► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Charles C. Johnson’

So, That Everytown Scaretistic Map Turned Out To Be A Complete Fabricated Lie: Color Me Shocked!

by Flyovercountry ( 95 Comments › )
Filed under Hipsters, Liberal Fascism, Media, Progressives at June 16th, 2014 - 2:00 pm
Another fake shooting listed by Everytown gun map was drug related, not on campus. http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/22648057/suspect-arrested-in-fatal-shooting-near-morehouse-college 

Well, I guess you get the idea, and if you follow this link back to The Blaze, you’ll see that pretty much all of the dots on that hysterical Everytown map have turned out to be misrepresented, grotesquely misrepresented. Charles C. Johnson has taken the trouble to research the map, and detail the circumstances of each shooting, not one of which turned out to be a mass shooting at a school. Most were gang related incidents of violence that occurred somewhere other than at a school. So, to all of you who’ve passed this blatant lie along with the message that, “it’s for the children,” please consider the message you’re sending to those young skulls full of mush when you use blatant fabrication as your argument to destroy America’s Second Amendment Rights.

Every day now, one of my liberal progressive, friends forwards some piece of propaganda advocating for the abrogation of America’s right to keep and bear arms. The latest bit of dishonesty claims that we now have one incident per week of a school getting shot up and kiddies being slaughtered. The trouble with that meme of course is that once even the smallest bit of scrutiny is used to look at their evidence of the great American Abattoir, the story falls apart completely, and what we’re left with are liberals running amok, mostly due to liberal policies having been enacted to keep them from ever facing consequences for previous poor decision making.

Now I get that you guys don’t want to see children hurt, and that your entire world view is ruled by your emotions. Your bigger than mine caring heart does you credit. With that being said however, there is a reason why George Mason insisted upon inclusion of the Bill of Rights as a part of the original Constitution before getting on board with ratification of this document as our primary national law, and the founding of our republic. Included within the 8 Amendments authored by Mason was the Second. If some of you wish to see that part of our Constitution wiped away, then I respect your opinion. I think you’re wrong, but have your say so.

Our Founding Fathers were intelligent enough to know that they weren’t perfect, or that times would change. That is why they’d had the foresight to include two, count them two, methods for changing the Constitution in Article V. Incrementally legislating away this basic right, granted not by government or our fellow man, but as a part of our birthright as human beings, is itself disingenuous and dishonest. Putting aside all other arguments, the Second Amendment is the only device we have that will ultimately protect us from facing our very own tyrannical behemoth. It is not a deer hunting or bird hunting amendment. It is not about feeding a family. It is not even really about protection from home invasion or masked marauders. It is about thwarting a government that has wrestled power from the people, and keeping that government in check by those governed. There is no possible argument in my mind which could possibly trump that consideration, however, please feel free to try. If you wish to take away our guns, do so through the Article V process. That would at least be consistent with how America is supposed to work.

One final thought for my progressive friends. Every time we get into it, you and I, I am doused with comments advising me to stop watching Fox News, or listening to Rush Limbaugh. By the way, I really do very little of both, but that’s beside the point. In every instance of this advice, not once has specific example been made as to why either source is not worthy of my attention. I’ve seen the Fox lies claim, but it’s always been a blanket charge. There has not been one single instance, ever, where this charge has been substantiated. Here however, is that substantiation of your argument being not only a lie, but one of epic proportion. What ever grudging emotional support for you position I may have had has now been wiped away for ever. That is the back lash for this fallacious piece of baloney that you’ve seen fit to forward without thinking. Looking back over the years, at the tortured statistics, misapplied economics lessons, mined quotes, quotes taken out of context, distorted historical perspectives, and flat out fabrications, I realize that the political left has not offered one honest argument to support anything they’ve posited. You can single out Fox all you want, but look in the mirror when you wish to point out something not worthy of trust. At least be truthful when discussing your plans for America. Honesty after all is what’s best for the children.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula the film maker of “The Innocence of Muslims” speaks to Charles Johnson

by Mojambo ( 113 Comments › )
Filed under Egypt, Hillary Clinton, Movies, Politics at August 7th, 2013 - 5:00 pm

No not the fat, cheetos eating, mountain dew drinking,  gas bag at Little Green Balls, but Charles C. Johnson who called Clueless Mc Dum Dum “pops” a few months ago. By the way Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is a coward and a low life who tried to pass himself off as an Israeli Jew. Still, he could be considered  to be a political prisoner.

