There is blatant collusion between the Department of Justice and Media Matters for America,.. a George Sorros funded rabid anti Conservative anti American Group.

CONGRESS STOP FUNDING THE DOJ: THIS IS TREASON! They act with impunity because they are not afraid.

Texas Republican Rep. Blake Farenthold said Tuesday that he expects the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to investigate collusion between the Department of Justice and Media Matters for America, in the wake of The Daily Caller’s publication of emails between the liberal messaging group’s employees and a top DOJ spokeswoman.
Farenthold, the first member of Congress to demand Attorney General Eric Holder’s resignation over Operation Fast and Furious, said he thinks the committee should examined Media Matters’ tax-exempt status. That status allows the group’s donors to claim an income tax deduction for their contributions, and also permits Media Matters to pay no federal tax on its income.
Tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which Media Matters enjoys, is typically reserved for organizations that don’t engage in excessive partisan politicking.
“I think we need to look at the 501(c)3 status of Media Matters, and I think this is just more evidence that the Justice Department under Eric Holder is out of control. And it’s more evidence that Mr. Holder is not fit to run a lemonade stand,” Farenthold said of TheDC’s coverage during a radio interview on NRA News, an arm of the National Rifle Association.
Emails TheDC obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request and published Tuesday show DOJ Office of Public Affairs director Tracy Schmaler, Holder’s top press defender, and Media Matters staffers working together to attack reporters covering DOJ scandals.
“I just could not believe that the Justice Department, who you think is an objective arbiter of things, is actually coordinating with — beyond what anybody would consider to be reasonable — with an advocacy group,” Farenthold said of the revelation. “Now, Media Matters may argue whether or not they’re an advocacy group because they’re a 501(c)3 organization, but if you go to their website and read, you can definitely tell they’re a left[-wing] organization.”
“I think at some point, the ‘buck has got to stop here,’” Farenthold added. “In whose universe does this [collaboration] sound like a good idea? Sure, politicians will leak stuff and work more closely with friendly journalists, but you’d think the Department of Justice would be above politics.”
Media Matters staffers, he said, “were more like a consulting firm” for a politicized Justice Department exhibiting “either desperation or mismanagement all the way to the top.”
“All our congressional offices will reach out to organizations that have interests in things to get information out and do that sort of thing, but for the Justice Department to employ spin doctors? You’d think the Justice Department is supposed to be about the truth.”
During the NRA News interview, Farenthold said congressional authorities are already “looking at” whether any laws were broken. “This just broke while I was on the airplane to Washington this morning,” the Texas Republican said, so he hasn’t yet been directly involved with any investigation.
If Congress does launch an official investigation, Farenthold said he believes the House oversight committee would be the place for that to happen. That committee’s chairman, California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, is one of the many public figures who emerged as joint Media Matters-DOJ targets, according to the emails TheDC published Tuesday.
“I think the House oversight committee would definitely have jurisdiction over it and I would imagine we’ll be taking a look at it,” Farenthold said. “I would be surprised if we didn’t.”
The “close interaction” Media Matters has had with the DOJ, he said, “certainly doesn’t pass the smell test.”
The Texas freshman also suggested that the DOJ’s Inspector General may be pressured during a Thursday hearing before the House oversight committee to investigate Tracy Schmaler’s coordination with Media Matters. “I certainly think it’s a question worth asking,” he said.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is expected to release his report soon covering his office’s internal investigation into Operation Fast and Furious in the coming days. He is scheduled to testify Thursday before Issa’s committee.
While there have been calls for the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate whether Schmaler engaged in unethical behavior or misconduct, the DOJ reportedly doesn’t think it’s a “big deal” that she worked with the left-wing advocacy organization.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/19/farenthold-congress-will-likely-investigate-doj-media-matters-collusion-target-groups-tax-exempt-status/#ixzz27F8QnpAT

WHO FUNDS MEDIA MATTERS ?

Relying on tax returns and websites of wealthy U.S. foundations, a Daily Caller investigation has revealed the sources of more than $28.8 million in funding collected by the liberal Media Matters for America since 2003, the year before its formal incorporation. That sum represents 54 percent of every dollar the organization has raised in its history, making Media Matters a principally foundation-driven — not citizen-supported — activist group.
The list of Media Matters’ foundation funders, 120 in all, reads like a Who’s Who of the American progressive movement, including the far-left

Tides Foundation ($4,384,702),
George Soros’ Open Society Institutes ($1,075,000),
the Ford Foundation ($966,466),
the Sandler Foundation ($400,000) — endowed by subprime mortgage lenders Herb and Marion Sandler, who once bankrolled the embattled ACORN organization —
and the Schumann Fund for Media and Democracy ($600,000), managed by longtime PBS host Bill Moyers and his son.
They also include the anti-George W. Bush organization
MoveOn.org ($50,000),
the Barbra Streisand Foundation ($85,000),
the kids’ shoes-powered Stride Rite Charitable Foundation ($25,000),
the Lear Family Foundation ($55,000) — endowed by the TV producer and People for the American Way founder Norman Lear —
and the Joyce Foundation ($400,000), whose board of directors included Barack Obama from 1994 to 2002.

