SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: joseffy who wrote (719124)6/3/2013 1:34:39 AM
From: FJB2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1580138
 
Pentagon Denies Relationship with Anti-Christian Extremist; Instantly Complies with His Demands
from Breitbart Feed


One month ago the Pentagon assured the public it was not being advised by anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein. Yet two days ago Weinstein called the Pentagon demanding that a Christian painting be removed from a dining hall in an Idaho Air Force base, and the Pentagon complied with his demand--in less than one hour.

On Apr. 28, Breitbart News reported that Pentagon brass met with Weinstein and his Military Religious Freedom Foundation. That was shortly after Weinstein published an article in which he called observant Christians “fundamentalist monsters” who seek to impose “a rapacious reign of theocratic terror” in the military through their “putrid theology.”

While he opposes all religion in the military, Weinstein reserves his most caustic language for observant Christians. And the one thing he objects to above all things is proselytizing in the military, which Christians call evangelism.

Regarding evangelism, Weinstein told the Washington Post that, “What is happening aside from sexual assault is spiritual rape. And what the Pentagon needs to understand is that it is sedition and treason. It should be punished.” (Emphases added and brackets omitted.)

Weinstein said service members who evangelize in the military should be court-martialed, and added, “You need a dozen court-martials real quick.” A court martial is a criminal prosecution in the military, which depending on the crime can carry punishments ranging from fines, to expulsion from the military, to imprisonment. In case anyone missed the point, he also said, “We would love to see hundreds of prosecutions.”

It must be noted that the Pentagon says it would not take this drastic step called for by Weinstein. It should also be noted, however, that the Pentagon continues to change its story on what its policy is on evangelism.

Nevertheless, the latest example of Weinstein’s influence with the Obama-Hagel Pentagon came last week, as reported by Fox News’ Todd Starnes. In the dining hall of Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho there was a painting-style picture of a U.S. Airman with imagery of the cross, above the word “Integrity” and with a reference to Matthew 5:9. (That verse reads, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”)

Weinstein called the Pentagon directly to complain about the picture. Less than one hour later, the picture was permanently removed.

Col. Christopher Short, the base commander, told Fox News the artwork was removed because, “We make reasonable accommodations for all religions and celebrate the religious diversity of our Airmen.” It’s an odd statement to say that accommodating religion and celebrating diversity means tearing down Christian artwork.

Weinstein has previously boasted that he has special status with the leadership of the Air Force Academy similar to the “bat signal” from Batman. He explains that:

… he and Superintendent Lt. Gen. Mike Gould devised a code word only they know in case Weinstein needs to reach Gould with concerns about religious liberty on campus. “We have our own bat-signal,” Weinstein said Friday, referring to the beam of light used to summon Batman in the DC Comic series…. Having a means to reach Gould with any concerns is a positive step in the work to make the academy religiously neutral ground, he said. “We had a bad 96-hour period where I felt like we had fallen back to the bad old days,” he said. “Our relationship [now] is stronger than ever.”

Given Weinstein’s published anti-Christian statements, his relationship with top military officials should raise eyebrows.

And it has done so on Capitol Hill. After Breitbart News’ reporting on this relationship, 59 congressmen sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel demanding to know who approved these meetings and what was discussed. A group of 72 congressmen then sent a second letter demanding to know what the Pentagon is doing to protect the First Amendment rights of service members.

Also last week, one of Weinstein’s staff members published a column denigrating Congress’ efforts, and mocking Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) for coauthoring with Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) the letter signed by 59 Members of Congress. Taunting congressional leaders who are probing this situation may provoke lawmakers to amend federal law to clarify and reinforce service members rights regarding sharing their faith.

The Obama-Hagel Pentagon insists that it would never court-martial a Christian for sharing his faith, but fails to explain why it would accept advice from someone aggressively demanding that action. The Pentagon also claims that Weinstein cannot be called a consultant because he’s not paid for his advice and holds no official position. Yet the dictionary defines a consultant as, “a person who gives professional or expert advice.” There is nothing about having an official status or getting a paycheck.

Mikey Weinstein has been meeting with top Pentagon officials during the Obama administration since 2009. He continues to communicate with them at will, and they immediately respond to his demands. He is therefore an unpaid advisor to the Obama-Hagel Pentagon, with considerable influence.

Not only that, but it’s been more than two weeks since roughly 100 congressmen demanded answers from Hagel, but have not heard a word in response. Yet this anti-Christian extremist brags about how the Pentagon leaps into action when he makes a demand, removing Christian artwork in less than an hour.

Lawmakers are likely to intensify their efforts to find out what’s going on here, and what they can do to stop this assault on Christians in the military.

Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is senior fellow for religious liberty at the Family Research Council.



To: joseffy who wrote (719124)6/3/2013 4:33:29 AM
From: FJB1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1580138
 
Another Obama Assault on Free Speech

from FrontPage Magazine » FrontPage by Robert Spencer


The Obama Administration’s latest assault on the freedom of speech is so audacious that it leaves me speechless – and that’s the idea.

