The Republican presidential primary has become a bit feisty, but it will get downright ugly if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses.

The principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media. (Disclosure: Paul wrote the foreword to my 2009 book.)

Carney then goes on to compare what would happen to Paul to what Pat Buchanan went through when he won Iowa in 1996, even mentioning things like the racism and anti-semitism Buchanan was accused of, some of which was real, some of which was way overboard.

In Paul’s favor, he holds to the professed principles of his party. He makes Republicans look bad by firmly opposing overspending and the unconstitutional expansion of federal power. He correctly predicted the troubles that would be caused by housing subsidies and the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

See? He’s the only Real Republican In The World®.

Paul is also disliked for his foreign policy. His non-interventionism has provoked clashes with the party elites, but it resonates with a growing number of Republicans who have grown tired of endless war and nation building that doesn’t seem to serve American interests. But Paul regularly goes too far for even these voters, criticizing the killing of al Qaeda leaders and at times sounding like he agrees with Iran’s grievances against the United States.

Paul does have some fantastic idea. And then he turns the amp up to 11 and turns people off. And when one goes on Iran’s government owned Press TV, one is siding with Iran (in that case, he was criticizing Israel).

But neither his establishment-irritating adherence to principle, nor his hawk-angering foreign policy, will be the focus of the anti-Paul attacks should he carry Iowa. His conservative critics and the mainstream media will imply that he is a racist, a kook, and a conspiracy theorist.

Paul’s indiscretions — such as abiding 9/11 conspiracy theorists and allowing racist material in a newsletter published under his name — will be blown up to paint a scary caricature. His belief in state’s rights and property rights will be distorted into support for Jim Crow and racism.

Is it possible to have a scary caricature of racism and 9/11 Trutherism? All the liberal media, mentioned by Carney earlier in the article in relation to Buchanan, would have to do is have the Ron Paul quote of the day. There’s no scary caricature, there’s simply what Ron Paul has written, what he has said, and the people he hangs with. What was written in the newsletters owned and published by Ron Paul, which he made lots of money on (at least a million dollars in 1993 alone)? James Kirchick at The Weekly Standard points out

“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”

No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make.

Now, imagine those quotes showing up on the network evening news. Are they “scary caricatures”? Or simply the ramblings of a racist and conspiracy theorist? Said newsletters also included high praise and advice for the more extremist militia groups, as well as anti-Israel and anti-Jew propaganda. One newsletter wondered whether the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was a Mossad setup, as a “Jewish friend of his wondered”.

Paul appears regularly on Alex Jones’ conspiracy theory radio, including an appearance last week, where he discussed the National Defense Authorizations Act, giving more credence to the conspiracies that Americans would be arrested by the military and put in indefinite detention. “This is a giant step – this should be the biggest news going right now – literally legalizing martial law” Paul said.

You name the conspiracy, Paul is a part of it. He never divorces himself from the kookier fringe elements who follow him. You know I am not a Paul fan. I’m not a fan of Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry, either. There’s a difference, though. With Newt, he would be portrayed as a Washington insider, a politician! with lots of different and changing positions, a panderer. Perry, as an evangelical leader who is dumb. These are things that can be overcome. Try overcoming racist writings and conspiracy talk, blame America positions, hating Israel, and Iran coddling. And that’s before even touching on his policy positions.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Since he ascended from nothing to the office of President of the United States, Obama has shown a disdain for most of our western allies that borders on hatred. But he’s reserved his most backhanded treatment to Israel. It isn’t just what he’s done to show Israel that he has no use for them, but it goes all the way down to his every last appointment and this week we see another reminder of that in the comments belched forth by Obama’s U.S. Ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, who basically said that anti-Semitism perpetrated by Muslims is really all Israel’s fault.

As Jake Tapper (one of the few real reporters in Washington) reported on Sunday, Gutman made his remarks at a conference on anti-Semitism organized by the European Jewish Union on Dec. 2.

At the conference Gutman said, “a distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.” Gutman imagined that tensions between Muslims and Israel is one, “largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian Territories and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem.”

Gutman said that “throughout the Muslim communities that I visit, and indeed throughout Europe, there is significant anger and resentment and, yes, perhaps sometimes hatred and indeed sometimes and all too growing intimidation and violence directed at Jews generally as a result of the continuing tensions between Israel and the Palestinian territories and other Arab neighbors in the Middle East…every new settlement announced in Israel, every rocket shot over a border or suicide bomber on a bus, and every retaliatory military strike exacerbates the problem and provides a setback here in Europe for those fighting hatred and bigotry here in Europe.”