(RELATED: See the list of Media Matters’ foundation donors)
The Joyce Foundation grant, made in 2010, was earmarked for ”a gun and public safety issue initiative.” That program, judging from the ensuing Media Matters coverage, included scathing reports on the shooting-sports lobby and on the firearms industry’s annual convention. “To lure repeat buyers,” that story warned, “increased lethality has become the nicotine of the firearms industry.”
2010 was also, TheDC reported Monday, the year when Media Matters founder David Brock’s personal assistant was carrying a holstered and concealed Glock handgun when he accompanied Brock to events.
The Daily Caller is publishing spreadsheets describing all the grants to Media Matters it has identified, how much each donor contributed overall, and for what purpose, if any, their donations were earmarked. Most grants were described in foundations’ tax returns as “general support” contributions.
TheDC reported Thursday that the ARCA Foundation, a Democratic-aligned philanthropy, made a $50,000 grant to Media Matters in 2006 for the specific purpose of “fact checking” religious broadcasters. ARCA also gave Media Matters $100,000 in startup funding two years earlier. But in the larger context of the $53.4 million the organization has raised since 2003, $150,000 is a drop in the proverbial bucket.
(RELATED: See the spreadsheet of foundation grants to Media Matters)
Non-profit organizations like Media Matters are permitted to keep their sources of support secret, but grantmaking foundations are required to disclose how much they give away each year, and to whom. According to the Foundation Center, U.S. foundations distributed more than $45.7 billion in 2009. Their publicly available tax returns make it possible to reconstruct non-profit grant recipients’ once-secret incomes to a great degree.

These are the nutjobs we are fighting and Obama is embracing!!!!

Ashura in New York...... scroll here for previous years of Ashura in NY and across the world. Gruesome.

Park Avenue, NYC: "Fight oppression" -- oh, the irony.

On an otherwise quiet Sunday morning, imagine our surprise when, in the driving rain, traffic was at a full stop. There was a sea of black burkas and coffins -- yes, another shiny, happy Muslm parade.
Unsuspecting New Yorkers were descended upon with calls for prayer, dawah and prosyltizing to Islam. So we jumped out of the cab .......
 
Men march first......the women bring up the rear.

The coffin precedes the chests pounding and self flagellation

Ashura marches across the world:

Here is a snap shot of a similar Ashura march in Lebanon:

Ashura i Afghanistan .....let the blood beating begin


Muslim men beat themselves with chains and blades during this Muslim ritual on the sixth day of Ashura celebrations in the streets of Kabul on December 12, 2010. Ashura, a public holiday in Afghanistan, is the final day of 10 days of mourning for the killing of Imam Hussein, the grandson of Mohammad in the year 680.
Here is a scan of propaganda passed out in the streets of New York:

Posted by Pamela Geller on Sunday, December 12, 2010 at 02:52 PM in Ashura/Ashoura | Permalink | Comments (61)

Reblog (0) Digg This Save to del.icio.us

Monday, December 28, 2009

Ashoura: Respect it!

We seek broader engagement based upon mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstanding, and we will seek common ground. We will be respectful even when we do not agree. Barrack Hussein

 
Indian Muslims flagellate themselves on Ashura, in Mumbai, India, Monday, Dec. 28, 2009.

A Muslim girl participates in an Ashura procession in Mumbai December 28, 2009.

"The message is for all people," Baydoun said of Ashura. "It's about the universal cause of justice."

Detroit News has a piece entitled: Muslim holy day Ashura grows more popular worldwide
Just look at what these clowns are selling:

The traditions of Ashura -- a holy day Shi'ite Muslims will observe Sunday -- started in the Middle East and spread to Iran and South Asia, where they have been practiced for centuries. But in recent years, the ceremonies have become more popular in other parts of the world as populations of Shi'ite Muslims grow elsewhere.
From metro Detroit to Europe and Japan, some people cross national boundaries to commemorate the 10 days that lead up to Ashura.
Ashura commemorates the 7th-Century death of the grandson of Islam's prophet. Imam Hussain died in Karbalaa, Iraq, at the hands of an unjust ruler.
"It's about standing up for justice, standing up for democracy, standing up for peace and equality," Mohamed Al-Najjar explained at the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center in Dearborn. The center is named after the city in Iraq.

 Millions throng Karbala for Ashoura


Ashoura in Mumbai
Here's a glimpse of Ashoura images around the Muslim world. Ashoura commemorates the death of Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Mohammad, in the 7th century battle of Kerbala. Atlas covers it every year - go here.
Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) Secretary General Addresses The Muslim World On The Occasion Of Ashura
 
Afghan Muslims flagellate themselves during Ashoura in Kabul, Afghanistan
 

Ashura blades: An Afghan Shiite Muslim man beats himself with blades during Ashura at a Shiite mosque in Kabul
 
A Lebanese child cries as he is cut in the head during Ashoura day in the southern market town of Nabatiyeh, Lebanon


Ashoura India 12/28
 
Muslims flagellate themselves during an Ashura procession in Hyderabad, India,
 
Tens of thousands of Hizbullah supporters gathered in the southern suburbs of Beirut for the Shiite festival of Ashoura on Sunday.
The ceremony came after a mysterious explosion rocked Dahiyeh overnight, targeting Hizbullah's ally in Lebanon, Hamas.
Ashoura caps a 10-day period of self-flagellation and mourning for the Prophet Muhammad's grandson, Imam Hussein, killed in 680 A.D. during a battle that sealed the split between Shiites and Sunnis.(more here)

A Lebanese child cries as he is cut in the head during Ashoura day in the southern market town of Nabatiyeh, Lebanon


Muslims gash their heads with blades during a ceremony marking Ashura in Basra, about 420 km (260 miles) southeast of Baghdad, Iraq.


