OWS Protesters: Rush More Dangerous Than Al-Qaeda

Hippie Dances on Soldiers' Memorial

Former Soviet Citizen Confronts Socialists at Occupy Wall Street

Joe Biden Becomes Upset After Being Asked About Controversial Rape Comments

Poor Biden thinks that cops interrupt a rape in progress. This kind of delusional reasoning posits that the rape victim has both the time and opportunity while being assaulted for a phone call to be placed to the police department. Additionally, this brilliant thinking believes that the assailant will sit still to wait while not only the rape victim takes a break to call the police, but for the ensuing squad car to be dispatched and arrive at his location.

This is what happens when you've had a brain anyuerism and/or spent too many years "serving the people":

OWS Supporter Rants Against Israel, Jews

OccupyWallSt Poster Boy A Trust Fund Baby, Attempted Stowaway At JFK

Why I Can't Take Ron Paul Seriously

This is why I can't take Ron Paul seriously:

WINTERSET, Ia. – Two weeks away from the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, presidential candidate and Texas Rep. Ron Paul says that U.S. intervention in the Middle East is a main motivation behind terrorist hostilities toward America, and that Islam is not a threat to the nation.

At a campaign stop on Saturday in Winterset, one man asked Paul how terrorist groups would react if the U.S. removed its military presence in Middle Eastern nations, a move the candidate advocates.

“Which enemy are you worried that will attack our national security?” Paul asked.

“If you’re looking for specifics, I’m talking about Islam. Radical Islam,” the man answered.

“I don’t see Islam as our enemy,” Paul said. “I see that motivation is occupation and those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate.”

Regarding 9/11, Paul said that attacks against the U.S. from Middle Eastern groups at home and abroad can be traced to the foreign presence of U.S. troops, as well as America’s relationships with dictator regimes.

Paul referred to a military base in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, as a key motivator in the Sept. 11th attacks. Osama bin Laden viewed it as an American desecration of holy land.

“After 9/11, (people said) ‘Oh yeah, it’s those very bad people who hate us,’ but 15 of (the hijackers) came from Saudi Arabia,” said Paul. “One of the reasons they attacked us, is we propped up this Sharia government and the fundamentalists hated us for it.”

The congressman particularly decried U.S.-led bombings in foreign nations, saying that “almost always those individuals that they are trying to kill did not have any direct relationship” with threats to the U.S.

Accordingly, his expectations for the rebels in Libya, who were assisted by American-led bombing efforts, aren’t very bright.

“Remember ‘Mission Accomplished’? That’s probably about where we are right now,” Paul told The Des Moines Register, “and (the U.S.) better be very cautious about bragging about anything.”

The crumbling of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s regime wouldn’t amount to a significant victory because al-Qaeda forces would arise there soon, Paul said.

“As bad as Gadaffi was, he didn’t like the al-Qaeda,” Paul said. “He kicked those people out.”

Paul cited a University of Chicago professor, Robert Pape, whose research argues that most of the suicide terrorism in the past 30 years was caused by military occupation. Pape’s research, funded by the Defense Department, shows that suicide bombings in Afghanistan went up one third after the Obama administration surged 30,000 troops into the country.

“(9/11) was one of the main motivations for getting your attention on why they hate us and want to kill us,” he said. “You could send 20 million people over there and all it would do is make our problems worse.”(source)

Ron is on the side of our enemy and the rest of the blame-America-first crowd with this kind of rhetoric. In one amazingly obtuse moment, he gives aid and comfort to the enemy, and denies that we gave away the lives of good American men and women in the defense of millions of people worldwide for their causes, and still do to this day.

To hear him talk, you would think that there is nothing in the heart of this worldwide movement of jihadists except simple revenge for wrong-headed global imperialism by the bully Uncle Sam, compounded by every bootstep that Johnny takes on their holy soil.

Sounds as plain as the nose on your face, doesn’t it? Let’s just do what Yuseff says, ok? After all, the jihadists speak for all Muslims and Arabs, right? We should base our foreign policy on the thinking of these war-driven lunatics who imagine an offense at everything we do from allowing our women to walk around without complete cover to giving voice to homosexuals.

Good move, there, Ron. You’ve succeeded in pulling the wool over the Americans’ eyes that have no knowledge of history. Your attempt to lull them to sleep is working with a surprising amount of naive folks. A little more of your philosophy on foreign policy is all we need to be on our knees again, begging for our way of life.