What is all this if not a way to blame the Jews for Muslim anti-Semitism?

Naturally, many in Israel are not happy. In fact, one of the speakers that followed Gutman’s disastrous comments denounced him right there on stage, as well he should, according to Tapper’s report.

But Gutman’s blaming of the Jews for everything that befalls them — akin to blaming the woman for being raped, in my opinion — fits in nicely with Obama’s attitude against Israel. It also fits in with most of his appointees to the Middle East. Some of his past appointees were Susan Power — a woman that said we should be giving military aid to the Palestinians — and Robert Malley — a man that has close working ties to Hamas.

So, it just shouldn’t surprise that yet another Obama team member is blaming the Jews for radical Muslim terror and hatred.

I have long pointed out on my sidebar on GREENIE WATCH that, just as “The Jews” were once blamed for every ill, so Global Warming is nowadays blamed for every ill. I will not try to spell out the similarities in any further detail but I think readers will see for themselves areas of similarity well enough. Even the first sentence could well apply to Warmism.

“The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” are perhaps the best proof that the Nazis’ “Big Lie” theory — tell something long enough and loud enough, and some people are sure to believe it is true.

A fabrication of the Russian Secret Police between 1897 and 1903, the documents described a putative Jewish plot to take over the world. Their speciousness repeatedly proven over the years, they continue to fuel anti-Semitism: in Nazi Germany, in communist Russia, in anti-Semitic Arab countries, in the writings of Western racists and so on.

And “The Protocols,” translated into scores of languages, continue to live on in popular culture — a 2005 documentary, a new novel (“The Prague Cemetery”) by Italy’s Umberto Eco, a new nonfiction book (“License to Murder”) by Alex Grobman, director of the America-Israel Friendship League. The Jewish Week spoke with Grobman this week about “The Protocols.”

Q: More than a century after “The Protocols” were written — and discredited as a fraud — why are we still talking and worrying about them?

A: The myth of an international Jewish conspiracy to control the world as advanced in “The Protocols” has been exposed by historians, journalists, politicians, police and religious leaders. Yet this has not stopped “The Protocols” from being part of a view held by many people. The potential danger of “The Protocols” in shaping public opinion is real and should not be underestimated. When Jews are portrayed as manipulators who seek power over other people’s lives, they come — only naturally — to be perceived as severe dire threats.

It is thus particularly disconcerting that this false and harmful perception of Jews is embraced even today by the leadership of the Arab-Muslim world, where “The Protocols” continues to be published in vast quantities, and cited in the writings of mainstream academics, who lend credibility and legitimacy to this falsehood and utter fallacy.

Q. Who takes ‘The Protocols’ seriously today?

Aside from many in the Arab world, the belief that Jews have an inordinate amount of power in the world can also be found throughout the West as well. In September 2007, The Financial Times reported that “Currency Wars,” a Chinese bestseller, claimed “The Battle of Waterloo. The deaths of six U.S. presidents. The rise of Adolf Hitler. The deflation of the Japanese bubble economy, the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis and even environmental destruction in the developing world,” which occurred over two centuries “have a single root cause: the control of money issuance through history by the Rothschild banking dynasty.”

Every time a friend returns from international theological conferences, he laments how pervasive the underlying belief in “The Protocols” is among leading theologians. Were you to confront them, they would be highly insulted, yet they accept the basic premise.

Jewish history is full of bogus accusations against Jews, like the blood libel. Why have “The Protocols” had such a lasting influence?

The notion of the Jew as a demonic character is still prevalent, allowing anti-Semites to use “The Protocols” to incite against Jews, particularly during times of political and social unrest. Conspiracy theories are attractive because they absolve the individual of any personal responsibility for failures, reverses and suffering. In this moral universe of “us” and “them,” the victim is not responsible at all for what has occurred. The conspirators are the ones who are culpable.

The fact that it was allegedly written by Jews makes the work more authentic. Reliance on contradiction— that to succeed Jews employ capitalism and communism, philo-Semitism and anti-Semitism, democracy and tyranny — made it possible for “The Protocols” to reach out to all: rich and poor, right and left, Christian and Muslim, American and Japanese.