Ashoura Baghdad
 
Muslims who live in Greece participate in a Shiite Muslim religious procession using swords and chains to self-inflict cuts in Athens
 
Muslim worshippers bleed as they perform self-flagellation to mark the Ashura festival in Qatif
 
 

Bloodied water drains from a sink where Bahraini men wash up after participating in a Shiite Muslim religious procession using swords and chains to self-inflict
 


 
Pakistani Shiite Muslims flay themselves during a religious procession in Lahore to mark Ashura. A suicide attack at a Shiite Muslim mosque in Pakistani-administered Kashmir killed five people and wounded dozens more, marking a bloody start to Ashura commemorations

Blood and violence as millions mark Youm-e-Ashur
 
Turkey: Muslims shout Islamic slogans as they mourn during an Ashura procession in Istanbul

India: Muslims flagellate themselves during a Muharram procession ahead of Ashura in Amroha, in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh


A Lebanese Shiite girl, right, looks on as her mother reacts during Ashoura day in Beirut's southern suburbs

In this photo taken Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2009, a Santa Claus doll is seen at a shop in central Baghdad, Iraq. Christmas is coming at the same time this year as one of Islam's most solemn holidays so even among Iraq's Christians, Santa is suffering. In the southern Iraqi town of Basra, a local pastor has banned celebrations, decorations and other public displays of making merry out of respect for Ashoura, the annual Shiite period of mourning. In Baghdad, Iraq's capital, Christmas has gone underground.

If this is the president's idea of success, what does failure look like? ONLY THE MORON LAP DOG OLD MEDIA AND THE LOONEY LEFT BELIEVE THIS BULLSHIT!!

If this is the president's idea of success, what does failure look like?

I refer, of course, to this:

• In the last four years the number of food stamp participants increased by 64.7%

• In the last four years the cost of the food stamp program is up by 114.4%

Not to mention this:

Paul Krugman said he would be concerned if government spending hit 50% of GDP. The trend does not look good, but by Krugman's measure there is a ways to go.

Nonetheless, I think we should be concerned now. The numbers ignore exploding national debt and interest on national debt. Interest on national debt will skyrocket if rates go up or growth estimates penciled in do not occur. Both of those are likely...

The figures also ignore ever-escalating costs of Medicare, Social Security, and pension promises, all of which are guaranteed to soar in the not so distant future. Romney says Unfunded liabilities amount to $520,000 per household.

And -- it goes without saying -- this:

That last graph is the single most damning indictment of the Obama philosophy of class warfare, Keynesian spending, and wealth redistribution.

Remember, the president described his catastrophic record as follows:
"We tried our plan — and it worked"
If his plan "worked", I'd hate to see failure. And if we don't defeat this man in November, it's absolutely certain we'll get to experience it -- firsthand.

Newly released emails reveal the 'nonpartisan' group's stealthy White House alliance on health care.

 

 

 

 

 

BUSTED AGAIN: The Letters of Love" between the AARP and Obama

 Meet Barry Rand, AARP's first African-American CEO

WASHINGTON — A. Barry Rand has had a long, successful career as the man in the grey flannel suit. But when he looks in the mirror, he sees "a son of the '60s."

"My life has always been about service and social change," Rand says.

 That means he is an AFRICAN AMERICAN PROGRESSIVE...

*****************************************************

Newly released emails reveal the 'nonpartisan' group's stealthy White House alliance on health care.

• By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

When Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan address the AARP on Friday, good manners will no doubt keep them from asking this question: How can that lobby claim to speak for American seniors given its partisan role in passing ObamaCare?
Thanks to just-released emails from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, we now know that AARP worked through 2009-10 as an extension of a Democratic White House, toiling daily to pass a health bill that slashes $716 billion from Medicare, strips seniors of choice, and sets the stage for rationing. We know that despite AARP's awareness that its seniors overwhelmingly opposed the bill, the "nonpartisan membership organization" chose to serve the president's agenda.
The 71 pages of emails show an AARP management taking orders from the White House, scripting the president's talking points, working to keep its board "in line," and pledging fealty to "the cause." Seniors deserve to know all this, as AARP seeks to present itself as neutral in this presidential election.

The emails overall show an AARP leadership—Policy Chief John Rother, Health Policy Director Nora Super, Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond, Senior Vice President David Sloane—that from the start worked to pass ObamaCare, before crucial details pertaining to seniors had been addressed. This crew was in constant contact with Mr. Obama's top aides, in particular Nancy-Ann DeParle and Jim Messina.
As early as July 2009, Mr. Sloane was sending the administration—"as promised"—his "message points" on Medicare. Ms. DeParle assured him "I think you will hear some of your lines tomorrow" in President Obama's speech—which he did. Mr. Rother advised the White House on its outreach, discouraging Mr. Obama from addressing seniors since "he may not be the most effective messinger [sic] . . . at least to the McCain constituency." Better to manage these folks, he counsels, through the "authoritative voices of doctors and nurses."
AARP had long lambasted cuts in fees to Medicare doctors because reduced payments would mean fewer doctors who accept patients with the insurance. Yet in its campaign for ObamaCare, it argued the money the health law strips from Medicare—by imposing price controls on hospitals—would improve "care." When the organization tried to sell the line to its own people, it didn't go well. Ms. Super told Obama officials in June 2009: "It was actually a heavy lift for us to convince many at AARP that Medicare 'savings' (which they read as cuts) is not bad for beneficiaries." Note the "savings" quote marks.
Even in November 2009, as the ObamaCare debate progressed, Ms. LeaMond worried that the Medicare spin wasn't working against public criticism of the bill. She emailed Mr. Messina and Ms. DeParle that she was "seized" with "concerns about extended coherent, strong messaging by Republicans on the Medicare savings." To pull off the legislation, she mused, "we"—the White House and AARP—will need a "concerted strategy."

Lobbying for Seniors, or for Obama?

The emails AARP didn't want its members to read.