But there’s just a few nagging questions left that don’t fit into your “revenge for-stepping-on-our-soil” explanation:

When jihadists tried to assassinate the Pope repeated times in the past 30 years, what was his crime?

When jihadists have murdered, raped, and evacuated Buddhists in Bangladesh, Thailand, and India, what imperialism had they committed?

When jihadists in the 7th century invaded and destroyed the Zoroastrians, what did they do to deserve eradication?

When Iran’s Supreme Ruler, the Ayatollah Khomeni called for any good Muslim to kill Salman Rushdie on sight, what imperialism had he committed?

Ron’s woefully undereducated comments border on the bizarre, of course. It’s almost as if he’s not getting enough oxygen to his brain anymore. How can you square this non-sequitur: “One of the reasons they attacked us, is we propped up this Sharia government and the fundamentalists hated us for it.”

The Islamic fundamentalists WANT Shariah Law, Ron. You need to sit down and catch your breath, now. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Ron’s also been known to step on that good ship Lollypop known as Jew-hatin’, from time to time in the past. He has good company these days with the American Left, who resent our support of Israel and like to blame all Middle Eastern tension on such, as well. When you hear them use the word neo-con, you know you’re listening to someone who drinks from the same well as the Islamic Fundamentalists who kill Americans any chance they get.

You can chose to believe Ron and his brand of foreign policy that seeks to blame every US soldier’s death from Islamic Fundamentalists on our relationship with a tiny little speck of a nation, surrounded by hostile neighbors that have repeatedly tried to “push them into the Mediterranean” known as Israel (the only democracy in the Arab Empire), but can you answer these questions?:

Is Jemmaah Islamiya attempting to establish an Islamic state in Indonesia because the US supports Israel?

Are the Chechyan jihadists waging Jihad against Russia because the US supports Israel?

Is Abu Sayyef attempting to establish an Islamic state on Mindanao because the US supports Israel?

Are Jihadists attempting to establish an Islamic state in southern Thailand because the US supports Israel?

Have Nigerian Jihadists attacked innocent Christians repeatedly because the US supports Israel?

Is Al Shabaad conducting terrorist attacks in Kenya and Somalia on innocent civilians because the US supports Israel?

Are Jihadists attempting to create an Islamic state in India’s Kashmir because the US supports Israel?

Have Jihadists killed thousands in attacks on innocent civilians in Morocco, Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, the UK, Spain, Jordan and Bangladesh because the US supports Israel?

Are young Jihadis rioting in France because the US supports Israel?

Ron is right on about 99% of what he says concerning domestic spending, in my opinion. But it’s this 1% that completely paints him as your “crazy Uncle Ron” who likes to believe that he can hear aliens transmitting signals through the fillings in his teeth for me. And it’s a shame, too. But at 76 years old, you have to accept a little senility, I guess.

Barack O'Bully Wants To End Israel

"Racism" is a killing hatred for an ethnos, a people or nation. It could be cold hatred, where you just want all those people to disappear from the face of the earth, or red-hot hatred, where you're just itching to bring out your Turkish scimitar and start chopping innocent men, women and children. It doesn't matter if racism is cold or hot. It's the "final solution" that defines it.

Obama just demanded that seven million Jews in Israel abandon their homes to live inside the cease-fire lines of their War of Independence. Those cease-fire lines are not borders, and were never meant to be borders. They are so weirdly drawn that Israel becomes nine miles wide at the waist. For Israel to withdraw to those lines is to "commit suicide" as a nation, as Newt Gingrich has just said. Gingrich is right. This is what radical Islamists keep shouting about, in one, vast industrialized stream of oil-fueled hate propaganda.

And now, ten years after 9/11/01, Obama has joined them.

I don't think Americans really understand that yet. It's obvious that many American Jews don't understand it either. There's a kind of culture shock when radicals express their real beliefs. Nobody wants to believe it.

I can't read minds, and I don't know if Obama has a visceral hatred for Israel. It's not even the right question to ask. The real, practical question is whether Obama is trying to sabotage and ultimately destroy that country. It's "practical racism" that's the issue.

The Left is always trying to draw an imaginary line between Israel hatred and Jew hatred. But it's a distinction without a difference. It's like saying that you love Americans -- but the country named "America" has to be destroyed.

Barack Hussein Obama is therefore a practical racist -- he can proclaim all the lovely sentiments he wants to, finely tuned to whichever audience he wants to sucker, but his stated, practical goal is to shrink Israel into the tiniest and least defensible borders possible. It's like telling America to go back to the original thirteen colonies.

