Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2010

It’s that time of year again! As the nation’s largest government watchdog organization, each year Judicial Watch publishes its list of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The purpose of the list, which is widely distributed in the press, is to put the spotlight on the year’s most egregious incidents of secrecy, corruption and abuse of power. This list is a powerful tool to educate Americans about the bipartisan problem of corruption in Washington, so please share it far and wide.


The 2010 list, in alphabetical order, includes: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Rahm Emanuel, Former Obama White House Chief of Staff, Senator John Ensign (R-NV), Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), President Barack Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY), and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA).

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. But it appears she still needs an ethics lesson. Boxer presided over a year-long investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee into whether two of her Senate colleagues, Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Kent Conrad (D-ND), received preferential treatment from Countrywide Financial as part of the company’s “VIP” program. (Senate ethics rules prohibit members from receiving loan terms not available to the general public.) In fact, according to The Associated Press, during an Ethics Committee hearing Boxer asked “the bulk of the questions.”

However, Boxer failed to mention (or disclose on her official Senate Financial Disclosure documents) that she and her husband have signed no less than seven mortgages with Countrywide! At the time of the hearing, Boxer reportedly indicated she had paid off two Countrywide mortgages, but did not mention the others.

CORRUPTION CHRONICLES

• U.S. Atty. Gen. Reassures Muslims Of DOJ Protection

• Obama's Stimulus Funds Dinosaur Egg Study In China

• Feds Take Over School Bake Sales

• U.S. Ignores Serious Threats Along Northern Border

The evidence clearly showed that Dodd and Conrad knew they were receiving preferential treatment despite repeated denials. Yet Boxer’s Senate Ethics Committee allowed Dodd and Conrad to wriggle off the hook with a light admonition that suggested the two Senators should have exercised better judgment. The same, apparently, can be said of the Committee’s own chair, who either neglected to mention or outright lied about her own dealings with the corrupt mortgage company.

Rahm Emanuel, Former Obama White House Chief of Staff didn’t earn the nickname “Rahmbo” for being a mild-mannered shrinking violet. He served as Bill Clinton’s chief money-man at a time when the Clinton campaign was corrupted by foreign money. He defended the “worst of the worst” Clinton scandals, and, in fact, earned his reputation as a ruthless political combatant by fiercely defending President Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky investigation. (Notably, Emanuel also served on the board of Freddie Mac when the company was involved in fraudulent activity.)

The bottom line is that when the Clintons’ dirty work needed to be done, Emanuel did it and apparently without question. That didn’t change under Obama. Remember when the Obama White House wanted to manipulate Democratic primaries in 2010?

Emanuel teamed with his then-Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina to allegedly interfere with Senate elections in Pennsylvania and Colorado by offering federal appointments to Rep. Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff. Sestak and Romanoff were not Obama’s favored candidates, so Emanuel and Messina apparently attempted to unlawfully persuade them to abandon their campaigns.

A Judicial Watch complaint to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel on June 15, 2010, tells the story: “As widely reported in the media, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, on behalf of the Obama Administration, have both used their position and influence as highly placed federal employees to affect the outcome of federal elections in direct violation of the Hatch Act, which states that an employee may not ‘use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.’”

And then, of course, there’s Emanuel’s participation in the Blagojevich scandal.

According to sworn testimony during the “Blago” trial, Emanuel served as Obama’s chief negotiator with the Blagojevich team as the former Illinois Governor attempted to illegally sell Obama’s former Senate seat to the highest bidder. Unfortunately, the federal prosecutor cut short the case against Blagojevich and Emanuel and other Obama insiders were never called to testify.

Emanuel left the White House under an ethical cloud and has decided to throw his hat in the ring for Mayor of Chicago, where he again stands accused of ignoring the rules and violating the law regarding candidate residency requirements.

Senator John Ensign (R-NV): In a scandal that first broke in 2009, Senator Ensign publicly admitted to an affair with the wife of a long-time staffer. And the evidence indicates Ensign then tried to cover up his sexual shenanigans by bribing the couple with lucrative gifts and political favors.

According to The New York Times, after Ensign’s aide, Douglas Hampton, discovered the affair, “Mr. Ensign asked political backers to find a job for…Hampton. Payments of $96,000 to the Hamptons also were made by Senator Ensign’s parents, who insist this was a gift, not hush money. Once a lobbying job was secured, Senator Ensign and his chief of staff continued to help Mr. Hampton, advocating his clients’ cases directly with federal agencies.”

These lobbying activities were seemingly in violation of the Senate’s “cooling off” period for lobbyists. According to The Wall Street Journal, “Under Senate rules, former Senate aides cannot lobby their former colleagues for one year after leaving Capitol Hill.” Hampton began to lobby Mr. Ensign’s office immediately upon leaving his congressional job.

Ensign seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying access to his office as a payment for his silence about the affair. And despite the claims of Ensign and his parents, the $96,000 in “gifts” provided to the Hamptons were clearly hush payments.

Nonetheless, on December 1, 2010, the Obama Justice Department announced it will file no criminal charges against Ensign, while the Federal Election Commission has also dismissed a related ethics complaint. If there is to be justice for Ensign, it will have to be up to the corrupt (see Boxer entry above) Senate Ethics Committee, which is still considering the charges against the Nevada Republican.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): In a story that continued to mushroom throughout 2010, Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) improperly intervened for Maxine Waters (D-CA) on behalf of his home-state OneUnited Bank to obtain Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds. When asked about the scandal, the Massachusetts Democrat admitted he spoke to a “federal regulator” but, according to The Wall Street Journal he didn’t remember which federal regulator he spoke with.” According to explosive Treasury Department emails uncovered by Judicial Watch in 2010, however, it appears this nameless bureaucrat was none other than then-Treasury Secretary Henry “Hank” Paulson!

While Frank’s “partner in crime” in the OneUnited scandal, Congressman Maxine Waters, is being investigated by the House Ethics Committee (see below), Frank’s colleagues in the House have inexcusably ignored the Massachusetts Democrat’s connection to the OneUnited grant.

To this day, Barney Frank continues to defend his role in the meltdown of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying he was just as blindsided as the rest of America when the two government sponsored enterprises collapsed, triggering the financial crisis. Frank has been peddling this fiction ever since the economy collapsed in September 2008. But, as The Boston Globe reported in a devastating article published on October 14, 2010, not many people are buying Frank’s lies anymore. And Frank knows it. Here’s an excerpt from the Globe:

The issue…in 2003 was whether mortgage backers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fiscally strong. Frank declared with his trademark confidence that they were, accusing critics and regulators of exaggerating threats to Fannie’s and Freddie’s financial integrity. And, the Massachusetts Democrat maintained, ‘even if there were problems, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.’ Now, it’s clear he was wrong on both points…

Frank wasn’t wrong. He was just lying through his teeth. Frank claims that he “missed” the warning signs with Fannie and Freddie because he was wearing “ideological blinders,” which was just his lame attempt to blame Republicans. But he did not miss them. According to evidence uncovered by Judicial Watch, he just chose to ignore them.

Judicial Watch obtained documents in 2010 proving that members of Congress, including — and perhaps especially — Barney Frank, were well aware that Fannie and Freddie were in deep trouble due to corruption and incompetence and yet they did nothing to stop it.

Moreover, as the Globe notes, in July 2008, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson says he called Frank and told him the government would need to spend “billions of taxpayer dollars to backstop the institutions from catastrophic failure.” Frank, despite that conversation, appeared on national television two days later and said the companies were “fundamentally sound, not in danger of going under.” Less than two months later, the government seized Fannie and Freddie and the bailout began.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL): This year’s trial of scandal-ridden former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich ended with “Blago” being convicted of only 1 of 24 charges related to the scheme to sell Obama’s vacated Senate seat to the highest bidder. But as the government plans its second attempt to prosecute the case, one person who should be on the hot-seat is Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL).

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, “Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. directed a major political fund-raiser to offer former Gov. Rod Blagojevich millions of dollars in campaign cash in return for an appointment to the U.S. Senate.”

How much cash?

The Chicago Sun Times put that figure at $1.5 million in its initial reports. But according to Jackson’s fundraiser, Raghuveer Nayak, the Illinois Congressman asked him to offer not $1.5 million, but a whopping $6 million in campaign cash to Blagojevich to secure the Senate seat!

In addition to his corrupt deal-making, in 2010 Jackson was also nailed for conducting an improper and potentially criminal relationship with a female “social acquaintance.”

Nayak told investigators that Jackson asked him to “pay to fly a Washington, DC, restaurant hostess named Giovana Huidobro…to Chicago to visit him.” Nayak reportedly did so twice.

We all know what “social acquaintance” means under these circumstances. Jackson says this is a “private and personal matter between me and my wife.” But not if it involves public funds or illegal gifts — issues which remain unsettled.