In August 2009, AARP had already unveiled a national advertising blitz for ObamaCare, to ensure that "every member of Congress knows the 50-plus community wants action to fix what's wrong with healthcare." The group made this claim despite weeks of daily tracking showing its members in revolt against the president's plan.
July 23, 2009: AARP reported to the White House that 1,031 members called in against the proposed health-care changes; 77 called in support. July 28, 2009: 4,174 opposed; 36 in support. July 29, 2009: 2,656 opposed; 23 in support. Mr. Sloane told the White House that AARP lost 1,897 members in a single day "in disagreement over our position on health reform." All the reports to Team Obama were accompanied by AARP's request to keep the information "close," apparently so word didn't leak that seniors hate ObamaCare. And the ad blitz went on.
Was AARP sending these tracking reports to its outside board of directors—its governing body? Maybe not: AARP staff seemed to view the board as a problem. In June 2009, Ms. Super emailed Obama budget guy Keith Fontenot: The AARP board is meeting, she said, and we "need to get their buy-in on several proposals," including the president's Medicare cuts, which "as you might imagine, they are a bit concerned about." Could he share ideas with her? "It would really help get them on Board."
When Mr. Rother was asked in December 2009 by the White House to attend an event with Mr. Obama, he declined. "I am presenting to my Board on health reform" on the same day, he wrote. "I think you want me to keep my Board in line, so please understand my need to regret."
AARP was, however, on 24-hour alert to do the White House's political bidding. Typical is a March 2010 email exchange about Rep. Larry Kissell, a North Carolina Democrat who remained a "no" vote as ObamaCare neared its endgame. Labor boss Andy Stern emailed Mr. Messina—"Kissel [sic] a Problem"—and advised bringing in the AARP guns. Mr. Messina forwarded the note to Ms. LeaMond, with the word "Help." "On it," she quickly responded. Soon after: Does Mr. Messina want AARP to have its board chairman arrange a meeting, or just call the congressman "right away?" "Both?" Mr. Messina asked. "Will do," she assured him. Rep. Kissell voted no.
In an interview, AARP spokesman Jim Dau and Legislative Policy Director David Certner noted that the lobby was committed to health-care reform long before Mr. Obama's election, that it pushed for policy additions to the bill that were crucial for seniors, and that it did not endorse legislation until AARP's priorities were met. They said that the board was kept informed and that AARP faced similar criticism when it worked with the GOP on a drug benefit in 2003.
"We get criticized, but we never take our eye off the ball when it comes to pursuing things that are good for our members," says Mr. Dau. "We make no apologies for our advocacy."
AARP's ardent efforts on behalf of ObamaCare bear a resemblance to the work of the drug and health industry in 2009—with one significant difference. Those industries' backroom dealing was motivated by financial self-interest. What motivated AARP, given that its membership of 37 million people 50 years old and older was clearly opposed to ObamaCare, since they recognized that it would hurt them? The answer appears to be: pure ideology.
In October 2009, Ms. Super expressed frustration that the Senate might strip more spending from the bill. She declared to colleagues: "I'm heading up to the House now where at least Democrats are Democrats (sort of)." Ms. Super is now working for Mr. Obama's Health and Human Services Department.
In November 2009, Mr. Rother declined a White House request to have an AARP person take part in a roundtable. "I think we will try to keep a little space between us and the White House," he explained, adding that AARP's "polling" shows the organization is more "influential when we are seen as independent." He wanted "to reinforce that positioning," said the man working daily to pass ObamaCare, since "the larger issue is how to best serve the cause." Mr. Rother has left AARP and now leads the liberal National Coalition on Health Care.
When the health-care reform bill passed the House in March 2010, Ms. LeaMond exuberantly emailed Mr. Messina: "This is the new AARP-WH/Hill—LeaMond/Messina relationship. . . . Seriously, a great victory for you and the President."
But not one for America's seniors, who had looked to AARP to oppose ObamaCare's cuts and rationing. That's worth remembering come the next AARP bulletin to seniors offering its "balanced" view on issues.
Write to kim@wsj.com

Facts about Obama's 47%

“An ever-shrinking number of Americans finance an ever-growing proportion of the government’s budget. It’s always easier to force sacrifice on an unpopular minority than it is to ask the majority to pony up." 

Howie Carr: “A huge percentage of Obama’s voters are basically wards of the state. There are millions of them, and they have no intention of voting for anyone who might want them to ever go out and work for a living.”

This graph tells you all you need to know about who pays what taxes in America. The bottom 50% pay 2% of taxes.

NEW VIDEO..UNEARTHED!! Barack Obama In 1995: 'We Need a Democracy with a Small "D"! THE SOCIALIST HUSSEIN OBAMA EXPOSED AGAIN!! If this country is willing to seat a President who has an AFROCENTRIC world view ...then we deserve what we get!! .

THE SOCIALIST HUSSEIN OBAMA EXPOSED AGAIN!! If this country is willing to seat a President who has an AFROCENTRIC world view ...then we deserve what we get!!

THE SOCIALIST HUSSEIN OBAMA EXPOSED AGAIN!! If this country is willing to seat a President who has an AFROCENTRIC world view ...then we deserve what we get!!


A 1995 video depicts Barack Obama calling for "democracy with a small 'd'  while pushing a society based on collectivism and "common good." In the video unearthed by KleinOnline, Obama hails unions and collective bargaining as encapsulating the societal "common good" of
which he speaks. Obama urges society to collectively move "forward" -- a word that would later serve as his 2012 campaign slogan.


Obama was speaking in an Aug. 11, 1995 interview pushing his just published book, "Dreams From My Father." At the time, Obama was a community organizer planning to launch a political career.
Obama tells the interviewer the "best part" of the dream of his "African father and white American mother," was the "notion that we collectively can decide on our fate." He continued: "That things like technological change, things like mass media, things like the market are all subject to our control. That
we can make decisions for better or for worse and continue to move forward and progress."The interviewer then asked Obama whether he is "willing to stake your political career on your common ground?"


"That's the core of my faith," Obama replied.

HELL NO!!! UN Resolution 1618, Free speech banned by UN, UN tries to usurp our laws

You Could You Be A Criminal for speaking against ISLAM !!
HILLARY CLINTON AND HUSSEIN OBAMA Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure

Comment by Jim Campbell
Of course this is absolute nonsense the US can’t participate in this attempt at political correctness.  This entire charade was cooked up by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.  You know this same ignorant lawyer that believes the US could be bound by her favorite the U.N. Gun Ban Treaty.