Charles C Johnson2

by Charles C. Johnson

In his first interview since his supervised release from prison, the filmmaker behind “Innocence of Muslims” told The Daily Caller that he “has no regrets” and promises more films and books about Islam.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is the only person who has been imprisoned in the aftermath of the organized Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which the ambassador and three other Americans were killed. He was wholly unconnected to the attack and was imprisoned on technical probation violations.

“The first reason I am writing this book is to tell the world we never forget our heroes and the second reason is to tell [everyone] that I’m not afraid,” Nakoula writes in a foreword obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller.

“I want the world to see the truth,” Nakoula told TheDC over the phone.

The interview was arranged after multiple letters to his former prison in El Paso, Texas. Nakoula is currently targeted with assassination from several Muslim clerics, including the head of Hezbollah, who have put fatwas on his head. He spoke from an undisclosed location in Southern California.

Nakoula is upset that his film has been blamed for causing the Benghazi terrorist attack. His book is dedicated to both the victims of Benghazi and of terrorism around the world.

“Ambassador Chris Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty and to every son who has lost his father, every mother or father who has their son, every person all over the world [who] lost his life or [was] injured because of the terrorism culture,” Nakoula writes in his foreword. “I would like to tell you you’re not forgotten.”

Nakoula, who had prior felony convictions on drug and bank fraud charges, was on probation when he made the trailer. Following the Benghazi debacle, the Obama administration claimed the film had incited the attack, and Nakoula was arrested and returned to prison for violating probation terms that prohibited him from using an alias (he had gone by “Sam Bacile” in making the film) or using the Internet without prior approval.

The U.S. State Department and the White House, which characterize the amateur video as “hate speech” or “Islamophobic” have pressured Google to remove the trailer for Nakoula’s film.

Nakoula hopes to complete the film and has made storyboards of other scenes that he hopes to include, showing Mohammed on jihad and engaging in sex acts — all based, he told TheDC, on Islamic books and evidence from the time period.

The clip generated plenty of fury even without threats from Islamists and denunciation from the State Department. Many cast and crew members have claimed they were misled by Nakoula during the production.

[……..]

He also disputed characterizations of his film as anti-Muslim. He says it is against the terrorism culture so often expressed in the Islamic world.

The film is “more political than religious,” he explained. Nakoula claimed to draw on more than “a thousand books written by Islamic scholars and a lifelong study” of Islam in Egypt to make each scene.

“I have many Muslim friends,” Nakoula told TheDC. “They do not believe in terrorism culture like many others. We have to keep fighting against this culture to protect our future generations and our civilization. This war does not use weapons but minds. … I am talking about how much the world will suffer because of this culture if we do not stop it as soon as possible.”

Nakoula described himself as “proud” for having written his script, which he is now turning into a book.

“If I could go back I would do it again. I would love to see this world free of this culture. I need your support. I am hoping the person who believes in death culture watches my movie or reads my book.”

[………]

“It does not matter old or young, children or adults. He wants to get killed and go directly to river of milk, river of honey, river of wine and 72 virgin women,” Nakoula writes in his foreword. “This makes me believe the guys that did 9/11 were in a hurry to go to heaven more than hitting the U.S.A.”

The book is still being written with the help of his son, Nakoula told TheDC. Nakoula lacks an agent and has begun shopping it around to publishers himself. He may publish it as an e-book.

Nakoula believes future terrorist attacks could be stopped if Muslim fanatics read his book or watch his movie.

“I wish that [Army Maj. Nidal] Hasan, before he killed [12] American soldiers [and one civilian] at an American base, watched my movie or read my book. Maybe our soldiers’ lives would be saved. I wish the Boston bomber [Dzhokhar Tsarnaev] would have watched my movie or read my book also.”

Nakoula, who is a Coptic Christian, also opposes the double standard that is tolerant of Islam but not Christianity.

