accepts the premise that the mainstream media is little more than a series of little ventriloquist dummies for the Obama administration's ventriloquist apparatchiks, the aforementioned points of agreement between Obama and Gosnell provide all one needs in order to understand why the mainstream media has been so reluctant to cover Gosnell's trial.

Fortunately, at least one liberal - Kirsten Powers - has not abandoned intellectual honesty. In a recent op-ed that appeared in USA Today, Powers wrote:

Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure. Haven't heard about these sickening accusations?

It's not your fault. Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page. The revolting revelations of Gosnell's former staff, who have been testifying to what they witnessed and did during late-term abortions, should shock anyone with a heart.

NBC-10 Philadelphia reported that, Stephen Massof, a former Gosnell worker, "described how he snipped the spinal cords of babies, calling it, 'literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body." One former worker, Adrienne Moton, testified that Gosnell taught her his "snipping" technique to use on infants born alive.

How can one find any difference between that and what Obama supported as an Illinois State Senator? Any attempts to do so would reveal distinctions without differences.

Remember this during the 2008 campaign?



Here is Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in 1999 on the Senate floor, telling then Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) that a baby is not a person until it's taken home (poor audio):



Like Obama, Boxer may - for political reasons - take issue with the conditions in Gosnell's abortuary and the death of an adult there but based on her position, she can't really take issue with his murdering these babies before they go home.

When Generals Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton visited the Ohrdrup concentration camp after liberating it from the Nazis, the former sent a cable to George Marshall that relayed his eye witness account from the pit of hell. To illustrate how heinous was the carnage that Eisenhower saw, even Patton's war-hardened, cast iron stomach wasn't enough to allow him to look at it all.

Here is part of Eisenhower's account, via Ptak Science Books:

"The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where they were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said that he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to 'propaganda'."

In the Philadelphia abortuary run by Gosnell, an evil very much on par with what Patton and Eisenhower discovered in Nazi concentration camps is coming to light in a courtroom not all that dissimilar from one during the Nuremberg trials... if people are willing to admit it.

During the first of those trials, prosecutor Robert Jackson said the following in his opening statement:

"The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated."

How is this dissimilar from what happened on Gosnell's watch, in his office?

The Philadelphia Inquirer's Joseph Slobodzian, who has been covering the trial daily, reported the following:

Testifying under a plea agreement with prosecutors, Williams, 44, had told the Common Pleas Court jury of a time when she followed Gosnell's practice of "snipping" the spines of late-term fetuses born alive during abortions.

One of her duties, Williams said, was to clean up and dispose of fetuses some women spontaneously aborted in the waiting room after getting large doses of drugs to dilate the cervix.

One day, Williams testified, a woman expelled a fetus into the toilet and she saw its arm moving. Williams said she took a pair of scissors and snipped the spine as Gosnell showed her.

"I did it once and I didn't do it again because it gave me the creeps," Williams said.

Consider the testimony of Marie Claude Vallant-Courturier at Nuremberg. She was a holocaust survivor from France.

Vallant-Couturier described how a Nazi orchestra played happy tunes as soldiers separated those destined for slave labor from those that would be gassed.  She told of a night she was "awakened  by horrible cries.  The next day we learned that the Nazis had run out of gas and the children had been hurled into the furnaces alive."

Babies / children being hurled into furnaces or toilets is, as mentioned earlier, a distinction without a difference.

Via CNN:

It was a scene the Philadelphia District Attorney called "a house of horrors." A warning to readers, some of the details in this story are gruesome.

West Philadelphia doctor Kermit Gosnell is on trial for running an abortion clinic in which he allegedly killed babies who had survived illegal, late-term abortions, and where a woman allegedly died of a botched painkiller injection.

Charges were brought against Gosnell a little over two years ago. Here is Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams in an interview with CNN at the time. Note how the detail provided by Williams actually causes the anchor to stop him, saying none of it has been proven. Williams, who appears a bit taken aback, ultimately asserts that he's merely relaying grand jury testimony.



Think it's a stretch to compare Gosnell to a Nazi? Well, didn't the Nazis seek to murder Jewish children?

Via Lindenwirths Sammlung:

Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, was determined to exterminate all Jewish children. His policy was set out in the secret speech he gave at Poznan, Poland on October 6, 1943.

“I do not consider it justifiable to exterminate the men, meaning to kill them or get them to be killed, while allowing the revengers, in the form of children, to grow up and face our sons and grandsons,” said Himmler.