In March, the Obama administration thwarted the OIC’s attempt to win United Nations Human Rights Council passage of a resolution calling for criminal penalties for the “defamation of religions.” The following month, Washington engineered Council passage of Resolution 16/18, a nonbinding measure which did not censor speech.

 

Our Motto: Cooperate or die.

The victory didn’t last long. In July, Secretary of State Clinton revived the issue when she co-chaired an OIC session in Istanbul dealing with “religious intolerance.” Clinton called on countries to “counter offensive expression through education, interfaith dialogue and public debate,” while emphasizing that speech restrictions were unacceptable. She invited conference attendees to a follow-up meeting to continue the dialogue.

OIC officials seized on Clinton’s offer by stepping up their campaign for blasphemy laws and speech codes.
So here’s a quick refresher on the Constitution Mrs. soon to be X-Secretary of State .  It’s called the Constitution.  Of course you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the U.S. Constitution but it dose not bind the United States to any treaty or legislation that is Unconstitutional.  I know you hate it but we still have the First Amendment and let’s not forget the Tenth Amendment either.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.

You got to love it when those that oppose free speech as part of their totalitarian cult demand it when others speak out against the atrocities committed at the behest of a Seventh Century mad man. 

Forbes Magazine
While you were out scavenging the Wal-Mart super sales or trying on trinkets at Tiffany and Cartier, your government has been quietly wrapping up a Christmas gift of its own: adoption of UN resolution 16/18. An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence.”
Whatever that means.
Initially proposed in response to alleged discrimination against Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 and in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Previous versions of the Resolution, which sought to criminalize blasphemous speech and the “defamation of religion,” were regularly rejected by the American delegation and by the US State Department, which insisted that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be racist or blasphemous – were at odds with the Constitution. But this latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval –despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.”