In a world of reality, not high-flown rhetoric, Obama wants to terminate a viable Jewish State in Israel, just as, deep down, he wants to terminate a viable nation of America. That's the program of the Left, and has been since Karl Marx. It's a utopian, one-world fantasy, that always sounds better than anything real. So Barack Hussein Obama, the President of the United States, has come out against the existence of a viable State of Israel. That would be Progress, he seems to think.

If you haven't understood that, your eyes are closed. Consider lifting your eyelids.

The word "racist" has become a word of abuse without real meaning, like the ancient word "bastard." It used to mean something, and then it became just a fuzzy thing meaning "really bad." The Left makes use of race to smear people it wants to oppress and control. It's a verbal club for beating people over the head. But there really are practical racists, people who dream of actually destroying an entire ethnos, a people. The other word for that is "genocide."

We now hear that Hillary Clinton and the Administration have again repeated that demand to commit national suicide. This is what O'Bully did to Hosni Mubarak during the phony "Egyptian Spring." He demanded that Mubarak must resign, and "Now means Now!!" But Mubarak had been our ally for almost 30 years, the man who kept the Egypt-Israel peace treaty alive. O'Bully humiliated Mubarak in public, a tremendous loss of face for an Arab leader, and he resigned.

Now the Muslim Brotherhood is making a grab for power in Egypt.

We've seen this totalitarian movie before. The last time it cost 100 million people their lives. Like Communists during the Soviet Union, Obama never talks about those 100 million victims of Marxist regimes in the 20th century.

Obama has apologized for America on numerous occasions, but he has never deplored the murderous record of Marxist-Leninism. That is significant.

Twenty years ago the Berlin Wall came down, after Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, John Paul II, and a host of freedom activists like Poland's Solidarity fought for human freedom.

Today Barack O'Bully is trying to reverse history by empowering the reactionary Muslim Brotherhood -- which now controls Turkey, Gaza, and maybe Egypt. The other brand of radical Islam is now in control of Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

Iran is getting nukes, and Obama is doing nothing to stop them. Some reports say it's a matter of weeks or months. The Syrians have been revealed as building two more nuclear sites, beside the one the Israelis identified and smashed several years ago. The Saudis, who are radical Sunnis, are due to buy their own nukes from Pakistan (where they helped to finance Pakistan's nukes).

It's happening right in front of our eyes. The facts are no longer in dispute.

They are what they are.

You can keep your eyes shut tight, like a hundred million liberals do every single day.

Or you can open your eyes.

The choice is yours.(source)

Barry As President: GOOGLE GIVES SPECIAL FAVOR TO THEIR MAN FOR UPCOMING ELECTION SEASON

Google denied Wednesday that it gave President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign special access to a new advertising program, something a sales representative from the search and advertising giant had claimed in an email to customers.

The new ad program would charge clients for every email address (or other piece of user data) they collect. The program is attractive to campaigns eager for that information, so when a staffer at the National Republican Senatorial Committee saw what appeared to be an Obama ad built on this technology on the RealClearPolitics website last month, she emailed a Google sales rep to ask about creating a similar ad campaign for Republicans.


The saleswoman, Sirene Abou-Chakra, replied by suggesting that Obama had a special deal.

“This is a pre-alpha product that is being released to a select few clients,” she wrote in an email, referring to the first stage of a product’s roll-out. “I’d be happy to get you into the beta if you’re interested.”

A similar email went out to at least one other Republican digital media firm, a Republican source said.

“It certainly raises some red flags that the Obama campaign appears to have been given special access to a new online advertising product,” said NRSC communications director Brian Walsh in response to an inquiry from POLITICO.

But Google spokesman Jake Parrilo denied strenuously that the Obama campaign had been granted special access to the pilot program, and chalked the email up to inaccurate “puffery” by the sales representative. The ad that appeared on RealClearPolitics, he said, was not a Google ad at all.

“This is an experiment and while we generally do not comment on those experiments we can tell you that we have not sold a single CPL [cost-per-lead] ad unit to any political candidates or committees,” said Parrillo.

And Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt seconded the company’s account that the campaign had not purchased any ads or enrolled in the Google pilot program.

Google, whose chairman and former CEO Eric Schmidt was an informal adviser and support of Obama and sits on the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, has been accused in the past of favoring the White House. The Federal Trade Commission dropped an investigation into the company after a major privacy breach, leading some Republican groups to cry for an investigation — even as Google agreed to a tough 20-year FTC settlement on a second privacy breach.