President Barack Obama: Remember the promise President Obama made just after his inauguration in 2009? “Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”

Instead, Americans have suffered through lies, stonewalling, cover-ups, corruption, secrecy, scandal and blatant disregard for the rule of law…this has been the Obama legacy in its first two years.

In 2010, Obama was caught in a lie over what he knew about Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s scheme to sell the president’s vacated Senate seat. Blagojevich’s former Chief of Staff John Harris testified that Obama had personal knowledge of Blago’s plot to obtain a presidential cabinet position in exchange for appointing a candidate handpicked by the President. In fact, according to Harris’s court testimony, Obama sent Blagojevich a list of “acceptable” Senate candidates to fill his old seat. Obama was interviewed by the FBI even before he was sworn into office. He claimed he and his staff had no contact with Blagojevich’s office. Unfortunately federal prosecutors never called the President or his staff to testify under oath.

The President also broke his famous pledge to televise healthcare negotiations. And in 2010, we learned why he broke his pledge. In what is now known as the “Cornhusker Kickback” scheme, Obama and the Democrats in the Senate “purchased” the vote of one of the last Democrat hold-outs, Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, who opposed Obamacare over the issue of covering abortions with taxpayer funds. Nelson abandoned his opposition to Obamacare after receiving millions of dollars in federal aid for his home-state, helping to give the Democrats the 60 votes they needed to overcome a Republican filibuster. Same goes for Louisiana Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu, who received a $100 million payoff in what has been called “The Louisiana Purchase.” (The Kickback was so corrupt that Democrats stripped it out at the last minute. The Louisiana Purchase, on the other hand, became law of the land.)

Obama lied about his White House’s involvement in this legislative bribery that helped lead to the passage of the signature policy achievement of his presidency.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “Air Pelosi” is now grounded.

Judicial Watch uncovered documents back in 2009 detailing attempts by Pentagon staff to accommodate Pelosi’s numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft for herself and her family as well as the speaker’s 11th hour cancellations and changes. In 2010, Judicial Watch kept the pressure on Pelosi, uncovering documents that demonstrated the Speaker was using U.S. Air Force aircraft as her own personal party planes. Overall, the Speaker’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.

For example, purchases for one Pelosi-led congressional delegation traveling from Washington, DC to Tel Aviv, Israel and Baghdad, Iraq May 15-20, 2008, included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Cream, Maker’s Mark whisky, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewar’s scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine.

Moreover, Pelosi also abused the rules by allowing members of her family to join her on taxpayer-funded Air Force flights. For example, on June 20, 2009, Speaker Pelosi’s daughter, son-in-law and two grandsons joined a flight from Andrews Air Force Base to San Francisco International Airport. That flight included $143 for on-flight expenses for food and other items. On July 2, 2010, Pelosi took her grandson on a flight from Andrews Air Force Base to Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California, which is northeast of San Francisco.

Judicial Watch’s efforts not only exposed Nancy Pelosi’s corrupt abuse of military aircraft, but they also led to reform when Rep. John Boehner announced after Election Day that, as Speaker of the House of Representatives, he will fly commercial to and from Ohio instead of using military aircraft.

Of course, it was Rep. Nancy Pelosi who famously promised to “drain the swamp” in Washington, DC during the campaign of 2006 when the Democrats seized control of power on Capitol Hill. That did not happen. Aside from her own personal transgressions, Pelosi also turned a blind eye to corruption on the part of her Congressional colleagues (see Charlie Rangel entry below).

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): On December 2, 2010, the House of Representatives voted 333-79 to “censure” Rep. Charles Rangel. Next to expulsion, this is the most serious sanction that can be taken by the House against an individual member. This censure vote followed an investigation by the Committee for Official Standards of Conduct, which finally convicted Rangel on 13 ethics violations, including:

• Forgetting to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income he earned from his off-shore rental property. (Rangel was formerly in charge of the committee responsible for writing tax policy.)

• Misusing his congressional office, staff and resources to raise money for his private Rangel Center for Public Service, to be housed at the City College of New York. (He also put the squeeze on donors who had business before his House Ways and Means Committee, and used the congressional “free mail” privilege to solicit funds.)

• Misusing his residentially-zoned Harlem apartment as a campaign headquarters.

• Failing to report $600,000 in income on his official congressional financial disclosure reports, which contained “numerous errors and omissions.”

It is worth noting that the Committee did not consider other serious corruption charges against Rangel. For example, it has been alleged that Rangel preserved a tax loophole for an oil company in exchange for a Rangel Center donation. The Committee also did not consider the charge that Rangel used improper influence to maintain ownership of his highly coveted rent-controlled apartment — the same apartment he improperly used for campaign activities.

As this is Washington, politicians of both parties will pretend that censure is a serious punishment. But it is a “punishment” that simply requires Rangel to come to the well of the House and hear a disapproving statement read by lame-duck House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the real world, you get fired or thrown in jail for abusing your office and not paying your taxes.

Here is further context: The last time the House censured anyone was in 1983, when two congressmen (a Republican and Democrat) were censured for having sexual relationships with teenaged House pages. It seems that unless one is convicted of a crime, one can do anything as a congressman and not be thrown out of the House! The fact that the House has so rarely resorted to censure is more indicative of the lack of seriousness about ethics in Congress than of the so-called severity of the censure punishment.

Rangel should have been expelled from the House of Representatives.

Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY): On Election Day 2010, voters sent Congress a clear message: No more big spending or corrupt back-room deals! And what did House Republicans decide to do as one of their first moves for the new Tea Party Congress? Appoint Rep. Hal Rogers, also known as the “Prince of Pork,” to chair the powerful House Appropriations Committee.

According to ABC News: “In two years, Rogers pushed through 135 earmarks worth $246 million. He’s brought tens of millions of dollars into his hometown of Somerset, Ky., so much so that the town has been dubbed ‘Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood.’” Among the most egregious earmarks was a $17 million grant Rogers obtained for an “Airport to Nowhere,” a Kentucky airport with “so little traffic that the last commercial airline pulled out in February (2010).”

But the most serious charge against Rogers involves an earmark he obtained that could benefit one of his own family members.

Rogers secured $5 million in the House for conservation groups that work with wild cats, including the Cheetah Conservation Fund, a Namibia-based organization that employs Rogers’ daughter Allison. In fact, Allison Rogers serves as grants administrator. After she joined the organization in 2007, Congressman Rogers began his push for funding. In 2009, with help from Rogers, the bill passed the House by a 2-1 margin. (It has yet to be voted on in the Senate.)

Congressman Rogers claims he’ll change his stripes now: “No more earmarks. I’ll be the enforcer of the moratorium.” But Rogers’ 27 year history of wasting taxpayer funds on questionable projects is certainly cause for skepticism.

On November 9, 2010, Judicial Watch sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner asking him to reject a bid by Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), who made our 2009 “Top Ten” list, to once again serve as Chair of the Appropriations Committee, given Lewis’s penchant for influence peddling. Rep. Rogers, however, is no upgrade.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): Now that Charlie Rangel has been “punished” for his wrongdoing is California Rep. Maxine Waters next up on the hot-seat?

The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (known informally as the House Ethics Committee) plans to hold hearings, although the committee delayed the trial indefinitely on November 29, 2010, citing newly discovered documentary evidence that may impact proceedings. According to The Associated Press, “The charges focus on whether Waters broke the rules in requesting federal help for a bank where her husband owned stock and had served on the board of directors.”

Judicial Watch has investigated the Waters/OneUnited Bank scandal for months. In fact, JW successfully sued the Obama Treasury Department to get documents and obtained explosive emails from the Treasury that provide documented evidence to support the charges against Waters.

For instance, a January 13, 2009, email from Brookly McLaughlin, Treasury’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, expresses surprise at Waters’ apparent conflict of interest:

Further to email below, WSJ [Wall Street Journal] tells me: …Apparently this bank is the only one that has gotten money through section 103-6 of the EESA law. And Maxine Waters’ husband is on the board of the bank. ??????

Judicial Watch also uncovered documents detailing the deplorable financial condition of the bank at the time of the cash infusion, which showed that the bank would have been an unlikely candidate to receive TARP funding without intervention from Waters and Frank.

Aside from OneUnited, there was yet another scandal with Waters’ fingerprints all over it.

According to The Washington Times: “A lobbyist known as one of California’s most successful power brokers while serving as a legislative leader in that state paid Rep. Maxine Waters’ husband $15,000 in consulting fees at a time she was co-sponsoring legislation that would help save the real-estate finance business of one of the lobbyist’s best-paying clients, records show.” That “real-estate finance business” was labeled a “scam” by the IRS in a 2006 report.

Where Are They Now?