Debating the advocates of “The Protocols” doesn’t work. Showing that “The Protocols” is a fraud doesn’t work. Banning the book — as some countries have tried — doesn’t work. What works?

Certain portions of the population will never be convinced that “The Protocols” are a forgery or that Jews are not an evil force trying to control the world. Logic and reason have little or no place in their way of thinking.

The purpose of [Grobman’s new book] is to inform those interested in historical truth why this canard and other lies against the Jewish people are so pervasive, and why they pose a danger not only to the Jewish people, but to all those who cherish a democratic way of life. If we do not respond to the canards, the assumption will be that we have no answers.

SOURCE

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

John Tillman, CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute, penned an op ed in the Chicago Tribune touting what he claims is the common ground between conservatives and the Occupy Wall Street leftists who have trickled into the streets across the country. I hate to say it, but his op ed was puzzling and its base concept — that conservatives and these Occupy nuts should work together — is incredibly off base.

Before I get into Tillman’s points, though, let me say that I generally support the good works of the Illinois Policy Institute. I’ve covered many of its events in the past, I’ve worked closely with some of its members, and I’ve met Mr. Tillman many times at many events. I repost the Institute’s email blasts on my sites, as well.

I will continue with my support of the Illinois Policy Institute (don’t call them IPI because some other organization has that trademarked and they get mad) despite this disagreement with Mr. Tillman. They often do very good work.

OK, now that that’s out of the way… Tillman, my friend, you are soooo wrong!

Tillman began his piece talking about how he had been coming across Occupy Chicago protesters on his daily walks to and from work in downtown Chicago. He decided to stop and talk with some of them, the results “delightful,” he said.

Tillman says he discovered that the Occupiers were against the same things the Tea Partiers were against. The Occupiers were against “crony capitalism,” Tillman said. They hated it when “people misbehaved on Wall Street,” he averred. Tillman also found that the Occupiers were not happy with how they’ve been portrayed by the Old Media.

Unlike the other items, though, and Tillman didn’t say so, that last frustration does indeed find a mirror in the Tea Party movement. But I’d reply that these Occupiers have nothing to complain about where media portrayal of their efforts are concerned. The media has treated the Occupiers like conquering heroes. The Tea Partiers, on the other hand, were portrayed as racist, hate-filled, barbarians that were destroying America’s political discourse.

In fact, that one point serves as only the first of many ways that the Tea Partiers are as far separated from these Occupy nuts as possible. But not to Tillman. After his 30-minute confab with the Chicago Occupiers, Tillman proclaimed them simpatico with Tea Partiers and said the two should work together.

But first he indulged one of those little things that will always endear a conservative to liberals. He appeared to criticize his own.

There appears to be this great schism in the tea party movement about how the occupiers should be treated: rejected as crazy leftists or embraced?

Nasty old Tea Party movement, daring to reject those nice Occupiers as “crazy leftists.” I’m sure every liberal that read Tillman’s admonition to conservatives was cheering him on.

There isn’t really any schism at all. Few if any Tea Partiers think that the crazy leftists at the Occupy-Whatever events are in any way worth reaching out to. I can’t figure out where Tillman gets this “schism” business. Can he believe it? Either that or he was just searching for a way to bring liberals to his side, a forlorn hope, indeed.

In any case, Tillman says we Tea Party folks should open our arms in friendship with these crazy leftists.

In the end, the 30-minute nighttime conversation taught me that these folks have many of the same grievances as the tea party: They don’t like the out-of-control debt, they don’t like the out-of-control spending, they don’t like the insider dealmaking and crony capitalism, and they don’t like it that they feel like they are left holding the bag while the insiders with access to power get away with everything.

…I’d argue that occupiers and tea partyers should join forces. Given what I heard the other night — at least from this particular set of occupiers — we share far more in common than they realize.

What I have found most interesting about the rise of the tea party is that the two groups who dislike them most are the Democratic and Republican establishments. If the tea party and occupiers find common ground, we’ll see the Democrats and Republicans finally unite in a bipartisan fashion against them both.

Man, that is wrong in so many ways.

Let’s take the last point first. The Democrats will never turn against the Occupy-Whatevers. Democrats have been falling all over themselves to come to the support of these fools. No matter how racist, no matter how violent, no matter how many thefts and rapes occur at these Occupy events, no matter how many anti-American chants are warbled, and no matter how many times the U.S. flag is defiled at these events, Democrats are salivating at the idea of getting the blessing of these crazy leftists.