“We can see mosques everywhere all over the world but we can’t see churches in Saudi Arabia,” he wrote. “[The Muslims] are saying it is holy land. I say also New York is a holy land. [Almost] 3,000 Americans get killed on this land. [Muslims] want to build an Islamic center on Ground Zero, no problem. But they won’t let us build churches in Saudi Arabia. They even burn down the churches in other Islamic countries, like Egypt.”

Much of Nakoula’s understanding of Islam was formed as a boy growing up in Egypt.

[………]

Nakoula gave repeated instances of Egyptian Christians who have been killed or attacked by Muslims in Egypt. Persecution of Copts has accelerated since the 2011 “Arab spring.”

In November 2012, Mr. Nakoula told The New York Times that he wanted to portray “the actual truth” about Muhammad. “I thought, before I wrote this script,” he said, “that I should burn myself in a public square to let the American people and the people of the world know this message that I believe in.”

Charles Woods, the father of Navy SEAL killed in Benghazi, told Glenn Beck in October that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told him the Administration “will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

American authorities were not the only ones who went after Nakoula. A court in Cairo tried and sentenced Nakoula and six other Egyptian Christians to death for participating in the filming of his movie. The court said the filmmakers insulted “the Islamic religion through participating in producing and offering a movie that insults Islam and its prophet.”

Nakoula has not yet been officially released from prison. He is in a halfway house where he is allowed to leave the facility for a few hours a day but remains in federal custody. The federal authorities have promised to release him in September or earlier, according to Nakoula. Nakoula represents himself as he cannot afford a lawyer.

[……..]

President Obama last month began describing Benghazi as one of a number of “phony scandals” currently engulfing his administration. On Thursday CNN reported that the CIA had 21 or more agents in the embassy compound during the attack and is engaged in an “unprecedented” effort to conceal details of the incident.

Former Green Beret Jack Murphy, bestselling co-author of “Benghazi: The Definitive Report,” has identified John O. Brennan, the then-chief counterterrorism adviser to the president, as the source of the decision to blame Nakoula’s video for the terrorist attack on Benghazi. When asked about Brennan on Twitter, Murphy described him as “Obama’s propaganda minister,” who “knows how to work disinformation very well,” and said he was “behind both the OBL leaks and the YouTube video as the motive behind the Benghazi disinfo.” Asked how he knew that, Murphy demurred, saying, “I didn’t find it in the NYC public library, that’s for sure.”

Brennan, who told the Islamic Society of North America, “I don’t use the term jihadist to refer to terrorists” and extemporized in English and Arabic about the beauty of Islam in a speech to the Islamic Society of New York, is now director of the CIA. In his 1980 graduate thesis at the University of Texas at Austin, Brennan denied the existence of “absolute human rights” and argued in favor of censorship on the part of the Egyptian dictatorship.

[………]

Brooke Goldstein, a human rights attorney from the Lawfare Project, sees Brennan’s pro-censorship views as part of a wider campaign of suppression of speech critical of Islam.

“The lengths this administration has gone to subjugate public dialogue and constitutionally protected speech on the very real and imminent threat of militant Islam, is astounding,” Goldstein told TheDC.

Goldstein is especially critical of U.S. officials, who “were paraded one by one in front of the world to act as film critics, proliferating the ridiculous lie that one U.S. resident’s constitutionally protected expression was somehow the but-for cause of murder thousands of miles away.”

She cites several examples, including the U.S. Embassy in Cairo’s press release curiously condemning “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims,” as well as Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s description of Nakoula’s film as “disgusting and reprehensible.”

Read the rest –  Imprisoned ‘Innocence of Muslims’ producer Nakoula Nakoula: ‘I want the world to see the truth

Margaret Thatcher and the Jews

by Mojambo ( 77 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Holocaust, Israel, UK, World War II at January 11th, 2012 - 8:30 am

Margaret Thatcher was one of the great statesmen of the post -World War II era. If  Margaret Thatcher was Ronald Reagan, then the  current Tory boss David Cameron is a combination of George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. In this interesting article by Charles Johnson (lol I thought that name would get your attention) it is fascinating to see the ingrown anti-Semitism of so many of the British political classes which has only gotten worse in the past decade. Although not perfect (she must have been hell at times to work for), I so admire Margaret Thatcher and we should all be grateful that she and Reagan came to power at the same time. The thought of a vapid liberal such as Meryl Streep portraying her makes my stomach churn.

h/t- Powerline

by Charles C. Johnson

When asked about her most meaningful accomplishment, Margaret Thatcher, now embodied by Meryl Streep in the biopic Iron Lady, did not typically mention serving in the British government, defeating the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, taming runaway inflation, or toppling the Soviet Union. The woman who reshaped British politics and served as prime minister from 1979 to 1990 often said that her greatest accomplishment was helping save a young Austrian girl from the Nazis.