The Nazis deliberately killed children: the toll of minors in the Holocaust is estimated at as much as 1.5 million.

Here is a documentary about Gosnell's abortuary.

**WARNING FOR GRAPIC DEPICTIONS AND IMAGES**



There is something else this story allows us to conclude.

Barack Obama's fingerprints can be found on his opposition to legislation that would make this despicable evil illegal.

'Tis the Season for Treason

In a video, Bill Whittle explained the difference between a 'traitor' and a 'turncoat'. The former describes an individual who actively fights against his nation because he/she opposes it based on ideology, principles, or some agenda. The latter describes an individual who changes sides because the enemy is winning. In the case of America's most notorious traitor - Benedict Arnold - one could argue that he was both. At one point, he fought courageously for the colonists but several things happened.

Arnold married the daughter of a British sympathizer, which seemed to open the door for his providing secrets to the enemy. It was the discovery of his subsequent dealings with a British Major named John Andre' that revealed Arnold's treasonous behavior, which included the weakening of West Point's defenses. There are some indications that he had a problem with aligning with the French as well as with those who opposed the Protestant religion, though this may have involved a bit of rationalization after it became clear who he was.

Check this out from Biography.com:

Arnold gained access to even more sensitive information when he assumed command of West Point, in August of 1780. He began systematically weakening the fort’s defenses, refusing to order necessary repairs and draining its supplies. At the same time, Arnold began transferring his assets from Connecticut to England.

Arnold and André met in person on September 21, to discuss the operation. Several days later, André was captured. Papers exposing the West Point siege plot were found and sent to George Washington, revealing Arnold’s role.

A short time later, after Arnold's mask had been removed and he was free to convey his bitterness, he wrote a letter to the colonists in 1780, which said in part:

In the firm persuasion, therefore, that the private judgement of an individual citizen of this country is as free from all conventional restraints, since as before the insidious offers of France, I preferred those from Great Britain; thinking it infinitely wiser and safer to cast my confidence upon her justice and generosity, than to trust a monarchy too feeble to establish your independency, so perilous to her distant dominions; the enemy of the Protestant faith, and fraudulently avowing an affection for the liberties of mankind, while she holds her native sons in vassalage and chains.

There it is right there. Arnold himself admitted he thought it was SAFER to align with the British. Did self-preservation trump righteousness? Perhaps that's where the truth lies. That excerpt indicates that he thought Great Britain was destined to win and the colonists couldn't achieve their desire to be free.

There is a distinct difference between what happened when Arnold's activities became known by the colonists and activities of politicians in the 21st century became known to Americans. That difference is that similar behavior seems to be met with apathy on the part of modern day colonists - the American citizens.

In this comparative metaphor, Arnold has multiple manifestations in the present day but because of the colonists' apathy - as well as the unwillingness of leading politicians who hold powerful positions - these 'Arnolds' have either been caught red-handed or have relationships with individuals on par with Andre'. Yet, unlike Arnold, individuals like Chris Christie, who has taken a man with distinct ties to Hamas as his friend; Hillary Clinton, whose close adviser has irrefutable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood; Dick Durbin, who has ingratiated himself to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR); John Brennan, who seemed quite comfortable while speaking to representatives from several Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups at New York University.

These are just a few of several examples but when Benedict Arnold learned that he had been exposed, he fled. Conversely, Christie is being considered as a presidential candidate in 2016, ditto Hillary Clinton. Durbin is still a senior U.S. Senator and Brennan is the president's nominee for CIA Director.

That is an indictment of Senators and Congressmen who know better and who think it's "SAFER" to avoid the battle.

Republican leadership today is more interested in ignoring these red flags. In fact, when one U.S. Congressmen - Michele Bachmann - made public her concerns about Abedin, the Speaker of the House - the most powerful Republican in office - suggested that Bachmann's questions were 'pretty dangerous'.

Why?

Consider French General Henri-Philippe Petain, who reached hero status after WWI. While in his 80's, France turned to him again when his nation ran out of options to fight the Nazis. What happened is a case study in the origins of why the term 'turncoat' was invented. Petain essentially did the Nazis bidding as a figurehead in WWII.

Via First World War:

In 1940, at the age of 83, he headed the Vichy government of France during the Second World War, from 11 July 1940 until 20 August 1944. Petain established a Fascist-oriented government that became notorious for its collaboration with the Third Reich. Ruling with German approval, Petain's government passed anti-Semitic laws, rounding up French, Spanish and Eastern European Jews for deportation to German concentration camps.