(Updates on Selected Judicial Watch “Ten Most Wanted” Alumni)

Jack Abramoff, Former Lobbyist: Jack Abramoff appeared on Judicial Watch’s 2006 “Ten Most Wanted” list for his role in a slew of public corruption scandals that led to the convictions of 20 people, including former Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Ney. Abramoff was sentenced that year to nearly six years in prison for a fraudulent casino deal. In 2008, Abramoff received a concurrent four-year sentence “for conspiring to defraud the government, corrupting public officials and defrauding his clients in a separate case.” In December 2010, Abramoff completed a six-month stint at a Baltimore pizza joint, which officially concludes his prison sentence, and he is now on probation for three years. In 2010, Abramoff was also the subject of a new film called “Casino Jack,” which stars actor Kevin Spacey. Spacey received a Golden Globe nomination for his portrayal of the disgraced former lobbyist.

Former Senator Roland Burris (D-IL): Former Senator Roland Burris made Judicial Watch’s 2009 “Ten Most Wanted” list for his corrupt (and ultimately successful) attempt to secure Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat from then-Governor Rod Blagojevich. According to Reuters: “Roland Burris came under fresh scrutiny…after disclosing he tried to raise money for the disgraced former Illinois governor who named him to the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama…Burris said he looked into mounting a fundraiser for Rod Blagojevich — later charged with trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat — at the same time he was expressing interest to the then-governor’s aides about his desire to be appointed.” Burris changed his story five times regarding his contacts with Blagojevich prior to being appointed to the U.S. Senate. Three of those changing explanations came under oath. As a special appointment, Roland Burris’s term ended in November 2010, and he is no longer in the U.S. Senate.

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX): Congressman DeLay was embroiled in a series of scandals while serving as majority leader for House Republicans, earning him a spot on Judicial Watch’s 2006 “Ten Most Wanted” list. DeLay, who was also investigated for his ties to “Ten Most Wanted” alumnus Jack Abramoff, resigned his post as majority leader in 2005 and resigned from Congress in 2006. In November 2010, DeLay was ultimately convicted of “illegally funneling corporate money to Texas candidates in 2002,” according to The Associated Press. “He faces five years to life in prison on the money laundering charge and two to 20 years on the conspiracy charge.” Mr. DeLay is adamant he did nothing wrong and plans to appeal the verdict. Mr. DeLay is also the only “Ten Most Wanted” alumnus to appear on the television dance competition Dancing with the Stars.

Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): Senator Dodd made Judicial Watch’s “Ten Most Wanted” list in 2008 for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for improperly accepting preferential treatment from Countrywide Financial as part of the company’s corrupt “Friends of Angelo” VIP program. Then he made the list again in 2009 for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate Financial Disclosure form. Dodd allegedly obtained a sweetheart real estate deal for the Ireland property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate. It seems the scandals were too much politically, and in 2010 Dodd announced he would not run for re-election. Despite his ethical lapses related to the financial sector, Dodd’s name (along with Barney Frank’s) is affixed to the “Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,” the huge regulatory overhaul of the financial sector passed and signed into the law earlier this year. In January 2011 he will be out of office.

Separating Terror from Terrorism

On Dec. 15, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sent a joint bulletin to state and local law enforcement agencies expressing their concern that terrorists may attack a large public gathering in a major U.S. metropolitan area during the 2010 holiday season. That concern was echoed by contacts at the FBI and elsewhere who told STRATFOR they were almost certain there was going to be a terrorist attack launched against the United States over Christmas.

Certainly, attacks during the December holiday season are not unusual. There is a history of such attacks, from the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on Dec. 21, 1988, and the thwarted millennium attacks in December 1999 and January 2000 to the post-9/11 airliner attacks by shoe bomber Richard Reid on Dec. 22, 2001, and by underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on Dec. 25, 2009. Some of these plots have even stemmed from the grassroots. In December 2006, Derrick Shareef was arrested while planning an attack he hoped to launch against an Illinois shopping mall on Dec. 22.

Mass gatherings in large metropolitan areas have also been repeatedly targeted by jihadist groups and lone wolves. In addition to past attacks and plots directed against the subway systems in major cities such as Madrid, London, New York and Washington, 2010 saw failed attacks against the crowds in New York’s Times Square on May 1 and in Pioneer Courthouse Square in downtown Portland, Ore., on Nov. 26.

With this history, it is understandable that the FBI and the DHS would be concerned about such an attack this year and issue a warning to local and state law enforcement agencies in the United States. This American warning also comes on the heels of similar alerts in Europe, warnings punctuated by the Dec. 11 suicide attack in Stockholm.

So far, the 2010 holiday season has been free from terrorist attacks, but as evidenced by all the warnings and concern, this season has not been free from the fear of such attacks, the psychological impact known as “terror.” In light of these recent developments, it seems appropriate discuss the closely related phenomena of terrorism and terror.

Propaganda of the Deed

Nineteenth-century anarchists promoted what they called the “propaganda of the deed,” that is, the use of violence as a symbolic action to make a larger point, such as inspiring the masses to undertake revolutionary action. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, modern terrorist organizations began to conduct operations designed to serve as terrorist theater, an undertaking greatly aided by the advent and spread of broadcast media. Examples of attacks designed to grab international media attention are the September 1972 kidnapping and murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics and the December 1975 raid on OPEC headquarters in Vienna. Aircraft hijackings followed suit, changing from relatively brief endeavors to long, drawn-out and dramatic media events often spanning multiple continents.

Today, the proliferation of 24-hour television news networks and the Internet have allowed the media to broadcast such attacks live and in their entirety. This development allowed vast numbers of people to watch live as the World Trade Center towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, and as teams of gunmen ran amok in Mumbai in November 2008.

This exposure not only allows people to be informed about unfolding events, it also permits them to become secondary victims of the violence they have watched unfold before them. As the word indicates, the intent of “terrorism” is to create terror in a targeted audience, and the media allow that audience to become far larger than just those in the immediate vicinity of a terrorist attack. I am not a psychologist, but even I can understand that on 9/11, watching the second aircraft strike the South Tower, seeing people leap to their deaths from the windows of the World Trade Center Towers in order to escape the ensuing fire and then watching the towers collapse live on television had a profound impact on many people. A large portion of the United State was, in effect, victimized, as were a large number of people living abroad, judging from the statements of foreign citizens and leaders in the wake of 9/11 that “We are all Americans.”

During that time, people across the globe became fearful, and almost everyone was certain that spectacular attacks beyond those involving the four aircraft hijacked that morning were inevitable — clearly, many people were shaken to their core by the attacks. A similar, though smaller, impact was seen in the wake of the Mumbai attacks. People across India were fearful of being attacked by teams of Lashkar-e-Taiba gunmen, and concern spread around the world about Mumbai-style terrorism. Indeed, this concern was so great that we felt compelled to write an analysis emphasizing that the tactics employed in Mumbai were not new and that, while such operations could kill people, the approach would be less successful in the United States and Europe than it was in Mumbai.

Terror Magnifiers

These theatrical attacks have a strange hold over the human imagination and can create a unique sense of terror that dwarfs the normal reaction to natural disasters that are many times greater in magnitude. For example, in the 2004 Asian tsunami, more than 227,000 people died, while fewer than 3,000 people died on 9/11. Yet the 9/11 attacks produced not only a sense of terror but also a geopolitical reaction that has exerted a profound and unparalleled impact upon world events over the past decade. Terrorism clearly can have a powerful impact on the human psyche — so much so that even the threat of a potential attack can cause fear and apprehension, as seen by the reaction to the recent spate of warnings about attacks occurring over the holidays.

As noted above, the media serve as a magnifier of this anxiety and terror. Television news, whether broadcast on the airwaves or over the Internet, allows people to remotely and vicariously experience a terrorist event, and this is reinforced by the print media. While part of this magnification is due merely to the nature of television as a medium and the 24-hour news cycle, bad reporting and misunderstanding can also help build hype and terror. For example, when Mexican drug cartels began placing small explosive devices in vehicles in Ciudad Juarez and Ciudad Victoria this past year, the media hysterically reported that the cartels were using car bombs. Clearly, the journalists failed to appreciate the significant tactical and operational differences between a small bomb placed in a car and the far larger and more deadly vehicle-borne explosive device.

The traditional news media are not alone in the role of terror magnifier. The Internet has also become an increasingly effective conduit for panic and alarm. From breathless (and false) claims in 2005 that al Qaeda had pre-positioned nuclear weapons in the United States and was preparing to attack nine U.S. cities and kill 4 million Americans in an operation called “American Hiroshima” to claims in 2010 that Mexican drug cartels were still smuggling nuclear weapons for Osama bin Laden, a great deal of fear mongering can spread over the Internet. Website operators who earn advertising revenue based on the number of unique visitors who read the stories featured on their sites have an obvious financial incentive for publishing outlandish and startling terrorism claims. The Internet also has produced a wide array of other startling revelations, including the oft-recycled e-mail chain stating that an Israeli counterterrorism expert has predicted al Qaeda will attack six, seven or eight U.S. cities simultaneously “within the next 90 days.” This e-mail was first circulated in 2005 and has been periodically re-circulated over the past five years. Although it is an old, false prediction, it still creates fear every time it is circulated.

