Obama and Khalid Mansour and the Muslim Brother hood connection going back to 1979

By FRANK MIELE/Daily Inter Lake

Searching old newspapers is one of my favorite pastimes, and I have tried to use them many times to shed light on current events — or to inform readers about how the past is prologue to our very interesting present-day quandaries.
Recently, I came across a syndicated column from November 1979 that seemed to point 30 years into the future toward an obscure campaign issue that arose briefly in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it has any greater relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign, I will allow the reader to decide. In order to accomplish that, I will also take the unusual step of providing footnotes and the end of this column so that each of you can do the investigative work for yourself.
The column itself had appeared in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Evening Independent of Nov. 6, but it was the work of a veteran newspaperman who at the time was working for the prestigious Chicago Tribune and whose work was syndicated nationally. (1)  
So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”
Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer — Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.
Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified.
You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any other word of it.
Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t, but what’s particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.
That tale had surfaced in 2008 when Barack Obama was a candidate for president and one of the leading black politicians in the country — Percy Sutton of New York — told an interviewer on a Manhattan TV news show that he had been introduced to Obama “by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.” (2)
This peculiar revelation engendered a small hubbub in 2008, but was quickly dismissed by the Obama campaign as the ditherings of a senile old man. I don’t believe President Obama himself ever denied the story personally, and no one has explained how Sutton came up with this elaborate story about Khalid al-Mansour if it had no basis in fact, and in any case al-Mansour no longer denies it. (3)
Back in 2008, while actually supporting Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, Percy Sutton was interviewed on TV and said that he thought Barack Obama was nonetheless quite impressive. He also revealed that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter where al-Mansour wrote, “there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”
Sutton concluded in the interview, “I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly.”
Until now, there really has been no context within which to understand the Sutton story or to buttress it as a reliable account other than the reputation of Sutton himself as one of the top leaders of the black community in Manhattan — himself a noted attorney, businessman and politician. But the new discovery of the 1979 column that established Khalid al-Mansour’s interest in creating a fund to give “financial help to disadvantaged students” does provide a clue that he might indeed — along with his patron, Arab Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — have taken an interest in the “genius” Barack Obama.
It also might be considered more than coincidence that the author of that 1979 newspaper column was from Chicago, where Barack Obama settled in 1986 a few years after his stint at Columbia University. It is certainly surprising that the author of that column was none other than Vernon Jarrett, the future (and later former) father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, who ultimately became the consigliatore of the Obama White House.
It is also noteworthy that Vernon Jarrett was one of the best friends and a colleague of Frank Marshall Davis, the former Chicago journalist and lifelong communist who moved to Hawaii in the late 1940s and years later befriended Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and their daughter Stanley Ann, the mother of Barack Obama. (4)
And to anyone who has the modicum of a spark of curiosity, it is surely intriguing that Frank Davis took an active role in the rearing of young Barack from the age of 10 until he turned 18 and left Hawaii for his first year of college at Occidental College in Los Angeles. (5)
It is also at least suggestive that Obama began that college education as a member of the highly international student body of Occidental College in 1979, the same year when Vernon Jarrett was touting the college aid program being funded by OPEC and possibly Prince Alwaleed. The fact that President Obama has studiously avoided releasing records of his college years is suggestive also, but has no evidentiary value in the present discussion. (6)
The nature of Vernon Jarrett’s relationship to Khalid al-Mansour is likewise uncertain, but it is very likely they had known each other as leaders of the black civil-rights movement for many years. Under his previous name of Donald Warden, al-Mansour had founded the African American Association in the Bay Area in the early 1960s. He had also helped inspire the Black Panther Party through his association with black-power leaders such as Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Seale, of course, had a famous association with Chicago later, when he was part of the Chicago Eight charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. (7)
In any case, it doesn’t matter if Vernon Jarrett and Khalid al-Mansour had a personal relationship or not. For some reason, al-Mansour had used Jarrett as the messenger to get out the word about his efforts to funnel Arab oil money to black students and minority colleges at about the same time that Barack Obama began his college career. That doesn’t mean either Jarrett or al-Mansour knew Obama at that time, but eight years later when Obama was a rising star in Chicago, a friend of Bill Ayers and Valerie Jarrett, it is much more likely that he did indeed have the assistance of very important people in his meteoric rise. The words of Percy Sutton about what al-Mansour told him regarding Obama certainly have the ring of truth:
“His introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends back there... Would you please write a letter in support of him? (That’s before Obama decided to run.) ... and he interjected the advice that Obama had passed the requirements, had taken and passed the requirements necessary to get into Harvard and become president of the Law Review. That’s before he ever ran for anything. And I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them that I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly...” (2)
What possible significance could all this have? We may never know, but Vernon Jarrett, back in 1979, thought that OPEC’s intention to fund black and minority education would have huge political ramifications. As Jarrett wrote:
“The question of financial aid from the Arabs could raise a few extremely interesting questions both inside and outside the black community. If such contributions are large and sustained, the money angle may become secondary to the sociology and politics of such an occurrence.” (1)
He was, of course, right.
As Jarrett suggests, any black institutions and presumably individuals who became beholden to Arab money might be expected to continue the trend of American “new black advocacy for a homeland for the Palestinians” and presumably for other Islamic and Arabic interests in the Middle East. For that reason, if for no other, the question of how President Obama’s college education was funded is of considerably more than academic interest.