For his collaboration he was sentenced to death for treason following the war, on 15 August 1944, a sentence that was commuted to life imprisonment by Charles de Gaulle, who had served as a junior officer in Petain's regiment at Charleron in August 1914.

Petain didn't act as an arm of the Nazis because he agreed with them ideologically. He did so in the interest of self-preservation. To quote Benedict Arnold, Petain likely thought it was "SAFER" to aid Hitler's forces than it was to fight against them.

Is that where far too many leaders of the United States are today?

If so, God help us if they believe not confronting the likes of Clinton, Christie, Durbin, and Brennan is "SAFER" than the alternative because it isn't.

In fact, it's the most dangerous course and while there may be a distinction between a 'traitor' and a 'turncoat' based on motive, there is little to no difference when it comes to where the actions of each leads.

CURRENT Jihad TV?

**UPDATE** Well, it looks like Mr. Gore, though he did his level best, was unable to close the deal before the end of the year. According to the Washington Examiner, Gore is out nearly $9 Million by missing the deadline.

Current TV, Al Gore's brainchild, has been fledgling and flailing for quite some time. Luckily for him, not only was Gore able to sell his ownership stake for $100 Million but he was able to do so just before the Bush tax cuts expired on December 31st. Perhaps unluckily for all of us, the buyer has quite the checkered past and questionable allegiances.

Via New York Times:

Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab news giant, has long tried to convince Americans that it is a legitimate news organization, not a parrot of Middle Eastern propaganda or something more sinister.

It just bought itself 40 million more chances to make its case.

Al Jazeera on Wednesday announced a deal to take over Current TV, the low-rated cable channel that was founded by Al Gore, a former vice president, and his business partners seven years ago. Al Jazeera plans to shut Current and start an English-language channel, which will be available in more than 40 million homes, with newscasts emanating from both New York and Doha, Qatar.

For Al Jazeera, which is financed by the government of Qatar, the acquisition is a coming of age moment. A decade ago, Al Jazeera’s flagship Arabic-language channel was reviled by American politicians for showing videotapes from Al Qaeda members and sympathizers. Now the news operation is buying an American channel, having convinced Mr. Gore and the other owners of Current that it has the journalistic muscle and the money to compete head-to-head with CNN and other news channels in the United States.

Al Jazeera has worked quite diligently at softening its brand for western consumption but to what extent is this the result of a legitimate, journalistic awakening?

Make no mistake; Jihad in the United States is far more delicate than say, Jihad in Egypt today. But this is something that has evolved and been massaged.

For example, on the day of 9/11/01, while on a Los Angeles radio program, founder and director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) - Salam Al Marayati - said the following:

"If we're going to look at suspects, we should look at the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies."

Not only does Al Marayati not speak like that today but he has learned that a completely different message is more effective. By seeking outreach to bleeding heart leftists, useful idiots, and Chrislamists, Islamists can better play the Islamophobia card. The MPAC founder recently visited the far left All Saints Episcopal Church in California, which hosted his group's annual convention.

Similarly, in 2002, Al Jazeera aired an interview with renowned KKK Clansman David Duke, without informing viewers of Duke's credentials as an American Nazi Party leader and KKK member. In that interview, Duke echoed comments that virtually mirrored those of Al Marayati on 9/11:

Late last fall, for instance, you had Ku Klux Klanner David Duke—Dr. David Duke, as he was described—appearing on the Al Jazeera talk show Without Borders, authoritatively explaining that the Mossad knew of plans to destroy the World Trade Center and had warned Israelis to get out before the planes hit.

In much the same way that Al Marayati has softened his tone, so too will Al Jazeera likely do when it takes Al Gore's network and airs its newscasts not far from Ground Zero.

Gore himself capitalized on the anti-American / anti-Israel / Pro-Muslim meme relative to 9/11 during a visit to Saudi Arabia in 2006. He said that after 9/11, Arabs had been...

"...indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

Al Jazeera and Al Gore don't just share a first name; they have both said and done things that should cause grave concern.

This latest deal may just be another one.

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) identifies Leftist groups as being part of 'Radical Right'

By identifying an Occupy Wall Street (OWS) group as part of the "Radical Right", the very left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has unwittingly demonstrated that far left-wing organizations can conceivably be misnamed in order to further an ideological agenda.

It's actually called PSYOPS.

Think about the Nazis (National Socialist Party). For years, Nazis have been identified as part of the extreme right-wing despite the fact that socialism is a left-wing ideal. Enter the SPLC; this group is actually identifying OWS as being right-wing too.