Sometimes a government can act as a terror magnifier. Whether it is the American DHS raising the threat level to red or the head of the French internal intelligence service stating that the threat of terrorism in that country has never been higher, such warnings can produce widespread public concern. As we’ve noted elsewhere, there are a number of reasons for such warnings, from trying to pre-empt a terrorist attack when there is incomplete intelligence to a genuine concern for the safety of citizens in the face of a known threat to less altruistic motives such as political gain or bureaucratic maneuvering (when an agency wants to protect itself from blame in case there is an attack). As seen by the public reaction to the many warnings in the wake of 9/11, including recommendations that citizens purchase plastic sheeting and duct tape to protect themselves from chemical and biological attack, such warnings can produce immediate panic, although, over time, as threats and warnings prove to be unfounded, this panic can turn into threat fatigue.

Those seeking to terrorize can and do use these magnifiers to produce terror without having to go to the trouble of conducting attacks. The empty threats made by bin Laden and his inner circle that they were preparing an attack larger than 9/11 — threats propagated by the Internet, picked up by the media and then reacted to by governments — are prime historical examples of this.

In recent weeks, we saw a case where panic was caused by a similar confluence of events. In October, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) issued the second edition of Inspire, its English-language magazine. As we discussed in our analysis of the magazine, its Open Source Jihad section pointed out a number of ways that attacks could be conducted by grassroots jihadists living in the West. In addition to the suggestion that an attacker could weld butcher knives onto the bumper of a pickup truck and drive it through a crowd, or use a gun as attackers did in Little Rock and at Fort Hood, another method briefly mentioned was that grassroots operatives could use ricin or cyanide in attacks. In response, the DHS decided to investigate further and even went to the trouble of briefing corporate security officers from the hotel and restaurant industries on the potential threat. CBS news picked up the story and ran an exclusive report compete with a scary poison logo superimposed over photos of a hotel, a dinner buffet and an American flag. The report made no mention of the fact that the AQAP article paid far less attention to the ricin and cyanide suggestion than it did to what it called the “ultimate mowing machine,” the pickup with butcher knives, or even the more practical — and far more likely — armed assault.

This was a prime example of terror magnifiers working with AQAP to produce fear.

Separation

Groups such as al Qaeda clearly recognize the difference between terrorist attacks and terror. This is seen not only in the use of empty threats to sow terror but also in the way terrorist groups claim success for failed attacks. For example, AQAP declared the failed Christmas Day 2009 “underwear” bombing to be a success due to the effect it had on the air-transportation system. In a special edition of Inspire magazine published in November following the failed attack against cargo aircraft, AQAP trumpeted the operation as a success, citing the fear, disruption and expense that resulted. AQAP claimed the cargo bomb plot and the Christmas Day plot were part of what it called “Operation Hemorrhage,” an effort to cause economic damage and fear and not necessarily kill large numbers of people.

As we’ve noted before, practitioners of terrorism lose a great deal of their ability to create terror if the people they are trying to terrorize adopt the proper mindset. A critical part of this mindset is placing terrorism in perspective. Terrorist attacks are going to continue to happen because there are a wide variety of militant groups and individuals who seek to use violence as a means of influencing a government — either their own or someone else’s.

There have been several waves of terrorism over the past century, but it has been a fairly constant phenomenon, especially over the past few decades. While the flavors of terror may vary from Marxist and nationalist strains to Shiite Islamist to jihadist, it is certain that even if al Qaeda and its jihadist spawn were somehow magically eradicated tomorrow, the problem of terrorism would persist.

Terrorist attacks are also relatively easy to conduct, especially if the assailant is not concerned about escaping after the attack. As AQAP has noted in its Inspire magazine, a determined person can conduct attacks using a variety of simple weapons, from a pickup to a knife, axe or gun. And while the authorities in the United States and elsewhere have been quite successful in foiling attacks over the past couple of years, there are a large number of vulnerable targets in the open societies of the West, and Western governments simply do not have the resources to protect everything — not even authoritarian police states can protect everything. This all means that some terrorist attacks will invariably succeed.

How the media, governments and populations respond to those successful strikes will shape the way that the attackers gauge their success. Obviously, the 9/11 attacks, which caused the United States to invade Afghanistan (and arguably Iraq) were far more successful than bin Laden and company could ever have hoped. The London bombings on July 7, 2005, where the British went back to work as unusual the next day, were seen as less successful.

In the final analysis, the world is a dangerous place. Everyone is going to die, and some people are certain to die in a manner that is brutal or painful. In 2001, more than 42,000 people died from car crashes in the United States and hundreds of thousands of Americans died from heart disease and cancer. The 9/11 attacks were the bloodiest terrorist attacks in world history, and yet even those historic attacks resulted in the deaths of fewer than 3,000 people, a number that pales in comparison to deaths by other causes. This is in no way meant to trivialize those who died on 9/11, or the loss their families suffered, but merely to point out that lots of people die every day and that their families are affected, too.

If the public will take a cue from groups like AQAP, it too can separate terrorism from terror. Recognizing that terrorist attacks, like car crashes and cancer and natural disasters, are a part of the human condition permits individuals and families to practice situational awareness and take prudent measures to prepare for such contingencies without becoming vicarious victims. This separation will help deny the practitioners of terrorism and terror the ability to magnify their reach and power.

Feed Me, Obama, Feed Me: The Plan for Food Dependency

What does any would-be tyrant need in order to gain control over the lives of citizens? Three things come to mind: martial law, socialized medicine, and food dependency.




In at least two of these categories, President Obama has already succeeded.


Martial Law


By way of executive proclamation, President Obama has secured for himself the power to declare martial law in the event of a national "emergency," real or contrived, and without the accountability typically required by the Posse Comitatus Act and the Nation Emergencies Act of 1976.

This is the legacy of the "conservative" Bush administration. National emergencies have now been transformed into power-grabbing devices thanks to the virtually unnoticed National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 51.

NSPD 51 empowers the president to co-opt all state and local government authority in the event that he declares a national emergency. This is a self-declared power not subjugated to the National Emergencies Act of 1976 as in previous directives.

President Obama quickly went beyond NSPD 51, signing an order creating a "Council of Governors" who would be put in charge of declaring martial law. The directive is in direct violation of Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Act. This "Council of Governors" answers only to President Obama.

In October of last year, President Obama declared a national emergency in the midst of the much-hyped swine flu crisis. This declaration was largely overlooked. By combining his October declaration with the provisions of NSPD 51, President Obama can now be considered virtually uninhibited by Congress and free to flip the switch at any moment.

Socialized Medicine

Whether or not Republicans achieve repeal, a precedent has been set. It is unlikely that the full damage of ObamaCare can be completely undone without Republican control of the White House. The U.S. government can now dictate the coverage and benefits of most Americans -- i.e., those on Medicaid, Medicare, and SCHIP, which together account for thirty percent of the population. In addition, government can punish Americans without insurance with unconstitutional fees and fine employers who refuse to provide every single employee with premium health benefits, making economic recovery unlikely.

In previous articles, I have explained the deadly dimension to ObamaCare as currently construed, demonstrating the serious potential for the mass destruction of human life on the basis of erroneous factors like "hospital readmission." Who will challenge federal officials with health care at stake? Who would seriously suggest that health care will not be used as a political weapon? When the government has all power and no accountability, it has very little reason to use that power responsibly. Accountability is what makes the American model work. But accountability is removed with ObamaCare.

The one area where elites have been so far reluctant to venture is food. Food is the stuff of life. Control over food would mean direct control over the political decisions of average Americans. The elites have slipped the slope, passing legislation that will give federal bureaucrats jurisdiction over food "production" -- i.e., who produces food, what kinds of food are produced, and in what quantities. However, this is not a debate about food regulation or food inspection. What is taking place is in fact a coup d'état, with dinner tables as the strategic weapons.

Food Dependency

The greatest tyrants in history have used food as a method of control. To state the obvious, people must eat to live. By controlling the flow of food to people who side with the political intelligentsia, rule is established. People may challenge tyranny when they have meat on the table. But who in their right mind would bite the hands of their benefactors (so called)?

Meet the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), a new legislative proposal designed to centralize control over food stocks to protect Americans from "terror."