What’s worse, the measure codifies into the UN agenda support for the very notion democracies now wrestle with, and which threatens to destroy the very fabric of our culture: tolerance of the intolerant, or rather, the question of whether a tolerant society must also tolerate ways of life that are intolerant – that oppress women, say, or advocate violence against homosexuals, or force strangers to marry against their will. It is, in fact, this very concept that the OIC has long pressured Western governments to adopt in other ways, and that those supporting the adoption of Sharia law in the west have emphasized. Yet if we fall into that trap – as it appears we are – we will have lost the very heart of who we are.
The Good, The Bad…
Those who support the new measure rightly laud its recognition of the importance of free debate. and the inclusion of new clauses that call for “speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” and “[foster ing] religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability of members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to contribute openly and on an equal footing to society.”
What opponents (rightly) find distressing are calls to adopt “measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.”
(Additional clauses that call for countering religious profiling are also questionable, however civil rights organizations may feel about this, given the problems of Islamic terrorism in the real world. But that’s another matter.)
Oddly, Human Rights First, which previously loudly opposed the initiative for its limitation on “blasphemous speech,” is among those who now praise the newer version. In a statement, the organization opined:
Rather than imposing new restrictions on freedom of speech, which it does not, the new consensus resolution opens the door to an action-oriented approach to fighting religious intolerance. That is very consistent with the U.S. policies and practices – combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting freedom of speech. Resolution 16/18 urges states to train government officials to address religious tensions, to harmonize actions at local and national level, to raise awareness of negative stereotyping of persons, to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue, to foster religious freedom and to speak out against intolerance (among other recommendations). The only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to “imminent violence”, which is in accordance with US law.
But others are less forgiving, noting, among other things, that the resolution does nothing to prevent the continued use of anti-Jewish materials in the schools of Saudi Arabia (where the Protocols of Zion are treated as fact, thereby absolving Saudis of charges of “racism”) or the ongoing persecution of Jews and Christians in numerous Muslim countries. And yet, ironically,it was exactly those same countries who initiated the motion, as put forth in its initial drafts by the General Assembly, with expressions of concern for “cases motivated by Islamophobia, Judeophobia, and Christanophobia.”
Indeed, as M. Zuhdi Jasser, an observant American Muslim and the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, remarked in an e-mail, “Anyone who believes that Resolution 16’18 is some kind of a breakthrough is sadly being duped by the most obvious Islamist double discourse. The shift from ‘defamation’ to ‘incitement’ does nothing at all to change the basic paradigm where Islamist nations remain in the offen se, continuing to put Western, free nations on the defense.” Rather, said Jasser, “We should be putting Islamist autocracies on the defense and then simply reiterate that our First Amendment principles already protect the rights of all minorities — whether Muslim or otherwise — and that the best standard of free speech is the American one. Beginning to categorize speech as ‘incitement’ is a slippery slope that could open the floodgates for any post-tragedy analysis to indict what would otherwise be free speech absurdly as incitement in some far-fetched cause-effect analysis that would depend on proving that speech causes violence.”
Exactly.
It is, indeed, galling to think that we would enter into negotiations of any kind, with anyone, about the freedom of expression that is so central to our very way of life and the core of the founding of America. Ever.
The background to all of this, unsurprisingly, is an effort on the part of Muslim countries to limit what they consider to be defamatory and blasphemous speech: criticism of Islam, say, or insulting the prophet Mohammed – which, as we’ve learned, can mean anything from drawing a cartoon or making a joke in a comedy sketch to burning a Koran. Such acts – according to some readings of the Koran and, indeed, according to law in some IOC countries – are punishable by death. Hence the riots that met the publication of the so-called “Danish cartoons,” the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo van Gogh, and on and on.
… And The Deceptive
And here’s where Resolution 16/18 gets tricky.
Because who, exactly, arbitrates what is “incitement to imminent violence”? Violence by whom? If drawing a caricature of the Prophet incites violence by Islamic radicals to the tune of riots, arson, and murder, all sanctioned by the IOC itself – then drawing such a caricature (or writing a book like the Satanic Verses) will now constitute a criminal act. And that is exactly what the OIC was aiming for. It is also in direct violation of the principles of Western democracy – and the First Amendment. (Though it is crucial to note that any resolution passed by the General Assembly remains nonbinding, which makes you sort of wonder what the point of all this is, anyway.)
Moreover, since many would claim that the persecution of blasphemers is mandated by their religion, conflicts emerge between guarantees of free expression and the guarantee of freedom of religion and the practice of one’s faith. In othr words: your free speech allows you to insult my prophet: my freedom of religion compels me to kill you for it.
What was that about “incitement to violence”?
Whose violence?
This is how the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation plays “Gotcha.
This is how the American government, however unwittingly, subsumes its own Constitution in deference ot the demands of the Islamic state.
It’s a dangerous game.
True, the Human Rights First position on the issue is significantly more optimistic:
“The U.S. will always enforce its own standards on freedom of expression; these are enshrined in this country’s Constitution. But its legal exceptionalism on freedom of spee ch does not necessarily mean that the U.S. administration needs to be diplomatically isolated when it comes to promoting globally the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which many in the U.S. perceive to be core and founding American values. On the contrary, since the U.S. joined the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Obama administration has openly expressed its ambition to exert leadership within the U.N. body.
The U.S. demonstrated that leadership by securing the passage of Resolution 16/18 at the Human Rights Council and by moving immediately to show through the Istanbul Process Conference that states have tools at their disposal to combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting free speech.”
But note that word: “combat.” That same word appears in Resolution 16/18, which states “Understanding the need to combat denigration and negative religious stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through, inter alia, education and awareness building.” (Emphasis mine.)
“Combat” implies warfare. Is that the language we want here? Is that one of the options under the vague and wide-open term “inter alia”? And are the “tools at their disposal” – education, interfaith dialogue, and debate — really going to “combat” hatred, especially when that hatred is disguised as proper adherence to one’s faith? When racist myths are taught as historical fact to children across a large swath of the globe?
As for that “faith” thing: it strikes me that those of no faith – atheists – are not addressed anywhere in t his resolution. Are they also to be protected from hate crimes? Is atheism among the ideas to be debated and taught in these awareness-raising sessions? If so, why is that not so stated? If not, why not?
Then there is the ongoing whimpering about the “targeting” of Muslims in non-Muslim countries. Actually, that “targeting” is largely mythical, or at the very least, heavily exaggerated. Throughout the world, from France to the Netherlands to Germany to the United States of America, the majority – by a large margin – of those hate crimes and incidents of discrimination perpetrated on the basis of religion target Jews. (another resource available here) And in virtually every case, the “extremism” in question has been Islamic extremism. (Though recent reports of the despicable behavior or ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel puts a new perspective on the matter.)
The Bigger Picture
But here’s the biggest problem: when the exercise of free speech leads to violence far beyond our control. It’s called “terrorism.” And neither the U.N. General Assembly nor the United States of America has the power to stop it. More importantly: by agreeing to curb speech that could lead to “imminent violence,” we in essence accept the blame for any terrorist acts against America (and the West). We agreed not to provoke, after all.
This, of course, is an unacceptable paradigm, and one we cannot allow to stand.
Integral to the greatness of America is the simple fact that no other country in the world places so sacred a value on free speech – indeed, on free expression – as does the United States. Holocaust denial, for instance, is verboten in Germany. Mein Kampf is banned in the Netherlands. France last week criminalized the denial of the Armenian genocide in Turkey (an act that resulted in widespread condemnation by the OIC, whose Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, had the audacity, days after the ratification of 16/18, to bluster that those who defend cartoons that mock Mohammed as “freedom of thought and expression” have no business limiting the speech of those who deny the Armenian genocide. “This is an indisputable and unacceptable paradox,” he declared). And so on.
Yet in all of this, America has stood strong in its defense of free speech – even blasphemous, hateful, racist, sexist, Pentecostal, homophobic, and ignorant speech. We must continue to do so, no matter what pressures we may face. Because in the end, limiting our rights to self-expression and – above all – the questioning of religious beliefs – will never help to make the world more peaceful – or more free.

Split America into parts, secede now, no more working FOR the Progressives!!

Secede Now! IT MIGHT BE THE ONLY WAY WE SURVIVE

When the split can't be healed, just get it over with.

 