The SPLC has decided to identify the movement as part of the "Radical Right" on its "Hatewatch" page. The good news might just be that a perception among the left is beginning to emerge that OWS may be more of a liability as an ally than as an enemy.

Via American Thinker:

Did you know that the Occupy Movement is actually a part of the "radical right"? The movement, which received favorable comments from the commanding heights of the American left -- President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, the New York Times, and MSNBC -- has now shown itself to include very violent elements, including  actual terrorists, who began a bomb plot in Cleveland, only to be apprehended before carrying out their program of terror.

 Then again, it may just be about nothing more than money...

The Southern Poverty Law Center has built-up a lucrative fundraising business enabling it to pay lavish salaries to those who drum up money on the basis of fighting racism and "hate groups."  The awkward fact that anti-black racial violence has diminished has not stopped it from developing other lures to keep this donations coming. The new favorite is to label supporters of traditional marriage as "hate groups."

Now, the SPLC has gone one step further in its logic. If it is violent and bad, it must be right wing.

The progressive movement in America has slipped the bounds of reality and is living in an entirely reality-free make believe world.

Gee, it's pretty hard to identify any of the OWS groups as part of the "Radical Right" when both the Communist Party USA and Barack Obama have endorsed OWS.

Perhaps not so coincidentally, so has the American Nazi Party (ANP).

Video: Brian Ross learns nothing; calls Sikh Temple Shooter 'Right-wing'

At some point, you really have to wonder about the mental stability of ABC's Brian Ross. While appearing with George Stephanopolous this morning, he referred to the Sikh Temple shooter as being 'right-wing'.

If anything, the opposite is most likely true.

Here is Ross, once again, taking irresponsible journalism to a new low.



In the wake of the Aurora shootings, Ross appeared with George Stephanopolous and implied that the shooter was probably a Tea Party guy because there was a 'James Holmes' registered with the Tea Party in Aurora.

Ross was wrong then too and not only wasn't he fired for this but he was allowed to politicize the Sikh Temple shooter too.



h/t NewsBusters

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.

Was Obama Campaign Video title taken from Nazis and Marxists?

At the very least, this was an extremely poor decision on the part of whoever made it. That is, if Barack Obama has an interest in fighting back against the "communist," "socialist," and "marxist" labels that so many have affixed to his ideology. Then again, it's out in the open now so if no one is fired for choosing the word, "Forward" for his latest campaign video, it's a sign that Obama has no problem with it, even in light of its history of being used by the Nazis and Marxists of Europe.

Via Washington Times:

The Obama campaign apparently didn't look backwards into history when selecting its new campaign slogan, "Forward" — a word with a long and rich association with European Marxism.

Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name "Forward!" or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called "Forward (generic name of socialist publications)."

"The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications," the online encyclopedia explains.

The slogan "Forward!" reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word "Forward" with the "O" having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign's official beginning.

There have been at least two radical-left publications named "Vorwaerts" (the German word for "Forward"). One was the daily newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky. It still publishes as the organ of Germany's SDP, though that party has changed considerably since World War II. Another was the 1844 biweekly reader of the Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin are among the names associated with that publication.

Another very disturbing coincidence is that Barack Obama colleague, Bill Ayers, had a goal of eliminating 25 Million Americans who couldn't be "re-educated," according to Larry Grathwohl.

Via GWP, here is a Hitler youth video entitled, you guessed it, "Forward."

Mormonism has Anne Frank and Adolf Hitler on same plane

My latest column is up over at Red County:

Could Hitler's Mormon Baptism destroy Romney? 

As the Nevada Republican Caucus returns were coming in last month, CNN's John King referred to Mitt Romney as “Governor Mormon.” Without correcting himself, he used the word “Mormon” four times in nine seconds. While some may argue it was an innocent slip, others will say it was Freudian in nature.

A short time later, King's network did a story on a bizarre Mormon practice that involves posthumously baptizing non-Mormons by proxy. In the report, the parents of “Nazi hunter” Simon Wiesenthal were identified as having been subjected to such a practice. Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, who was interviewed for the CNN story, unhappily responded to revelations that he himself had been placed on such a list.

In its report, CNN cited Helen Radkey as the person who discovered these unusual baptisms. Radkey is a former Mormon who claims that, “Jewish Holocaust names are regularly going into the Mormon database.” The report concluded with a reference to Romney actually participating in such proxy baptisms. The message was clear but subtle; Romney is part of this.