On the other hand, many establishment Republicans hate the Tea Party movement and have since day one. Many establishment Republicans are looking for ways to torpedo the Tea Party movement yet today. They hope Mitt Romney will help them with that, too.

Now to the other points. Tillman thinks that the Tea Partiers and the Occupiers “share far more in common than they realize.”

Again, no, no, no.

Contrary to what Tillman says he found, the Occupiers are not against crony capitalism. They are 100% for government picking winners and losers in the business sector. They are 100% for green initiatives and government bailouts of that nature.

These Occupiers are also not against “out-of-control spending.” In fact they want to ramp up government spending on everything. How Tillman could claim otherwise is simply hard to fathom.

Finally, where Tea Partiers do stand against insider deals, Occupiers only stand against such dealmaking when it is Republicans, conservatives, or people they perceive as conservatives — like bankers or insurance companies – that might end up getting those deals. When their people get such deals they are in no way ready to stop them from enjoying any insider benefits.

You see, Tea Partiers are principled. Not one of the Occupiers have a belief in principles — especially American principles.

Occupiers hate capitalism. They hate American history. They hate America’s political system. They hate everything that makes America, America.

At Occupy events there have been rapes, drug dealing, private property destruction, racism, theft, law breaking of nearly every stripe, and no end to bashing of this country.

How can any Tea Partiers associate with that?

Sorry, Mr. Tillman, but there is neither any common ground between the God fearing, true Americans in the Tea Party movement, and the communist-loving, anti-American Occupy-Whatevers, nor is there a way for them to work together.

**UPDATE**

Mr. Tillman has replied to the criticism of his original op ed. See it HERE

Only days ago Mitt Romney was saying that the Occupy Wall Streeters were dangerous. But, true to his penchant to “grow” in his opinion (“growing” is what the rest of us call flip floping), Romney is now beginning to accept the OWS theme of “the 99%.”

The OWSers — I call them the Occupy-Whatevers because they really have no idea what they want or what they are doing — have taken to calling themselves the “99%.” This class warfare battle cry casts anyone with a few shekels to rub together in the role of the eeeevil rich.

As I mentioned, during the first week of October Romney was pounding the Occupy-Whatevers as “dangerous.” He was right about these anti-Semitic, anti-American protesters, too. At the same appearance Romney also said that the whole series of protests were exercises in “class warfare.”

But that was then.

All it took for Romney to begin his flip flopping… er, I mean “growing”… this time was one week because now, at a townhall in Hopkinton, New Hampshire, suddenly Romney is all about “understanding” the plight of the “99 %.”

I don’t worry about the top one percent. I don’t stay up nights worrying about, “gee we need to help them.” I don’t worry about that. They’re doing just fine by themselves. I worry about the 99 percent in America. I want America, once again, to be the best place in the world to be middle-class. I want to have a strong and vibrant and prosperous middle-class. And so I look at what’s happening on Wall Street and my own view is, “boy I understand how those people feel.” Because with median income down 10%, with unemployment at 9% plus, with the president having run saying he would keep unemployment below 8% if we let him borrow almost a trillion dollars and then having failed to do so. With chronic unemployment, long-term unemployment worse even than during The Great Depression the people in this country are upset. And I understand middle Americans saying, “Wait a second, what’s going on? This wasn’t the deal! How can this be?”

So, now Romney is employing the Occupy-Whatever’s own terminology and accepting their premise? How long before Romney goes form “dangerous” to “I am with you”? He’s already half way there, after all.

This is why this man is wholly unacceptable as the GOP nominee for president. He’s been on Obama’s side at one point or another in his political career. So, how does Mitt Romney successfully defeat that notion that all he is is a flip flopper, a liar?

Why would people want to vote for Romney who will be successfully portrayed as Obama-lite when they can get full-blown Obama and just vote for the real radical in chief?

Now, It has been claimed by some that Romney has already beaten the rap I saddle him with here. But that is not the case. In fact, his flip flops have been wholly absent from the debates as well as the media discourse of his primary campaign. He hasn’t already beaten this rap because the media is holding its powder dry waiting until he wins the nomination so that they can pound him with it when the only thing between Romney and the White House is Obama and his sold-out, Old Media establishment.

Romney is not a conservative in any way. He is a finger-in-the-air politician that will say and do anything he thinks he needs to do to win. If the Tea Party cannot stop this man from winning the GOP nomination, we will have another 4 years of Barack Obama and the country may not emerge from that four years intact.