It seems extreme, I know, but over the last few weeks, I have come to the conclusion that the best way for Americans to get some feeling of satisfaction with their government is for our nation to be split apart. If we are ever to move beyond the inaction resulting from our political divisions, Liberal America needs to secede from the Union, and conservative America needs to do the same. Only through a mutual decision to part ways will Americas ever get anything even close to what they want from their government.
It seems like a radical policy, and that's because it is. However, radical treatment is sometimes the only effective treatment. The union of the American states has become taken for granted even as old regional wounds are working their way back up to the surface. The time for a discussion of secession to begin is now.
To Split is to Heal The other day, I spent about half an hour talking with a veteran member of the Green Party who is running for office in my area. He accuses the Republican Party and the Democratic Party both of preventing people like him from even running in elections, although this year the Democrats don't even have a candidate, and he could have easily have become the Democratic nominee just by getting people to sign a qualifying petition.
The more I listened to him, the more I heard him give out information that was either out of date or just plain wrong. He accused anti-war activists of being pro-war just because they don't favor the Green Party plan. He talked about the progress of Green Party organization, when in fact, the Green Party in his state has been decommissioned because of lack of popular support. He went on and on, spinning an elaborate tale of persecution, built upon a foundation of profound ignorance.
The most distinct impression I had of this Green candidate is that he was a kook. However, his efforts at communication were so intensely devoted in their description of a world gone wrong that I've spent the last week thinking about how someone like him can come to feel so abandoned by the powers that be.
Certainly, the Greens, the Independents, the Libertarians and all the other tiny alternative political parties seem to feel especially alienated. It occurred to me, however, that just about everybody is feeling this way right now. Voters who identify themselves with mainstream political parties feel isolated just as much as the Green Party candidate I spoke to. They join huge teams of political activists with incredible power, and yet they feel like victims of a political process that does not listen to them.
Republicans, whose party controls all three branches of the federal government, and most state governments as well, describe themselves as marginalized. They may not be able to come up with a very coherent definition of the liberal elite that angers them so, but they definitely believe that such an elite exists, keeping them from what is rightfully theirs. Heck, even George W. Bush, the President of the United States, a man who was born to extreme wealth, casts himself as an outsider determined to shake up the establishment.
In short, when it comes politics in America these days, almost nobody is really getting what they want.
The Roots of Disaffection The way I see it, a big part of the reason for the nearly universal feeling of political alienation among Americans is that we've been forced to muddle through in a middle ground that satisfies nobody. Oh, political commentators love to talk about the wisdom of the "moderates" who take the best ideas from different groups, but nowadays that wisdom seems like garbled, inconsistent foolishness to the American voters. It's no wonder, given how long we have suffered from the nonsense of a political system in which compromises end up creating ideological hybrids that are infertile and often so ornery that they are not worth the trouble of taming.
In our national, state and local legislatures, conservative and liberal proposals alike have their most effective components stripped out in favor of legislation that can muster majority support from within a collection of politicians who do not share a common goal. It's as if the ship of state is receiving orders to steer to starboard and port at the same time. It's no wonder that we never seem to get anywhere.
America is like a dysfunctional family right now. The siblings are fighting, and our political parents give us solutions to our squabbles that suit each of us just barely, and so really suit none of us at all. In this family, when we order a pizza, half of us want mushrooms and sausage while the other half wants pineapple and barbequed chicken. Under the current system, what we get as a result is a pizza with mushrooms and barbequed chicken, and no one likes it. What's a family to do?
Unwelcome Clarity No one would argue against the idea that the administration of George W. Bush has upset the status quo. Under Bush, all the old, unsatisfying compromises are going out the window. Whatever else we think of Bush, we can recognize that he's determined to do what he wants to do with America, and is unwilling to accept any real accommodation with his political opponents.
I don't think that Mr. Bush has thought about it on a conscious level, but somewhere in that gut he keeps on talking about, I think he recognizes the deep dissatisfaction that has resulted from years of incoherent, sloppy compromises between right and left in America. When Bush talks about things like common sense solutions and moral clarity, he's really talking about putting an end to the unsatisfying, chaotic muddle of the middle ground.
Bush is right in identifying the problem, but he's dead wrong in his solution. Bush's solution is the solution of the exasperated father in a squabbling family. He's decided that everyone should stop fighting and just submit themselves to his authority. He's decided that he'll make all the decisions, and won't let anyone complain. He genuinely believes that his commanding consistency will help everyone know their place, and not suffer the anxiety of a world without a strong social structure.
Some people thought that when Bush said "I'm a uniter, not a divider," he was promising to listen to all sides and come up with solutions that would make everyone happy. In fact, Bush was promising to do everything that he could to bring all Americans together under his authority, to do what he thinks they ought to do. When Bush says "United We Stand," he means that we all must stand in the same place, whether we like it or not.
Of course, Bush's record shows that his attempt at uncompromising leadership has been a disaster. Our nation is in a record amount of debt, our economy is stumbling, we're still not really secure from terrorist attacks, and Americans are being killed in a wasteful and unnecessary war.
Compromise does give Americans what they want, but under Bush's plan, only half of America gets what it wants, and the rest of us are absolutely miserable. What we need is a solution that will allow liberal America to get what it wants at the same time that conservative America gets what it wants.
What We Really Want The first step to getting what we want is admitting what we really want. This means complete honesty, even if we don't think that other Americans will like what they hear.
For generations, American politicians (and most other Americans too) have been playing a disingenuous game in which they don't ever say what they really want to do with the power of public office. They make hints, but are careful not to upset supposed "moderates". They speak blatant untruths in the attempt to appeal to swing voters.
John Kerry says he does not want to raise taxes. George W. Bush insists he never wanted to go to war. We all know it's a load of bull, but when we get into political debates with people who disagree with us, we make the very same claims, in order to seem more reasonable to the majority in the room.
When it comes down to it, conservatives want an America in which there is almost no regulation of business, where people can do whatever they want to with their own property, and lawsuits are possible only when offenses are obvious and grave. Conservatives want to be able to whack down the forests to put in big shopping malls, and dig the heart out of the mountains, pouring huge amounts of toxins into the water and air because it's the easier way to make a living. Conservatives want to keep the petroleum-based economy. Conservatives want a higher population. Conservatives want women to get back into a more submissive role. They want blacks and other ethnic minorities to live in separate communities. They want gays to go away completely. Conservatives want guns to be readily available to whomever wants some. They want a big military with a big nuclear arsenal. They want to go to war frequently. They want almost no taxes, and almost no government service other than the military. Conservatives want abortion to be illegal, and they want protests only to be legal so long as they don't say or do anything that makes people uncomfortable. Conservatives want Christianity to be at the heart of American government.
Liberals want more taxation in order to fund more government service. Liberals want more regulation of businesses in order to keep people safe, and want to the ability to file suit when they believe that they have been wronged. Liberals want more wilderness and want less sprawl, even if it means that we can't make as much money as we would otherwise. Liberals want to keep the population down. Liberals want freedom of speech to be absolute, and would like to do away with the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. Liberals want to develop alternative energy. Liberals want equal rights for everybody, regardless of ethnicity, creed, gender or sexual preference. Liberals want stronger schools and much weaker military. Liberals want to do away with nuclear weapons. Liberals want to fight only in true self-defense. Liberals want to keep abortion legal. They want government to be secular, not interfering in people's private decisions about religion.
I say we give both groups the America they want.
Time For Divorce When a husband and wife want to do completely incompatible things with their lives, it's time for a divorce. Now, America is split almost 50/50 between liberals and conservatives. Liberals and conservatives have almost completely incompatible goals for America, and we can't come to a compromise that satisfies our needs. It's time for a divorce. I'm calling upon America to break up.