The motive may indeed be to protect the food supply from the actions of terrorists, but what about acts of government terror? Can centralized control by the government protect the people against the whims of human nature? This question is not being asked by those so in favor of surrendering control of food to an entity that cannot even manage a budget, much less an oil spill or other natural disaster. Now we are to believe that this same inefficient, broken entity can guarantee the safety of our food? Something stinks, and it smells like government cheese. Usually when people ask for power, it is because they want power, regardless of the stated motive.

What good, for example, can be gained from removing the right of Americans to grow their own food, as several of the provisions of the Food Safety Modernization Act do? The Ninth Amendment arguably guarantees this and other unenumerated rights. The Ninth Amendment reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

To clarify, how can the rights to life, liberty, and property enshrined in the Constitution exist without the ability of citizens to attend to bodily needs -- i.e., sustenance?

The FSMA doesn't merely wrest control of the food supply from citizens. Dangerously, the FSMA proceeds to transfer U.S. food sovereignty to the WTO, with one provision reading, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the U.S. is a party." This provision is significant, since the WTO draws all its food safety standards from the controversial Codex Alimentarius, which is thought by some to be a vast postwar scheme to control the world's population by means of food. The bottom line vis-à-vis food is that Americans lose control, and foreign bureaucrats gain control.

Even if the alleged motive were legitimate, the FDA already inspects food imports, albeit quite poorly. The federal government already possesses the necessary power to thwart terrorist contamination of the food supply. This proposal, then, is not really about protecting food, but instead about controlling food -- and by extension, controlling Americans. We must resist while the fruits of the field are still here for the picking.

President Obama is willing to shut off the water in a small town in the heart of America's agricultural center. Might he be willing to stop shipments of food to politically opposed states?

Taking Exception to American Exceptionalism

      American exceptionalism is currently at the heart of a great debate over the country’s future and, according to one presidential hopeful at least, will be “one of the two or three deciding issues in 2012.” USA Today devoted its cover story yesterday to the storm of controversy that President Obama’s off-the-cuff remarks on the subject in Strasbourg last year continue to generate. According to a Gallup poll commissioned by USA Today for the story, three quarters of Americans fear that the country is at risk of losing its unique character.

      Though the phrase “American exceptionalism” does get tossed around a lot, confusion reigns over its actual meaning. Before deciding whether American exceptionalism is a good or bad thing, whether it’s threatened or not and whether the President actually embraces it, shouldn’t we first figure out what it actually means?

      Does it mean, as the USA Today/Gallup poll asked, that America “has a unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world?” Or does it only indicate that “America has a special place and role in the world,” as Mitt Romney writes in No Apology: The Case for American Greatness?

      Is it nothing more than a fancy way to speak of patriotism, as President Obama’s remarks in Strasbourg suggest, suspecting as he does that all people believe in the exceptionalism of their country? Or is it in fact a form of jingoism, anchored in what The Daily Beast’s Peter Beinart calls “the lunatic notion that America is the only truly free and successful country in the world” and what Politico’s Michael Kinsley dismisses as the “theory that Americans are better than everybody else”?

      Let’s start with what everyone can agree about: America does stand out from other countries—in particular other Western countries—on a wide array of measures. America’s economic might and military capabilities are unrivaled. Americans also give more to charity than anyone else and vote more frequently than anyone else (there are, after all, more offices open to election than anywhere else in the world). Comparative surveys also reveal that Americans are more religious than citizens of other advanced democracies. They also have more faith than anyone else in the the power of individuals to shape their own lives through hard work.

      Since the numbers don’t lie, what’s all the big fuss about then? America’s number one in philanthropy, but Japan has the longest life expectancy and Luxembourg the highest per capita GDP. Aren’t we all statistically exceptional in one way or another?

       To really understand what sets America apart, we need to go beyond numbers to examine the heart and soul of the nation: the ideas of the Declaration of Independence. Unlike other nations that derive their meaning and purpose from some unifying quality—an ethnic character, a common religion, a shared history, an ancestral land—America is a country dedicated to to the universal ideas of equality and liberty. The truths we hold to be self-evident apply to all men—not just all Americans.

      As G.K. Chesteron noted: “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed.” As such, there is an American Dream—but no French, Greek or Australian Dreams.

      In the most fundamental sense, America is an exceptional nation not because of what it does—but because of what it believes.

      This understanding of American exceptionalism in no way implies that America has not often fallen short of—and at times even betrayed—these ideals. Nor does it imply that Americans are better than everyone else and are therefore somehow exempt from whatever rules may apply to others. As to whether it makes America “the greatest country in the world,” as the USA Today/Gallup poll asked, that depends on how you define greatness and is really a separate question altogether.

      American’s dedication to the permanent truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence does however mean that it has a special role to play in the world. America has a responsibility to uphold freedom and the cause of liberty both at home and abroad.

      America then, really is different. Not just in the way that all countries are different, Mr. President, but different in a different sort of way, so to speak. Exceptionally different, shall we say?

Why Islam Must Be Expelled From The West

Scandinavian Bombing

      On the 11th of December 2010, the first-ever suicide bombing in Scandinavia occurred when Taimour Abdulwahab, an Iraqi-born Muslim and Swedish citizen with a wife and children in Luton, Britain, was carrying explosives and mistakenly set off an explosion near a busy Christmas shopping street in Stockholm just before he could murder dozens of people.

      Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, who is a passionate promoter of having Turkey as a full member of the European Union and Islam as an established part of European culture, stated that “We were extremely lucky... I mean minutes and just a couple of hundred metres from where it would have been very catastrophic.” Sweden’s intelligence agency and a news agency received an email with audio files in which a man called on “all hidden mujahedeen [Islamic holy warriors] in Europe, and especially in Sweden, it is now the time to fight back.” He criticized Sweden for its military presence in Afghanistan and its acceptance of the artist Lars Vilks, who had made some cartoons mocking Muhammad. The message warned that “now your children, daughters and sisters die like our brothers’ and sisters’ children die.”

Taimour Abdulwahab



      We’ve been told for years that suicide bombers who blow themselves up in civilian areas in Israel are “freedom fighters struggling against Israeli occupation.” Does that mean that this Muslim blew himself up to protest against the Swedish occupation of Stockholm?

      Sweden has no colonial history, at least not outside of northern Europe. It is a self-appointed champion of Third World countries and has virtually surrendered its third-largest city to immigrant mobs and substantial chunks of other cities, too. Swedish authorities are using the most extreme methods imaginable to suppress any dissent among the native people, who are being ethnically cleansed from their own land. The authorities always side with immigrants against the natives in the case of conflict. Muslims in Sweden can harass the natives as much as they want to and have access to all kinds of welfare goodies and a much higher standard of living than they would have in their own countries. In short, they have no imaginable, rational reason to complain, yet they still blow themselves up.

      In Sweden, all the traditional excuses employed by Multiculturalists and Leftists throughout the Western world, fail. This leaves just one possible explanation, the only one never mentioned in Western mainstream media: That Muslims and their culture are fundamentally incompatible with our values and societies.

      In the city of Stockholm, has earlier been accused of spreading double messages. What he said in his harsh speeches in Arabic didn’t match the text as translated in Swedish. A journalist warned that http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1479.htm" mosques are slowly but surely being taken over” by the Muslim Brotherhood. Following the 2010 suicide bombing, Moussa’s recommendations for how to prevent similar events in the future involved giving more power to imams and having a “

      Prohibiting all forms of criticism or mockery of Islam and its Prophet is an essential part of sharia, Islamic religious law. According to Islamic historical sources, individuals such as the poetess Asma bint Marwan were killed by the followers of Muhammad for having done nothing other than mocking Islam. This then became a part of the Sunna, the personal example of Muhammad and his companions, which is the most authoritative source of Islamic law next to the Koran itself. It was for the same reason that Theo van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdam in 2004. Yes, mainstream, traditional Islam today stipulates that those who mock Islam deserve to be murdered. No other major religion on this planet dictates anything similar.

      It sounds nearly unbelievable to the average person that one of the largest religions on Earth, which is “respected” by the United Nations and political leaders worldwide, can be that bad, but this is unfortunately true. Not only is this the case, but the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the largest voting bloc at the UN, is teaming up with other dictatorships and African nations as we speak to ban “Islamophobia” across the world, also in the West.

      Islam is more totalitarian than the most totalitarian ideologies that have ever existed in the Western world. Even Der Führer or Comrade Stalin never expected or demanded that every single man should copy all of their personal habits and their silly little mustaches, for which we should be eternally grateful. Islam, on the other hand, stipulates that all men everywhere and for all times should copy Muhammad’s personal habits and example in minute detail.