---

Footnotes:
1) “Will Arabs Back Ties to Blacks With Cash?” by Vernon Jarrett — http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19791106&id=RcFaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GFkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6597,1456637&hl=en
2) Percy Sutton interview on NY1, March 2008 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EcC0QAd0Ug&e
3) The National and International Roundtable posted a one-hour interview with Khalid al-Mansour and other African American Association leaders on the Internet just last week. In the introduction of al-Mansour, the black host notes that his guest had been a patron of Barack Obama and had recommended him for admission to Harvard Law School. You will note that al-Mansour does not correct him.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/solutionsnowradio/2012/09/19/the-national-and-international-roundtable#.UFptoKF6-yA.blogger
4) “All in the (Political) Family,” by Paul Kengor — http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/03/all-in-the-political-family
5) “Dreams from my Father,” by Barack Obama — http://www.amazon.com/Dreams-From-My-Father-Inheritance/dp/B000R9EG3Q
6) “Why Obama’s College Records Matter,” By Monte Kuligowski — http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/why_obamas_college_records_matter.html
7) “Who is Khalid al-Mansour?” by Kenneth R. Timmerman — http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/khalid-al-mansour-Obama/2008/09/04/id/325191

THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD 'Project' – a plan to takeover the West. YOU READ THIS ?? THESE ARE OBAMA'S ISLAMIC FRIENDS WHOM HE IS ARMING ACROSS THE WORLD WHO WILL COME TO HIS DEFENSE WITH OUR WEAPONS!!

THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD
'Project' – a plan to takeover the West

The Muslim Brotherhood ‘Project’ was drafted in 1982 when current tensions and terrorist activities in the Middle East were still very nascent. In many respects, The ‘Project’ is extremely prescient for outlining the bulk of Islamist action, whether by “moderate” Islamist organizations or terror groups, over the past two decades.

The Muslim Brotherhood is directly linked to  a huge number of Islamic organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MSA, MAS and others in America to create the framework for spreading the barbaric Islamic rules in the West.
THIS JUST IN! Coming August 31: ‘Direct Access’ Stimulus Grants for the Muslim Brotherhood

Think of it as ACORN reborn, with a slice of Jihad on the side. On August 31, this coming Tuesday, the Muslim Brotherhood-associated “Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations” (CCMO) will bring 25-30 Muslim leaders of 20 national Muslim groups to attend a special workshop presented by the White House and U.S. Government agencies (Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services etc.) to provide the groups “funding, government assistance and resources.”  The workshop will apparently provide special access for these Muslim Brotherhood organizations: the organizers pledge to provide “direct access” and “cut through red tape.” Government and Muslim groups will hold an Iftar dinner (breaking the fast of Ramadan) after the workshop.

Read more here: Front Page Magazine – ‘The Project’
And here: The Truth about the Muslim Brotherhood
The following tactics and techniques are among the many recommendations made in The Project. You’ll be shocked to see how many of them are going on in America right now. FYI: The Muslim Brotherhood has been officially banned in Egypt.

• Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations;
• Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”
• Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals
• Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law
• Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims
• Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers
• Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection and data storage capabilities
• Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of “international plots fomented against them”
• Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements
• Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world
• Balancing international objectives with local flexibility
• Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant
• Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions
• Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam
• Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation
• Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels, including the development of processes for conflict resolution
• Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals
• Creating autonomous “security forces” to protect Muslims in the West
• Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”
• Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support
• Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims
• Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination
• Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them
• Actively creating jihad terror cells within Palestine
• Linking the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror movement
• Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world

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.