Now, on the other hand, is Romney worse or even just as bad as Barack Hussein Obama? Of course not. Romney is not driven by the hatred of the United States that Obama is. Romney does not have the hard and fast left-wing principles that Obama has. Romney was not brought up on Alinskyite tactics aimed at destroying this country. Romney will be a bad president, sure. But he won’t be the destroyer that Obama is and will continue to be if he wins a second term.

A vote for Romney in 2012 won’t be a vote for Mitt Romney. It will be a vote against Barack “Spread the Wealth” Obama.

But that Romney is but the lesser of two evils is no succor to a country bleeding as badly as the U.S. is right now.

Pick Perry. Pick Cain. Heck, pick Santorum or Newt, even. But don’t let the left-leaning, GOP country club establishment pick another McCain/Dole/George H. W. Bush with a Romney nomination. This election is too important.

The only GOP candidate running against himself if Mitt Romney.

Last but not least, let’s not forget how Romney praised one of the most vile partisans in recent congressional memory, the killer, Senator Edward Kennedy…

The main thing that the article below is weak on is pointing out that many things considered Rightist today (such as patriotism) were strongly Leftist in the prewar era — and in fact continued to be so until some time after the war. JFK’s famous quotation from Pericles (“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country) was probably the last gasp of genuine patriotism on the American Left.

And Leftists of all sorts were great advocates of eugenics in Hitler’s day. And even Karl Marx was a great antisemite. Hitler was in fact a fairly mainstream leftist by the standards of his time. He just applied German thoroughness to Leftist ideas

The author below does make one slight mention of it but one of the most damning things about the American Left of the prewar era is that they were in fact a major source of Hitler’s ideas. I set out the details of that at some length here.

The article below is unreferenced but my monograph on the subject should supply all the references anyone needs –JR

By Bill Flax

“The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator.” John T. Flynn

Numerous commentators have raised alarming comparisons between America’s recent economic foibles and Argentina’s fall “from breadbasket to basket case.” The U.S. pursues a similar path with her economy increasingly ensnared under the growing nexus of government control. Resources are redistributed for vote-buying welfare schemes, patronage style earmarks, and graft by unelected bureaucrats, quid pro quo with unions, issue groups and legions of lobbyists.

In Argentina, everyone acknowledges that fascism, state capitalism, corporatism – whatever – reflects very leftwing ideology. Eva Peron remains a liberal icon. President Obama’s Fabian policies (Keynesian economics) promise similar ends. His proposed infrastructure bank is just the latest gyration of corporatism. Why then are fascists consistently portrayed as conservatives?

In the Thirties, intellectuals smitten by progressivism considered limited, constitutional governance anachronistic. The Great Depression had apparently proven capitalism defunct. The remaining choice had narrowed between communism and fascism. Hitler was about an inch to the right of Stalin. Western intellectuals infatuated with Marxism thus associated fascism with the Right.

Later, Marxists from the Frankfurt School popularized this prevailing sentiment. Theodor Adorno in The Authoritarian Personality devised the “F” scale to demean conservatives as latent fascists. The label “fascist” has subsequently meant anyone liberals seek to ostracize or discredit.

Fascism is an amorphous ideology mobilizing an entire nation (Mussolini, Franco and Peron) or race (Hitler) for a common purpose. Leaders of industry, science, education, the arts and politics combine to shepherd society in an all encompassing quest. Hitler’s premise was a pure Aryan Germany capable of dominating Europe.

While he feinted right, Hitler and Stalin were natural bedfellows. Hitler mimicked Lenin’s path to totalitarian tyranny, parlaying crises into power. Nazis despised Marxists not over ideology, but because they had betrayed Germany in World War I and Nazis found it unconscionable that German communists yielded fealty to Slavs in Moscow.

The National Socialist German Workers Party staged elaborate marches with uniformed workers calling one another “comrade” while toting tools the way soldiers shoulder rifles. The bright red Nazi flag symbolized socialism in a “classless, casteless” Germany (white represents Aryanism). Fascist central planning was not egalitarian, but it divvied up economic rewards very similarly to communism: party membership and partnering with the state.

Where communists generally focused on class, Nazis fixated on race. Communists view life through the prism of a perpetual workers’ revolution. National Socialists used race as a metaphor to justify their nation’s engagement in an existential struggle.