      Islam is a creed which says that men should urinate like Muhammad and that Muslims should wage a war against all other men on the planet until they, too, urinate like their Prophet. This is a provocative way of putting things, yes, but theologically speaking it is not incorrect. While Muhammad was not divine he was, as some Muslims say, the “living Koran.” John L. Esposito in Islam: The Straight Path, one of the most pro-Islamic books in existence, states:

      “Muslims look to Muhammad’s example for guidance in all aspects of life: how to treat friends as well as enemies, what to eat and drink, how to make love and war. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the growth of Prophetic traditions….His impact on Muslim life cannot be overestimated, since he served as both religious and political head of Medina: prophet of God, ruler, military commander, chief judge, lawgiver. As a result, the practice of the Prophet, his Sunna or example, became the norm for community life. Muslims observed and remembered stories about what the Prophet said and did. These reports or traditions (hadith) were preserved and passed on in oral and written form. The corpus of hadith literature reveals the comprehensive scope of Muhammad’s example; he is the ideal religiopolitical leader as well as the exemplary husband and father. Thus when many Muslims pray five times each day or make the pilgrimage to Mecca, they seek to pray as the Prophet prayed, without adding or subtracting from the way Muhammad is reported to have worshipped. Traditions of the Prophet provide guidance for personal hygiene, dress, eating, marriage, treatment of wives, diplomacy, and warfare.”

      According to sharia, non-Muslim dhimmis can on certain conditions be allowed to retain their lives under Islamic rule, provided that they remain totally submissive to Muslims at all times. Any perceived “insult,” however slight, could immediately trigger violent reactions. In practice, a mere rumor that anybody has done something which displeases Muslims can cause retaliations and murders. This is how Christians in Pakistan or elsewhere live on a daily basis, constantly fearful of Jihadist attacks, and this is how many Muslims want us to live as well. Meanwhile, our authorities, intellectuals and mass media continue to import people who are plotting to murder us while we have our genetalia screened and checked at our airports.

      If a single non-Muslim says anything critical about Islam, his entire community can in principle be punished for this. Basically, this means that if one cartoonist in Germany, the USA or Denmark makes a cartoon mocking Muhammad, this could potentially trigger Jihadist terrorist attacks against his entire country for “waging a war against Islam,” because his “tribe” is held collectively responsible for his actions. This was exactly the Islamic logic behind Taimour Abdulwahab’s terror attack in Stockholm. There is no such thing as an individual in this culture; the tribe is everything. Muslims, being good hypocrites, are always the first following an Islamic terrorist attack to state that all Muslims should not be punished for the actions of a few, yet this is precisely what their own laws prescribe for non-Muslims.

      Before the general elections in 2006 the Swedish Muslim League, the largest Islamic organization in the country, published a long list where they not merely requested, but essentially demanded, separate family laws for Muslims; that public schools should employ imams to teach homogeneous classes of Muslims children in the language of their original homeland. (The Swedish city of Malmö already has pre-school classes where all teaching is conducted in Arabic. This is “good for integration.”); a “mosque in every municipality,” built through interest-free loans made available by local municipalities to demonstrate “Islam’s right to exist in Sweden” and to “heighten the status of and respect for” Muslims; separation between boys and girls in gymnastics and swimming education; and laws instating Islamic holidays as public holidays for Muslims. Swedes should also ensure that all Muslims get two hours off from work during the congregational Friday prayer every week and an Islamic burial ground available in every municipality in which there are Muslims. Last, but not least, they demanded that the authorities and the already heavily censored, pro-Multicultural mass media should take even stronger steps to combat “Islamophobia” in the general public.

      These demands were rejected back then, but they will be repeated, not just in Sweden but throughout the Western world. As long as we have sizeable Muslim communities here this is inevitable. Muslims are not here to live in peace as equals; they are here to colonize, subjugate, harass and dominate us. Their holy book, the Koran, demands nothing less.

      But if all of this is true, how can we coexist peacefully with Muslims in our countries? The short answer is that we cannot. No matter how much you appease them, it will never be enough. As a matter of fact, since they come from a culture which respects only brute force they will despise you as weak and become more aggressive if you try to reason with them.

      Their religion also states that Muslims are the “best of peoples” – the true master race – and that they are destined by Allah to rule all mankind. They are filled with illusions of grandeur and superiority, yet the harsh reality is that their societies are lagging behind those of others. This constitutes an inversion of the natural order which can only have been caused by demonic actions and must be reversed at all costs. As long as they remain in our countries, they will work to subvert and destroy us. It is quite literally a religious duty for them to do so.

      So why don’t you hear this from most Western political leaders or mass media? Because they are lying to you, plain and simple. The truth is that there is no such thing as a moderate Islam; that nobody has yet managed to come up with a credible theoretical way to reform Islam; and that there are no practical indications of any softening or modernization of Islam actually taking place. Since the adherents of this creed in its present form are waging a war of annihilation against us and the civilization we have created, this leaves only one possible conclusion if we wish to retain our culture and freedom: Physical separation. Islam and those who practice it must be totally and permanently removed from all Western nations.

      Potential objections can be raised to this solution. One is that it might provoke Muslims and trigger a world war. To this I will say that our mere existence as free and self-ruled peoples constitutes a provocation to them. Besides, we are already in a world war. Technically speaking, it started 1400 years ago, the mother of all wars. Against European civilization it has witnessed two main phases, the first one with the Arabs in early medieval times, and the second one with the Turks in early modern times. This is the third Islamic Jihad, and it has penetrated deeper into Europe than ever before because we don’t fight back. If the other guy walks up to you and starts punching you in the face then you are already in a fight, whether you want this or not. If you do not defend yourself properly then you have already lost.

      Another objection is that expelling Muslims from the West would not end the war. They would merely continue from their original home countries, aided by missiles and modern technology. This could well be true. The separationist strategy does not imply that removing Islam from the West alone is all that will ever be required, only that this is the bare minimum that is acceptable. If Muslims remain aggressive, we retain the option of further actions, including directly targeting their holy cities of Mecca and Medina using conventional or non-conventional weapons. Having large numbers of Muslims in our societies is anyway very costly, and the aggressive fifth column in our midst will severely limit our freedom of action.

      Finally, one could claim that the overall problem with the modern West is the general mass immigration and Multiculturalism promoted by our treasonous elites and that Islam merely constitutes a secondary infection. This is also partly true. No, just because Muslim immigration is especially bad does not mean that all other forms of immigration are unproblematic. Nevertheless, Muslims top the list over hostile aliens who do not belong in European or European-derived nations. The Islamic threat is real and needs to be dealt with.

      The Serbian-American writer Serge Trifkovic, author of the book Defeating Jihad, has stated that the ongoing failure by their entrusted leaders to demographically protect European and European-derived nations constitutes the greatest betrayal in history. I am tempted to agree with him. In the end, the traitors and fifth columnists we have in our media and academia must be removed from power and replaced with people who are loyal to us and our nations.

The quintessential example of media bias for the 2010 election cycle



Alvin Greene



      Over the next few days, various news networks, newspapers, magazines, and others will present a retrospective on 2010: what the media got right, what the media got wrong, best moments, worst moments, etc.

Let me present what has to be the quintessential example of media bias in coverage of the 2010 elections.

      The candidate was the upstart upset. With the state’s political players all lined up in the primary for the other guy — including the party chairman, the congressional delegation, EVERYBODY — the candidate beat the establishment pick, upset the apple cart, had people crying foul, and went on to be annihilated in the general election.

      That candidate was not Christine O’Donnell, though you’d think so given the facts as I presented them. Certainly that was her story too. And the media covered the heck out of Christine O’Donnell.



      But I’m talking about Alvin Greene. Remember him? I’m sure you do, though not if any major news outlet had anything to do with it.


      The media was quite titillated at the idea that Alvin Greene was a Republican dirty trick. They clung to Congressman Jim Clyburn’s every word when he made those accusations. There was a great “whodunit” story the media circulated. But an investigation discovered Alvin Greene saved his money, paid his fee, and won fair and square.

      Then the media went silent on Alvin Greene, only pulsing when the drumbeat of YouTube clips turned into a roaring din of the absurd. Otherwise, the media pretended Alvin Greene did not exist. They only wanted to cover Christine O’Donnell.

      There were two candidates who rocked the boat, shocked everyone, and caused unforeseen upsets. I don’t know whether it was because of his party, his skin color, his IQ, or what, but the media willfully ignored Alvin Greene.

      Instead, they gave such over the top coverage to Christine O’Donnell many Democrats were left venting that other candidates escaped the media pat down. That’s also why Christine O’Donnell is my big hero for the 2010 election cycle. Because she so distracted the media, others had a chance to win they might not have gotten.

The Missing Link in the Evolution of Barack Obama

One of the problems with the idea of "American exceptionalism" is that it exacerbates a kind of complacency common to man. This is the phenomenon whereby people often view themselves as exceptions -- saying, after some tragedy, for instance, something such as "I never thought it could happen to me."