In 1938, Edith Muhlbauer, a 17-year-old Jewish girl, wrote to Muriel Roberts, Edith’s pen pal and the future prime minister’s older sister, asking if the Roberts family might help her escape Hitler’s Austria. The Nazis had begun rounding up the first of Vienna’s Jews after the Anschluss, and Edith and her family worried she might be next. Alfred Roberts, Margaret and Muriel’s father, was a small-town grocer; the family had neither the time nor the money to take Edith in. So Margaret, then 12, and Muriel, 17, set about raising funds and persuading the local Rotary club to help.

Edith stayed with more than a dozen Rotary families, including the Robertses, for the next two years, until she could move to join relatives in South America. Edith bunked in Margaret’s room, and she left an impression. “She was 17, tall, beautiful, evidently from a well-to-do family,” Thatcher later wrote in her memoir. But most important, “[s]he told us what it was like to live as a Jew under an anti-Semitic regime. One thing Edith reported particularly stuck in my mind: The Jews, she said, were being made to scrub the streets.” For Thatcher, who believed in meaningful work, this was as much a waste as it was an outrage. Had the Roberts family not intervened, Edith recalled years later, “I would have stayed in Vienna and they would have killed me.” Thatcher never forgot the lesson: “Never hesitate to do whatever you can, for you may save a life,” she told audiences in 1995 after Edith had been located, alive and well, in Brazil.

Other British politicians and their families housed Jews during the war, but none seems to have been profoundly affected by it as Thatcher was. Harold Macmillan, a Thatcher foe and England’s prime minister from 1957 to 1963, provided a home for Jewish refugees on his estate, but his relations with Jews were always frosty, the mark of a genuflecting anti-Semitism common among the Tory grandees.

During the controversial Versailles peace talks that ended World War I, Macmillan wrote to a friend that the government of Prime Minister Lloyd George was not “really popular, except with the International Jew,” the mythic entity thought to be behind all of Europe’s troubles and made famous by Henry Ford’s eponymously titled book. Macmillan often made snide jokes about Jews and Jewish politicians, derisively calling Leslie Hore-Belisha, a Liberal member of Parliament and a critic of appeasement in the years before World War II, “Horeb Elisha,” a jabbing reference to Mount Horeb, where the Ten Commandments were handed down to Moses.

[…..]

Thatcher, by contrast, had no patience for anti-Semitism or for those who countenanced it. “I simply did not understand anti-semitism myself,” Thatcher confessed in her memoirs. Indeed, she found “some of [her] closest political friends and associates among Jews.” Unique among British politicians, she was unusually free of even “the faintest trace of anti-Semitism in her make-up,” wrote Nigel Lawson, her chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1992. Lawson knew of what he spoke. Alan Clark, a senior Tory politician, wrote in his diaries that some of the old guard, himself included, thought Lawson could not, “as a Jew,” be offered the position of foreign secretary. Lawson’s “Jewish parentage was disqualification enough,” the Sunday Telegraph wrote in 1988, without a hint of shame. Rumors and speculation persisted well into the 1990s about why this or that Jewish member of Parliament couldn’t be made leader of the Conservative Party.

Early on in her career—even before she entered politics—Thatcher had worked alongside Jews as a chemist at J. Lyons and Co., a Jewish-owned company. (She had graduated from Oxford in 1947 with a degree in chemistry.) After quitting chemistry, she became a barrister and grew increasingly involved in politics. She ran for office in some of the more conservative districts and lost each time. Thatcher finally won when she ran in Finchley, a safe Tory seat in a north London borough. Finally she had found her constituents: middle-class, entrepreneurial, Jewish suburbanites. She particularly loved the way her new constituents took care of one another, rather than looking to the state: “In the thirty-three years that I represented [Finchley],” she later wrote, “I never had a Jew come in poverty and desperation to one of my [town meetings],” and she often wished that Christians “would take closer note of the Jewish emphasis on self-help and acceptance of personal responsibility.” She was a founding member of the Anglo-Israel Friendship League of Finchley and a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel. Aghast that a golf club in her district consistently barred Jews from becoming members, she publicly protested against it. She even joined in the singing of the Israeli national anthem in 1975 at Finchley.