Radkey is an extremely key figure, not so much for what she provided to CNN for that story but what she still has yet to provide.

About one week later, the Independent, MSNBC, and Yahoo News all reported that the iconic diarist and heroine, Nazi-era Anne Frank had been posthumously baptized nine times by the Mormon church. Yahoo News cleverly segued from this story to an unrelated story about a Romney comment during a Republican debate, in what appeared to be an attempt to subtly connect the two stories.

Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert went even further by inviting a Jewish intern onto his set during his program and asked him to hold a hot dog while Cobert cut off the tip with a cigar cutter. The point was to posthumously circumcise all dead Mormons and convert them to Judaism.

At this point, it's time to revisit the information Radkey has; a significant amount of it is actually piled up in one of her spare bedrooms. Since she has become the mainstream media's source for all things Mormon, we can certainly expect the same liberal outlets to whip out one of her more incendiary revelations – that Adolf Hitler was also baptized as a Mormon posthumously.

Perhaps the biggest issue of Barack Obama's first term is his signature piece of legislation – Obamacare. Mitt Romney's healthcare plan in Massachusetts was the blueprint for it. That essentially takes the issue off the table in a general election campaign between the two men.

Another issue that could be neutralized is the Jewish vote, which traditionally goes Democrat, though Jewish voters have become increasingly disenchanted with Obama these last three years. if Romney is the nominee, look for the mainstream media, in true bigoted fashion, to make his religion the issue – something it didn't do with Obama and Jeremiah Wright. In essence, this could drive away the Jewish vote at a time when any Republican nominee should do relatively well with in this election year.

The mainstream media will pull out all the stops to paint Romney as someone whose religion now places Anne Frank and Adolf Hitler on the same plane.

Speaking of religion or even Obama's ties to Islam, well, that might be off the table too because of what Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith is quoted as saying in 1838:

“I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was 'the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.' So shall it eventually be with us.”

The Obama campaign's strategy may just be to destroy Romney by attacking his religion through the media.

It just might work.

Go to Red County for the hyperlinks.

Ron Paul gets the 'Coveted' David Duke Endorsement

This has not been a good week for Ron Paul's PR machine. First, a former aide claims that Paul is 'definitely anti-Israel' and wants to give all of that land to the Arabs. A 2009 video of Paul claiming that Israel 'started' Hamas surfaced. Then, a charge levied by a writer at Big Government that Paul told him he would not have intervened to stop the holocaust. Now, Paul gets the endorsement of former KKK Grand Wizard, David Duke.

Via Politicker NY:

Ron Paul was a hot topic this week on the talk radio show hosted by prominent white supremacist Don Black and his son Derek. Mr. Black said he received Mr. Paul’s controversial newsletters when they were first published about two decades ago and described how the publications were perceived by members of the white supremacist movement. Former KKK Grand Wizard and Louisiana Congressman David Duke also phoned in to explain why he’s voting for Mr. Paul.

“Everybody, all of us back in the 80′s and 90′s, felt Ron Paul was, you know, unusual in that he had actually been a Congressman, that he was one of us and now, of course, that he has this broad demographic–broad base of support,” Mr. Black said on his broadcast yesterday.

Mr. Black is a former Klansman and member of the American Nazi Party who founded the “white nationalist” website Stormfront in 1995. He donated to Mr. Paul in 2007 and has been photographed with the candidate. Mr. Paul has vocal supporters in Stormfront’s online forum. Mr. Black has repeatedly said he doesn’t currently think Mr. Paul is a “white nationalist.”

Remember, the American Nazi Party also endorsed the OWS protests. This might help explain why some of the Pauliens get a little defensive when OWS is denigrated.

KKK = Nazis = Anti-Semites = Islam

Go figure. Ron Paul is apparently anti-Israel.

h/t Weasel Zippers

Timothy McVeigh and the Occupy Wall Street Protests

As the American Nazi Party officially endorse the Occupy Wall Street protests while sharing the same target - 'Jewish Bankers' - I began thinking about how much Timothy McVeigh would have in common with the protesters. The more I explored the possibility, the more apparent it became to me that the executed Oklahoma City bomber had far more in common with what OWS is all about than with any right wing movement in general, or the Tea Party in particular. The next time someone attempts to paint McVeigh as a right wing extremist, consider that he was anything but.