On a national level -- and this especially plagues great nations -- this manifests itself in the notion that "it" could never happen here. Oh, the "it" could be descent into tyranny, domination by a foreign power, or dissolution. Or maybe it could be the election of a leader who is a Manchurian candidate, a traitor within, someone bent on destroying the nation that gave him everything. That..."it"...couldn't happen here. In fact, the idea is so preposterous to many Americans that if such a threat loomed, they would never see it coming. And they would call a person who warned of it a nut.

So I want to present you with a hypothetical. Let's say a leader were elected who had, during his childhood, been mentored by an avowed Nazi. Let us further say that his guardians had chosen this mentor for him, indicating that they were likely sympathetic to the man's beliefs. Now, let us say that upon reaching college, this future leader gravitated toward Nazi professors. Moreover, we then find out that a man who knew the leader as an undergraduate and was, at the time, a Nazi himself, said that the leader was "in 100-percent total agreement" with his Nazi professors and was a flat-out Nazi who believed in old-style Brownshirt tactics.

Okay, we're almost done. After graduating, the leader-to-be spends twenty years sitting in a white-power church, has an alliance with a self-proclaimed Nazi and ex-terrorist, and, apparently, becomes a member of a National Socialist party for a while. And then, upon being elected, he appoints an avowed Nazi to his administration and also a woman who cites Adolf Hitler as one of her two favorite philosophers. Now here's the million-depreciated-dollar question:

What would be nuttier: to claim that this man was a Nazi or to claim that such an assertion is out-of-bounds?

Furthermore, if people appeared unconcerned about the leader's radical past, what would be the most likely explanation?

A. They're sympathetic to Nazism.

B. They're ignorant of his personal history.

C. They're rationalizing away a frightening reality.

D. Some combination of the above.

Let's now transition to the actual. Here is a fact: If you took the above description of my hypothetical leader and replaced "Nazi" with "communist," "flat-out Nazi" with "flat-out Marxist-Leninist," "Brownshirt tactics" with "communist revolution," "white-power" with "black-power," "National Socialist" with "socialist," and "Adolf Hitler" "with Mao Tse-tung," you would have an accurate description of a leader in power today.

His name is Barack Obama.

We'll start from the top. Obama's childhood mentor was chosen by his guardians, his grandparents, and was avowed communist Frank Marshall Davis. Obama did in fact gravitate toward communist professors in college; moreover, we now know about ex-communist John Drew, a contemporary of Obama's at Occidental College who verifies that Obama was "in 100-percent total agreement" with his communist professors and was a flat-out "Marxist-Leninist" who believed in old-style communist revolution.

We also know that upon graduating, Obama spent twenty years in a black-power church, Trinity United of Reverend Jeremiah Wright fame, and had an alliance with self-proclaimed communist and ex-terrorist Bill Ayers. It also appears -- and I have yet to see anyone address and disprove this association -- that Obama was a member of the socialist New Party in Chicago in the 1990s. Then, upon being elected, Obama appointed avowed communist Van Jones to his administration and also Anita Dunn, who cited mass-murderer Mao Tse-tung as one of her two favorite philosophers. There's more, too, but greater detail is hardly necessary.

It also shouldn't be necessary to ask the question, but I will:

What is nuttier: to claim that this man is a communist or to claim that such an assertion is out-of-bounds?

What is the obvious conclusion?

Now, some may say that a person can change markedly over a thirty-year period. This is true. Yet not only do we have the recent evidence of Obama's radical communist appointments, but there's something else as well. It hit me just the other night.

Just as we would demand that our leaders completely reject Nazi ideas, all good Americans should agree that complete rejection of communist ideas is a moral imperative. Losing a little youthful zeal or adding a dose of pragmatism just isn't enough. A pragmatic communist, in fact, could be more dangerous than an old-guard type.

Yet a transition from flat-out "Marxist-Leninist" to someone who rejects the red menace is a pretty big change, don't you think? In fact, wouldn't such a personal evolution -- some might say revolution -- be a kind of conversion? I think so.

Now, many people do experience conversions. I think here of erstwhile radical-leftist David Horowitz; ex-liberals Michael Savage and Robin of Berkeley; and President George W. Bush, who accepted Christ as an adult. And then there's me: I was never a liberal, but I did transition from being a scoffer at religion and an agnostic to a devout Catholic.

There's an interesting thing, however, about conversions.

You hear about them.

You see, a conversion is a sea change, a rebirth, a turning point in your existence. You may become, as Christians say, a new creation, and you're at least a reformed old one. And you reflect your new state of being and often want to voice it.

And those around you will know about it.

As for this writer, everyone who knows me would say that my religious conversion was a seminal point in my life. Horowitz has spoken of his rejection of the "loony left," Bush's conversion is well known, Savage has talked about his on the radio, and Robin of Berkeley can't stop talking about hers. A conversion becomes part of your life narrative.

Now consider something. Barack Obama is one of the most famous, most discussed individuals on the planet.

But we have not heard about any soul-changing conversion in his life.

Not a whisper.

Nothing.

Nothing that could reconcile the flat-out Marxist-Leninist Obama was in his college days with the man he supposedly is today. There's no one who says, "Yeah, he was a radical guy in his youth, and I just couldn't believe how he became disenchanted with his old ideas." There are no stories about a great epiphany, an overseas trip that opened his eyes, or a personal tragedy that inspired growth. There's nothing to explain how a radical Marxist became a reasonable politician. And if there is such an explanation, it's the most elusive of missing links.
So could "it" happen here? And is it really nutty to ask if, just maybe, it already has?

What Would It Take For You To Go On Jihad?

What would it take for you to commit mass murder in the name of Allah?

Would you do it for money? For love? Out of a sense of justice? Out of a sense of religious duty?

Absurd as they may seem, these are serious questions, for as jihad mass-murder plots are being uncovered in the United States more frequently than ever, those accused of perpetrating them, and several Islamic groups, increasingly are charging entrapment: that overzealous FBI agents pushed poor innocent Muslims into taking part in a jihad plot that otherwise would never have existed.

And so it was last Tuesday, when a 21-year-old convert to Islam, Antonio Martinez (who now calls himself Muhammad Hussain), faced a federal grand jury and was charged with attempted murder of members of the U.S. military (which he sees as an enemy of Islam), along with attempting to set off a weapon of mass destruction.

The newly minted Muhammad Hussain's defense attorney, Joseph Balter, declared that his client would "vigorously contest the charges," and was considering claiming entrapment. The same possibility has been raised in the case of Mohamed Mohamud, a Muslim in Portland, Ore., who tried to murder those who had gathered for the city's Christmas tree lighting ceremony.

Mohamud's case is strikingly similar to Hussain's, in that both involved Islamic jihadists' attempt to explode bombs that they did not know were harmless decoys supplied to them by FBI agents -- rather than the real thing.

Islamic advocacy groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have also complained about law enforcement officials' use of informants inside mosques, claiming in some cases that the jihad plots thereby thwarted would never even have existed in the first place if undercover agents hadn't started meddling.

Yet charges of entrapment are silly responses for Muhammad Hussain, Mohamed Mohamud, or any Muslim caught in a jihad terror plot. For there is every indication that Hussain and Mohamud were more than willing to do whatever was necessary to enable them to murder large numbers of Americans. This was not something they needed to be enticed into doing.

Prosecutors in Hussain's case say he passed up several chances to back out, even after he got news about how Mohamud had been caught, and how those he had thought were fellow jihadists turned out to be FBI agents.

What's more, the very fact they went ahead with their plots ought to be sufficient indication in itself that there was no entrapment. Think about it: what would it take to lead you to participate in a terrorist mass-murder plot? If undercover agents approached you and tried to entice you into working to kill large numbers of innocent people, how hard would it be to convince you to do it?

Speaking strictly for myself, I have absolutely no worries of ever being entrapped in this way; there is simply nothing, under any circumstances, that anyone could say to me to convince me to blow anyone up. And so if someone showed up and started trying to cajole me into doing so, I would find him irritating, but I wouldn't even come close to doing anything that would enable anyone to portray me as guilty of anything. Muhammad Hussain and Mohamed Mohamud, in contrast, went ahead with their jihad mass-murder plots. Law enforcement agents were not to blame and cannot justly be held accountable for their choices.

These increasingly common charges of entrapment should be seen for what they are: yet another attempt to divert attention from the ugly reality of Islamic jihad activity in the United States and around the world, and to place the responsibility for jihadist misdeeds upon non-Muslims -- specifically the ones who are trying to thwart the jihadists' plans. After September 11, 2001, we were assured again and again that the vast majority of Muslims in the United States and worldwide were peaceful, and sincerely condemned such violence perpetrated in the name of their religion. Yet more than nine years later, we still have yet to see a sincere and effective effort within mosques to expose and report those who hold to the beliefs that led to those attacks.