According to Politico, Bill Killian, the Obama-appointed U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, “is reportedly vowing to use federal civil rights statutes to clamp down on offensive and inflammatory speech about Islam.” Said Killian: “We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected.”

Killian and an unnamed FBI special agent are holding a meeting Tuesday evening with local Muslim groups in Manchester, Tennessee. “This is an educational effort with civil rights laws,” Killian explained, “as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion. This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”

Killian offered an example: “a recent controversy where a local Tennessee politician posted a photo of a man aiming a shotgun at the camera with the caption ‘How to wink at a Muslim.’” He asked the rhetorical question: “If a Muslim had posted ‘How to Wink at a Christian,’ could you imagine what would have happened?”

The problem, however, is that neither the Obama Administration nor Islamic supremacist groups that have been campaigning against the freedom of speech for years – notably the 57-government Organization of Islamic Cooperation – have ever drawn any kind of distinction between genuinely threatening speech (which the shotgun photo may arguably have been) and honest analysis of how jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism.

On the contrary, they conflate the two, thus smearing as “hateful” all examination of the motives and goals of the jihad terrorists who have vowed to destroy the United States and conquer the free world. Obama did this in 2011 when he mandated the scrubbing of counter-terror training materials of the truth about Islam and jihad. Truth about the exhortations to warfare and conquest in the Qur’an and the teachings of Muhammad was now “hate” and “bigotry,” to be jettisoned.

And Obama, of course, has been at war with this most fundamental of freedoms for quite some time. In 2011, the UN Human Rights Council adopted Resolution 16/18, with the support of the Obama administration. It called upon Western states to pass laws that would criminalize “defamation of religion” – i.e., criticism of Islam. This was no isolated incident. Right after the Benghazi jihad massacre, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed to have the producer of a video about Muhammad – the one that Administration officials falsely blamed for the attack — “ arrested and prosecuted.” The filmmaker is still the only person in prison for those attacks, ostensibly for a minor parole violation, but clearly for the crime of exercising his freedom of speech. And those are just two of the many ways in which the Obama Administration has shown itself to be a foe of the First Amendment.

Nonetheless, the First Amendment still remains, for now – at least until a case involving the question of whether what the Administration deems to be “hate speech” enjoys constitutional protection comes before an Obama-majority Supreme Court. But the idea of circumventing it using existing civil rights laws is a new wrinkle. “The Department of Justice,” Politico noted, “did not respond Friday to a question about what guidelines it draws concerning offensive speech and Islam, or whether the department believes that civil rights statutes could be used to stifle criticism of Islam.”

It is doubtful that they didn’t respond because the thought of doing such a thing had never crossed anyone’s mind there. In July 2012, then-Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division was asked by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ): “Will you tell us here today that this Administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?” Perez (whom Obama has now nominated to be Secretary of Labor) refused to rule out such a proposal – strongly suggesting by his refusal that the Obama Administration is indeed contemplating ways to circumvent the First Amendment and outlaw criticism of Islam.

If this ever happens, it’s all over. If the U.S. adopts any kind of law criminalizing criticism of Islam, that would be the end of any resistance to jihad, as we will be rendered mute and thus defenseless against its advance. And while this possibility still seems wildly farfetched to most people, it must be borne in mind that the First Amendment does not automatically enforce itself. If those charged with guarding and protecting it are determined to do away with it, they can hedge it around with nuances and exceptions that will render it as toothless and essentially void as the Second Amendment already is in many major cities.

The seminar in Tennessee is just one skirmish in a long war. But it is a war that most Americans have no idea is even being fought. And as Lenin and the Bolsheviks demonstrated, that is how determined and organized minorities subdue larger but careless or indifferent foes. If the mainstream media were doing their jobs, Bill Killian and his little workshop would be front page news nationwide, and Killian would be facing extremely tough questioning about his authoritarian tendencies and the anti-freedom agenda he is pursuing. That he is not, and that the mainstream media are largely indifferent to this story, will only hasten its demise.



To: joseffy who wrote (719124)6/3/2013 6:09:23 AM
From: FJB1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1580138
 
The Smoking Gun in Plain Sight

By
Herbert E. Meyer (hat tip, KLP,lindybill)

As the Obama administration descends into a whirlpool of scandals, a race has begun among Congressional committees and news organizations to find the proverbial smoking gun -- the document that will link President Obama directly to the IRS's targeting of conservative groups, or to the Justice Department's unprecedented legal actions against the Associated Press and Fox News reporter James Rosen, or to the Pentagon's ghastly failure to launch a rescue mission when our consulate in Benghazi came under attack last September.