The Jews of Finchley were “her people,” Thatcher used to say—certainly much more so than the wealthy land barons that dominated her party.

***

When Thatcher became leader of the opposition in 1975, it was suggested that her closeness with British Jews might imperil the country’s foreign policy. Official correspondence released in 2005 shows the unease with which bureaucrats at the Foreign Office treated Thatcher’s affiliations in the run-up to her election as prime minister in 1979. Michael Tait, an official at the British embassy in Jordan, worried that Thatcher might be too readily seen as a “prisoner of the Zionists” unless she severed her official ties with pro-Jewish groups. Tait even suggested that Thatcher give up her beloved Finchley constituency for Westminster, a less Jewish district, and distance herself from the “pro-Israel MPs” that might make Middle East peace impossible. In the end, Thatcher reluctantly agreed to quit the Jewish groups she belonged to, but she kept her district and her relationships with pro-Israel parliamentarians.

Once she became prime minister, Thatcher appointed a government of outsiders. “The thing about Margaret’s Cabinet,” Macmillan would later say, “is that it includes more Old Estonians than it does Old Etonians.” (Eton, the famous prep school, required that its students’ fathers be British by birth, so as to keep out the Jews.) British politics had always been a club for genteel gentiles; Thatcher wanted to make it a meritocracy.

Thatcher appointed whomever she liked to positions in her government, whatever their religious or family background. Chaim Bermant, the Anglo-Jewish writer, probably went too far when he said Thatcher has “an almost mystical faith in Jewish abilities,” but he wasn’t completely off the mark. In addition to Nigel Lawson, she appointed Victor Rothschild as her security adviser, Malcolm Rifkind to be secretary of state for Scotland, David Young as minister without portfolio, and Leon Brittan to be trade and industry secretary. David Wolfson, nephew of Sir Isaac Wolfson, president of Great Universal Stores, Europe’s biggest mail-order company, served as Thatcher’s chief of staff. Her policies were powered by two men—Keith Joseph, a member of Parliament many thought would one day be the first prime minister who was a practicing Jew, and Alfred Sherman, a former communist turned free-market thinker.

[……]

 

Thatcher’s philo-Semitism went beyond the people she appointed to her government; it had clear political implications as well. She made Jewish causes her own, including by easing the restrictions on prosecuting Nazi war criminals living in Britain and pleading the cause of the Soviet Union’s refuseniks. She boasted that she once made Soviet officials “nervous” by repeatedly bringing up the refuseniks’ plight during a single nine-hour meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev, “The Soviets had to know that every time we met their treatment of the refuseniks would be thrown back at them,” she explained in her book The Downing Street Years. Thatcher also worked to end the British government’s support for the Arab boycott of Israel. During the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Thatcher criticized Tory Prime Minister Ted Heath’s refusal to supply Israel with military parts or even allow American planes to supply Israel from British airfields. In 1986, Thatcher became the first British prime minister to visit Israel, having previously visited twice as a member of parliament.

Yet despite her support for Israel, and though she rejected the stridently pro-PLO stance of some members of her government, she believed Israel needed to trade land for peace, wishing in her memoirs that the “Israeli emphasis on the human rights of the Russian refuseniks was matched by proper appreciation of the plight of the landless and stateless Palestinians.” She also condemned Israel’s bombing of Osirak, Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor, in 1981. “[The Osirak attack] represents a grave breach of international law,” she said in an interview with London’s Jewish Chronicle in 1981. Israel’s bombing of another country could lead to “international anarchy.”

[…..]

That Thatcher did not give Israel the benefit of the doubt is disconcerting, though she made good by later calling for the liberation of Kuwait and eventually the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But in this Thatcher ought not to have let the mandarins in the Foreign Office get the better of her judgment: She should have trusted her philo-Semitic instincts.

Read the rest – Thatcher and the Jews