My latest at Big Government:

Timothy McVeigh Smiling up at #OccupyWallSt Protesters
by Ben Barrack

As the Occupy Wall Street protesters started to gather in various cities across the country, it was soon learned that the American Nazi Party endorsed the movement and called for its members to “…JOIN IN the attack on Judeo-Capitalism.” Even the left wing media is conceding that the OWS crowd is a manifestation of left wing anger intended to counter the Tea Party. Timothy McVeigh was a neo-Nazi. His favorite book was a novel entitled The Turner Diaries, which was written by William L. Pierce, an official with the American Nazi Party; even the far left group Southern Poverty Law Center acknowledges this. We are left to conclude that since the American Nazi Party endorses the OWS protests, so would Mr. McVeigh.

So why would the Nazi Party get behind a left wing movement if the Tea Party is the group that is supposed to be filled with racists and Nazis? Nancy Pelosi said the swastika was the symbol of the Tea Party. Yet, the group whose logo is the swastika has endorsed OWS. Instances of Nazi references at Tea Parties have often involved left wing hijinks. Posters of Obama with a Hitler mustache that appeared at some Tea Party rallies were actually the brainchild of the far left’s LaRouche PAC.

Let’s also not forget the short-lived ‘Crash the Tea Party’ movement that called for left wing activists to infiltrate Tea Parties and behave in ways that would help portray the group as racist. True Tea Party conservatives actively policed themselves when aptly named infiltrators attempted to tar the movement. One of the more blatant examples came courtesy of the Sharp Elbows website. When a man sporting Nazi garb milled around within the group, he was confronted and weeded out. Recently, while defending the OWS protesters, Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert posted a photo of two youths, one holding a sign with a swastika on it that said “No Repeats” and the other with a photo portraying Barack Obama in a Mao suit, at what appeared to be a Tea Party rally. Such behavior is not advisable to be sure but in addition to the protesters in the example Boehlert provided being rather young, those signs were intended to convey a rejection of, not support for, Nazism.

There are other examples of white supremacists infiltrating Tea Parties but such instances are typically strategic attempts at piggy-backing and not the result of a common cause. Consider the case of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), a neo-Nazi group that uses deceptive means and tactics to infiltrate Tea Parties. In fact, one of Arizona’s Neo-Nazi leaders – JT Ready – deceptively donned partriotic American garb and posed for a photo with Arizona State Senator Russel Pearce, who was responsible for crafting his state’s tough immigration law, SB 1070. Had Pearce known Ready was a Neo-Nazi, he most assuredly would not have granted him a photo-op.

The American Nazi Party is not using deceptive means to graft itself into the Occupy Wall Street protests. Increasingly, it doesn’t seem necessary as a large number of OWS protesters are seen referring to their targets as Jewish Bankers.

That is exactly what the Nazi Party is claiming. This is a common denominator between the two groups. At practically every turn, Tea Party conservatives went out of their way to denounce racist entities and individuals who attempted to join their ranks. Conversely, when it comes to the target of generic OWS protesters and the American Nazi Party, the idea of denunciation comes precariously close to hypocrisy. In any case, Tea Partiers made quick work of Nazi infiltrators. Thus far, OWS doesn’t seem all that interested in doing the same. After all, entities with a common cause make interesting allies who are all too often willing to overlook the political liabilities presented by the other.

Let’s consider the target of the OWS protesters. The object of the group’s collective ire is Wall Street in general and bankers in particular. They are demanding that rich bankers be made to give up their wealth so that it can be re-distributed. In essence, the protesters are calling for institutionalized bank robbery. Go figure, Timothy McVeigh was also a bank robber, as were several of his colleagues.

Moreover, the left always defaults to the Timothy-McVeigh-was-a-Christian argument every time the subject of Islamic terror comes up. In fact, the only thing more maddening than that meme is when it goes unchallenged by conservatives who never seem to bring up the fact that McVeigh was agnostic. Oh, that reminds me. The agnostic movement seems to be largely supportive of the OWS protests as well. A perusal of the Agnositics International forum should sufficiently demonstrate that. Also, take note that a guitarist for the band Agnostic Front is in support of the OWS protests too.

Everyone acknowledges that McVeigh believed in solving his problems with violence. The crime that led to his execution proves that but what about the OWS crowd? Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen discovered that nearly one-third of the OWS protesters are in support of violence to further the group’s agenda; 98% support civil disobedience. Something tells me Timothy McVeigh would fit right in with this bunch.

At the very least, the left should think twice before painting Timothy McVeigh as a poster child for the right wing extremist movement. Such a charge, now more than ever, reeks of projection.

For hyperlinks that back up the aforementioned claims, go to Big Government.