Instead, we get more finger-pointing. And that means we will also get more jihad.

Obama’s Churchless Charity

President Obama is quick to visit churches, of any denomination, when he’s in search of political donations, in search of votes or in search of street creds with the Black community. Like so many others in the Democrat party, the President often seems indifferent to churches and the efforts of faith-based groups. He has skipped out on the National Day of Prayer, and after suffering through the scrutiny and criticisms from the Reverend Wright episode, Obama has avoided almost anything related to church and faith. Sadly, President Obama might be keenly aware of the political value (and risks) of churches and faith-based communities, but seems unaware of the incredible generosity of churches and faith-based organizations in the United States


What a pity. Mr. Obama clearly believes that the role of charity is best performed by the government, which alone should be responsible for helping the downtrodden and destitute. Churches and private philanthropy, which Americans support with a generosity that all other nations envy, are not seen as worthy of consideration.

In reality, churches and faith-based organizations are far more effective than government in providing and support to those in need. Government programs, orchestrated by distant bureaucrats become huge, slow, and indifferent. Rarely do government assistance programs meet the stated goals, and rarely is taxpayer money wisely allocated. Faith-based programs, using private money, by contrast, are targeted to specific, immediate, community problems.

Gertrude Himmelfarb, the brilliant, conservative historian, has written extensively, showing historically that charity that works best is charity which is targeted, local, accountable and appropriate to need—precisely the kind of support the federal government is ill-suited to administer.

Alexis de Tocqueville, almost two centuries earlier, also concluded that government assistance to the unemployed and to the poor is ineffective because, ultimately, when treated as an entitlement or “right”, the surety of support, over time, robs individuals of the incentive to work. The 800 pound gorilla in Obama’s Oval Office is the rising number of multi-generational Americans on welfare, incentivized by the federal government to continue their growing dependency on public assistance.

There used to be a time, my grandparents would tell me, during the Great Depression, when folks were ashamed of being “on the dole”. Americans, forced by tragic circumstance into poverty, viewed public assistance as a temporary solution to tide them over the rough spots. But now, that element of shame, at living solely through the largess of others, seems lost. And, sadly, the loss of shame seems to be accompanied by a loss of motivation to be self-supporting.

Now, of course, not all first-timers who are on public assistance, fit this model, but it is clearly applicable to many of the multi-generational, unwed “welfare moms” who have multiple children, often from multiple fathers, who do not, and cannot, by law, work if they wish to continue to receive welfare. Government programs are indifferent to these sorts of problems. Faith-based organizations, by contrast, are quick to focus precisely on the family dilemma.

Perhaps the saddest part is that Mr. Obama, and many of the other leading Democrats in Washington, are so very eager to chastise entrepreneurs and the wealthy in America, never missing an opportunity to complain about them for not “paying their fair share." And yet, not once, has President Obama mentioned the amazing philanthropy and generosity shown by these same, supposedly-awful, rich people in America. These “rich people” that Team Obama has vilified so frequently over the past two years are demonstrating philanthropic actions that underscore American generosity. Billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have put together the “billionaire challenge," pledging half of their entire net worth to charity. Nearly 50 billionaires have pledged almost $200 billion toward a variety of charities.

Curiously, Obama never speaks about American philanthropy and its transformative effect. Instead, Team Obama presses the failed notion that the aid to worthy causes and citizens in distress is best accomplished by government action. Mr. Obama seems to want the wealthy to fork over their money to the government and allow bureaucrats and politicians to disperse the largess to favorite Democrat causes and pet projects.

Christmas is coming (the Holiday Season for those who demand political correctness). There can be no better, more appropriate time, to tap into the generous, giving spirit of all Americans—not through taxes, regulations or Obama’s verbal, public floggings--but by accessing the charitable inclinations and aptitudes of non-profits and churches across America. Of course, that will require Mr. Obama to rethink his class-warfare strategy and stop vilifying rich people for political gain.

Perhaps, Mr. Obama will come to the conclusion that his dismissal of American exceptionalism was in error. Americans truly are unique in the world and are especially generous to the needy.

Mr. Obama might even reconsider his position and admit that private American citizens, with generosity and honest concern for others in need, can and do provide more and better assistance than many of the government programs which he has historically championed. At the very least, Obama could recognize the millions of Americans who demonstrate profound generosity to churches and other non-profit organizations to help those less fortunate. ‘Tis the season.

How the Devil Celebrates the Holidays

In the beginning, the devil created.…"


Wait a minute. That’s not how the Bible begins.

Or creation for that matter. Genesis 1:1 reads:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The point here is that God is the Creator. The devil is only a spoiler, a cad who lives to destroy truth, beauty and life and to devour human souls. That’s his job, and he does it all too well. He creates nothing but sorrow and regret.

1 Peter 5:8 says, "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour."

The devil has many tools at his disposal. One of them is moral equivalence. That’s when his chosen pawns assert a right to trash something on the grounds that trashing is the same as creating or celebrating.

Exhibit A in this scheme unfolded this year in Leesburg, Virginia, where atheists persuaded county officials that the historic practice of having a crèche and Christmas tree on the county courthouse lawn had to be expanded to include mockery. Along with two small crèches and a tree, three atheist displays openly attack Christianity and one proclaims "May the Force be with our combat troops" signed, "your local Jedi."

The devil also employs things that have merit to cover his tracks. Jenelle Embrey of Northern Virginia Atheists put up a letter from "Jesus" on a giant posterboard on the grounds before the town’s annual Christmas parade. Here’s a snippet:

"Dear Christians,

"It has come to my attention that many of you are upset that folks are taking MY name out of the season….” The letter has 10 genuinely positive suggestions, including writing letters to our military, forgiving people who have hurt you, and doing something instead of complaining, and it ends with: “I love you, Jesus.” Hey, who can argue with that?

The Washington Post reported, straight-faced, that Ms. Embrey wrote the letter “to try to soothe some of the anger that came to the surface during the county’s debate over religious displays in the public space.”

Uh, maybe she did. Here’s what she told the Post:

"I wanted to try to promote peace and civility. Because it seems that the Christian group was the most defensive during the debate, I specifically addressed them in my letter, using some of the positive things out of their religion to try to appeal to them."

The old master, leftist community organizer Saul Alinsky, couldn’t have put it better. Rule #4 in his 1971 manual Rules for Radicals says:

"Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

Alinsky goes on: "The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."

So, punch someone in the gut, and then accuse them of overreacting. Make fun of what they hold sacred, and then accuse them of being overly sensitive. Make a show of virtues, which implies that your opponents are hypocrites.

Why, this is diabolically shrewd! It’s why cultural radicals deploy sacrilegious displays and then cry “censorship” when Christians object to their tax dollars promoting blasphemy and immorality. It’s why liberals quote the Constitution selectively in order to thwart that document’s clear meaning. It’s why atheists (and the devil) quote Scripture out of context in order to attack Scriptural authority. “Judge not” is their favorite verse when they’re calling someone a bigot, for instance.

When these more subtle tactics fail, there’s always an old standby, violence. In Iraq, Egypt and other Muslim countries, there is murderous persecution. In the West, the attacks are usually symbolic.

Great Britain in early December, vandals chopped up the Holy Thorn Tree of Glastonbury, whose roots are alleged to go back 2,000 years to the crucifixion of Christ. The legend says that Joseph of Arimathea (who took Jesus’s body and buried it in his own tomb) journeyed to Britain, planted his staff on the hillside, and it sprouted as a tree. Over a rocky history, its roots have been replanted, and for the last 100 years, sprigs of “holy thorns” from the tree have adorned the royal family’s Christmas table.

It’s extra-biblical, meaning the legend has no Scriptural foundation. It’s actually a bit o’ heresy, with the Holy Grail thrown in as well. But it can’t be denied that the tree is a symbol of Christianity (as are Christmas trees) and that the attack is widely regarded as an assault against Great Britain’s founding faith.

The devil’s best work is done with an unseen hand, when people don’t realize they are being manipulated. In 2 Corinthians 11:14, we’re warned that Satan "transforms himself into an angel of light."

In his preface to The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis notes that the kingdom of Hell employs whatever it takes to fool humans:

"There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and an unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors, and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight."

When Christians see either delusion employed to tear down belief, the natural response may be anger. But knowing that we are all sinful creatures prone to error, Jesus commanded his flock to pray for its antagonists, who may yet find their way.

Since Saul Alinsky died in 1972, it’s too late to pray for his soul. We don’t presume to know his spiritual mindset at the time of his departure from this earth, and we can only hope that he had a divine encounter beforehand. Otherwise, a clue to his ultimate fate may lie in his foreword to Rules for Radicals, in which he saluted “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”

No wonder his advice is so devilishly clever.