150 years ago, the Southern States seceded from the Union, and the time has come to admit that they may have had the right idea. Back East, the old split between North and South remains. Out West, there's a new split that mirrors quite a bit of the old disagreements between North and South.
The best way to determine the division of assets is to look at the Electoral College maps of recent elections. It's easy to see that there are already at least two distinct American nations developing with the artificial borders of the United States of America.
So, here's my proposal. Conservatives, we liberals are tired of fighting over Florida. We think you stole it, but go ahead and take it. Besides, what with global warming and rising sea levels, it won't be in great shape in the long term. We'll also be generous and give you New Mexico, even though it voted for Gore and is pulling for John Kerry very strongly. The last thing we liberals want is a landlocked country surrounded by conservative armies. Then, we'll also throw in San Diego and a strip of Southern California including Orange County and going all the way over to Arizona. Southern Illinois can also be yours, to add onto your conservative state of Missouri. In a final bit of generosity, we'll give you some western portions of Minnesota and Iowa, to join your Dakotas.
In return, we ask liberals ask that we retain full control of the Great Lakes. We just don't trust you conservatives to restrain yourselves from dumping more wastes in them. We think it's time to let Ohio and Indiana divide themselves into conservative-majority south and liberal majority north. Heck, we'll give you most of Indiana.
Now, given that you conservatives are always complaining about people from Washington, D.C., we figure that you don't want it. Besides, in this year's election, it looks like barely more than 10 percent of the people in Washington D.C. are voting for Bush. We also want the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., but you can keep the rest of that state.
In return for New Mexico, we'd like Nevada, which has not been very strong in its support of Republican presidents. Besides, it's got Las Vegas, and Las Vegas is simply not a family-friendly place. We'll help with that by just taking it off your hands.
What we end up with as a result of this secession will be four nations. In the middle, there will be the conservative Homeland States of America (sorry, conservatives, but we never knew what you were talking about with all those references to the "homeland" - only you seem to know where it is). In the Northeast, there will be the Liberated of America - it's only to be expected that we'll want to rub that "liberal" word back in your face a little bit. The West Coast and the Northeast are too far away to effectively govern as one nation, and so we'll let the Pacific States of America go their own way. The liberals will also be generous enough to allow Hawaii to be an independent nation once again.
Of course, there are conservative strongholds within the new liberal nations' borders, and there are liberal strongholds within the Homeland States of America. Secession would require many Americans to move if they wanted to live in a country that valued their interests. Places like Austin, Santa Fe and Missoula would likely empty out fairly quickly.
Keeping the Peace The trouble with secession is that it could lead internal disagreements to become international conflicts. Keeping the peace between the new, smaller American states would be quite a challenge, and it would take a huge amount of discipline.
The right way to start would be to make secession a mutual agreement. Instead of state-led secession of the kind that caused the civil war, we need an act of Congress which would then be ratified by the states - one final act of compromise.
The nuclear arsenal would be retained only by the Homeland States of America. The three new liberal nations would work toward complete destruction of the nuclear weapons on their own soil.
This disarmament would require the liberal nations to employ liberal methods for security. Using diplomacy, the liberal nations of America would have to build strong alliances with Canada, Mexico, and Europe for financial and security partnerships.
Financial prosperity would also have to be a tool of security. The fact is that as much as Republicans claim to be pro-business, the economy is actually performs better when it is under the control of the more liberal Democrats. The new liberal states would contain the powerhouses of New York City, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. The Homeland States of America would contain some second-rate financial centers, such as Dallas and Atlanta, but under conservative rule, these centers would have trouble competing with the liberals.
With the stability of more liberal systems of government, without the economic drain of huge military spending and privatized health care, the liberal nations of America would be able to invest much more into the quality of life of their citizens. With a stronger public education system, including the enhanced university and technical education, the liberal nations would see a resurgence of wealth, and, as we have seen, wealth brings allies. The liberal nations would replace military invasions with international humanitarian aid. As continued host to a reinvigorated United Nations headquartered in New York City, the Liberated States of America would become a beacon of democracy, freedom and prosperity cherished by the rest of the world.
We liberals would be challenged not to fall into the fears of the conservative way of thinking. We would be challenged to prove that there are other ways besides bombs and bullets to build security.
One of the best reasons for hope in the post-secession world would be the inward focus of all the new American nations. Each one would be finally free to follow, with much greater consistency, the political philosophies favored by their citizens. Their governments would be too busy, for at least the first ten years, to even think about going to war with each other. Their diminished size, in relation to the rest of the world, would also force each of the new American nations (even the Homeland States of America) to be more careful about beginning new military adventures.
To be sure, the future of a seceded America would be uncertain. However, there would be much greater potential for Americans of different philosophies to realize their political goals. The ultimate prize would be smaller, but at least the prize would be attainable. Without secession, Americans of all political persuasions would continue in their anger and frustration for generations to come. That much in anger boiling within the most powerful nation on Earth is good for no one. I say that it's time to share the power by splitting the power.