Study history, and you will understand why no such document is ever likely to be found: That just isn't how these things work. Very few people are aware of this, but there is no document -- not one -- linking Adolf Hitler to the Holocaust. Why not? Because Hitler didn't need to sign a document ordering the slaughter of six million Jews. All he needed to do was to demonize his enemy in speeches at the Reichstag, on the radio, and from one end of Germany to the other -- then hire thugs like Herman Goering, Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Eichmann, and Josef Goebbels. They knew what der Fuhrer wanted, and der Fuhrer knew he could trust his henchman to get the job done -- no matter how, no matter what may be the law -- and to not bother him with the gory details.

Reader, take a deep breath. Nowhere in this essay will I suggest, or even imply, that President Obama plans the mass murder of his opponents the way Hitler murdered his. That's absurd. I am merely pointing out that President Obama has been going about the business of demonizing his political enemies, and then hiring thugs to destroy them without regard to the law, in precisely the same way that Hitler and his fascists did it in Germany. This isn't an accusation; it's an observation.

Look at the record: From the moment he took office in January 2009, President Obama has spoken before Congress, on television, and at countless rallies across the country describing his political opponents in terms we haven't seen before in the United States. Time and again he's insisted that Republicans aren't merely wrong, but evil. Hardly a week goes by without yet another sneering comment about "millionaires and billionaires" -- by which he means those men and women who actually built the businesses that created jobs for all the rest of us, not the ones he and the First Lady party with in Hollywood and on Martha's Vineyard.

Hatred for the Tea Party

His rhetoric heated up fast after the Tea Party movement gave the GOP enough oomph to win back the House of Representatives in 2010, and as the president geared up for the 2012 election. He urged Latino voters to help him "punish our enemies and reward our friends." He told his supporters at one rally to think of voting for him as "an act of revenge." Did you see the president at that Georgetown University forum on the future of Medicare when he trashed Paul Ryan's own plan, then went out of his way to publicly insult Ryan, while the Congressman himself was sitting in the front row too stunned -- and too decent and respectful of the presidency -- to respond in kind? Do you remember that television campaign ad describing Mitt Romney -- one of the most capable, financially astute, thoroughly decent men who ever graced public life -- as "not one of us"?

And while demonizing his political enemies, what sort of people did the president appoint to key jobs in his administration? His attorney general is Eric Holder, a sleazy Democratic operative who not only called the American people "cowards" for their approach to racial issues -- this after the majority of us elected a black president -- but who played a crucial role as deputy attorney general in the scandalous and still-uninvestigated pardon of Marc Rich in the Clinton administration's dying hours. The national security advisor is Thomas Donilon, another Democratic Party operative who got rich while serving as executive vice president for law and policy at Fannie Mae. And who was our secretary of state when the consulate in Benghazi came under attack? The same Hillary Clinton who, as the wife of Arkansas' up-and-coming governor, made an overnight $100,000 killing by trading cattle futures -- a feat no professional cattle-futures trader has ever been able to explain, or duplicate.

No one who's spent time in our nation's capital comes away with a romantic view of party politics and the people who do this for a living; the Saint-Per-Square-Mile ratio in Washington has always been fairly low. But David Axelrod? David Plouffe? Have you ever come across two Chicago-style, hardball-playing creeps like these clowns? They make Richard Nixon's two White House thugs, Bob Haldeman and John Erlichman, look like choir boys.

Demonize your political enemies, then hire people like these, and the result is precisely what happened in Germany after 1933 and what's happening now to us: a kind of bureaucratic coup d'etat in which the legitimately elected government overturns the established relationship between the individual and the State and replaces it with something very different; a relationship that no one voted for, saw coming, or imagined could happen so quickly and so quietly.

Forget About a Coup d'Etat

This is the United States in 2013, not Germany in 1933, and there's no real possibility that President Obama will get away with his attempted coup d'etat. There are members of Congress in both parties who are appalled by what the president has been doing, and even a few liberal news organizations are starting to wake up. But while the hunt for some document that would be the smoking gun will be entertaining -- and while it would be nice to see a special prosecutor appointed who'd throw at least a few members of this administration who've perjured themselves before Congress into prison -- it would also be a mistake.

Education is more important than prosecution.
Right now, the best use of their time and energy would be to expose the Obama administration's wrongdoings; to illuminate for Americans just what's been going on in Washington and to show voters -- especially young voters -- what sort of country we'd be living in if the president had gotten away with this. Never before have our politicians and our news organizations had a better opportunity to demonstrate just what happens when we vote carelessly, elect a zealot who appoints operatives with no sense of honor or comprehension of right-and-wrong, then parties with rock stars while his coup d'etat unfolds.

Yes, I realize that throughout this essay I've used an analogy that some people will find offensive or even repugnant. But I've done this deliberately, because this is no time to hold back or to mince words. And if the president doesn't like being compared to a Nazi -- he should stop acting like one.

Herbert E. Meyer served during the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council. He is the recipient of the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, the intelligence community's highest honor, and the author of How to Analyze Information and The Cure for Poverty.

Page Printed from: americanthinker.com