After POLTICO asked Google about the suggestion of a special deal for the campaign, a Google spokesman forwarded a reporter correspondence between the company and the NRSC, charging - inaccurately - that the committee had been the source of POLITICO’s information.

The forward prompted Walsh to add that he is “concerned that Google shared a private email exchange with our committee and their company with the media.”

The pilot program at issue is a new type of digital advertising that Google appears to be preparing to launch in the third quarter of 2011.

“It’s a cost-effective, easy and scalable way to generate leads,” boasted Google in a marketing document about their new product. “Fewer steps for users means they’re more likely to complete your lead form.”

Parrillo told POLITICO that the Republican and the Democratic political ad sales teams at Google are kept separate and are unaware of the other side’s projects or deals.(source)

MSM Diary: Owned By The Drudge Report, Which Is More Fair And Balanced Than The Mainstream Press

The liberal bias of the mainstream media tilts so far left that any outlets not in that political lane, like the Drudge Report and Fox News Channel, look far more conservative than they really are, according to a UCLA professor's new book out next month.

In a crushing body blow to the pushers of the so-called "Fox Effect," which claims the conservative media is dragging the left into the center, UCLA political science professor Tim Groseclose in Left Turn claims that "all" mainstream news outlets have a liberal bias in their reporting that makes even moderate organizations appear out of the mainstream and decidedly right-wing to news consumers who are influenced by the slant. [Read Fox's Huckabee slams MSNBC's Matthews, Scarborough over bias.]

"Fox News is clearly more conservative than ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and National Public Radio. Some will conclude that 'therefore, this means that Fox News has a conservative bias,'" he writes in an advance copy provided to Washington Whispers. "Instead, maybe it is centrist, and possibly even left-leaning, while all the others are far left. It's like concluding that six-three is short just because it is short compared to professional basketball players."

What's more, he says, "this point illustrates a common misconception about the Drudge Report. According to my analysis, the Drudge Report is approximately the most fair, balanced, and centrist news outlet in the United States. Yet, the overwhelming majority of media commentators claim that it has a conservative bias. The problem, I believe, is that such commentators mistake relative bias for absolute bias. Yes, the Drudge Report is more conservative than the average U.S. news outlet. But it is a logical mistake to use that to infer that it is based on an absolute scale."

And in further analysis sure to enrage critics of conservative media, Groseclose determines that Drudge, on a conservative to liberal scale of 0-100, with 50 being centrist, actually leans a bit left of center with a score of 60.4. The reason: Drudge mostly links to the sites of the mainstream media, with just a few written by Matt Drudge himself. "Since these links come from a broad mix of media outlets, and since the news in general is left-leaning, it should not be surprising that the slant quotient of the Drudge Report leans left," he writes. [Read Poll: Fox, O'Reilly most trusted news sources.]

The author developed a calculation to figure out the "political quotient" to find the bias of media outlets and the average slant of an organization.

Groseclose opens his book quoting a well-known poll in which Washington correspondents declared that they vote Democratic 93 percent to 7 percent, while the nation is split about 50-50. As a result, he says, most reporters write with a liberal filter. "Using objective, social-scientific methods, the filtering prevents us from seeing the world as it actually is. Instead, we see only a distorted version of it. It is as if we see the world through a glass—a glass that magnifies the facts that liberals want us to see and shrinks the facts that conservatives want us to see." [Check out political cartoons about the Democratic Party.]

He adds: "That bias makes us more liberal, which makes us less able to detect the bias, which allows the media to get away with more bias, which makes us even more liberal."

Some key points:

"Every mainstream national news outlet in the United States has a liberal bias."

"Supposedly conservative news outlets are not far right. For instance, the conservative bias of [Fox's] Special Report is significantly less than the liberal bias of CBS Evening News."

"Media bias aids Democratic candidates by about 8 to 10 percentage points in a typical election. I find, for instance, that if media bias didn't exist, John McCain would have defeated Barack Obama 56 percent to 42 percent, instead of losing 53-46." [See editorial cartoons about Barack Obama.]

Perhaps the most useful part of his book is the slant ratings of the media. The numbers are based on a conservative-to-liberal 0-100 rating, with 50 being centrist:

•New York Times-73.7.
•CBS Evening News-73.7.
•NPR Morning Edition-66.3.
•U.S. News & World Report-65.8.
•Drudge Report-60.4.
•ABC Good Morning America-56.1.
•Washington Times-35.4.

Left Turn, How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind, published by St. Martin's Press, is due out July 19.