More HERE

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Knowing little about former Utah Governor John Huntsman, except that he was hand-picked by Barack Obama to be his man in China, it was revealing to learn through his recent statements that he belongs to “the debate is over” crowd. The “debate is over” crowd never bellows louder than when it comes to global warming and evolution. They are the people who push fiction as if it were fact and then denigrate anyone who disagrees.

Huntsman revealed a major unawareness of current scientific data when he attacked fellow presidential candidate Rick Perry (TX-R) on his position on evolution and global warming during an ABC interview stating:

“I think there’s a serious problem. The minute that the Republican Party becomes the …

anti-science party, we have a huge problem … When we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said … I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science and, therefore, in a losing position.”

Huntsman’s statements are misleading and rife with misinformation. Huntsman misleads by stating that 98 to a 100 climate scientists support global warming, but leaves out the documented fact that some 33,000 scientists worldwide consider man-made global warming to be total nonsense. The carbon-credits scheme is proving to be a scam. Yet, Huntsman appears to be a man after Al Gore’s heart. Huntsman would do well to Google the article: GLOBAL FRAUDS: AL GORE & CHARLES DARWIN at:

http://darwinsracists.com/book/?p=62.

On the topic of evolution, Huntsman joins the more strident “the debate is over” crowd as he personally “embraces” evolution. Even Barack Obama was quick to give a “shout-out to Charles Darwin on his 150th birthday.” Evolution is mere theory without empirical scientific data to support it. As a life-devaluing, God-denying, racist theory, evolution was readily embraced by Karl Marx, the father of Communism, who wrote that he was “a devoted admirer” of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. Others who anxiously “embraced” evolution were murderous tyrant Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky — who fanatically persecuted the Christian church while claiming that Darwin’s ideas “intoxicated him.” Another avid fan of evolution was Soviet mass murderer Joseph Stalin who became a devout atheist after determining that evolution does not require conscience or morals. One politician of note who “embraced” evolution was Adolf Hitler who was an avid follower and wrote in his book, Mein Kampf, that he believed in “natural selection” and the “survival of the fittest” as propagated by Darwin. Hitler’s reign resulted in the murder of some 6 million Jews as well as Slavs, Poles, Blacks, Gypsies, homosexuals, the physically and mentally disabled and other groups he deemed unfit to live.” (Excerpts from book: Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.)

Darwin’s theory of evolution became a political tool for murderous tyrants who used it as a mechanism to devalue life, justify racism by labeling various groups of humans as less evolved, and as a means to eradicate God so that the “state” could become god to the people. Avid American abortionist and purported mother of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, embraced evolution as an argument for abortions and the denial of care for America’s poor, sick, elderly and disabled.

Where evolution and Huntsman lose legitimacy is when both face the advancements of hard science in the 21st century. DNA proteins are providing evidence against the possibility of evolution and reveal that no species can “jump its DNA code” to evolve into another species. Even in his rudimentary analysis Charles Darwin wrote: “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed.” Evolution scientists themselves are abandoning the theory in droves and have gone so far to say, “That it ought not to be taught in High School.” Yet, Huntsman’s opponent did not take it that far. In what appears to be a balanced approach, Governor Rick Perry did say that both evolution and creation are taught in Texas schools because he thought students would be smart enough to decide for themselves. Even Charles Darwin professed serious doubts about the validity of his theory of evolution vs. creation and wrote that: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Charles Darwin. At least, Darwin got that one right.

And we remember recently the Arizona massacre by Jared Loughner. That was allegedly caused by hate speech from Right-wing radio hosts, despite the fact that Loughner was a reader of such “conservative” works as the Communist Manifesto and was clearly mad (psychotic). After many people reminded the Left that plenty of furious hate speech emanated from them also, that one petered out too.

And now of course most of the Left is convinced that conservatives are to blame for Breivik’s massacre. The fact that no conservative mentioned by Breivik actually recommended anything like what Breivik did is no problem, apparently. Conservatives created a “climate” (surely one of the Left’s favorite words) conducive to Breivik’s deeds.

That the “climate” seems to have influenced nobody but Breivik would however be seen as problematical by rational beings. Hundreds of millions of people read the sort of writers that Breivik quotes but no others of them go on murderous rampages. If conservative speech were a drug and I was submitting it to the FDA for approval, the FDA would wave it through — on the grounds that a drug safely taken by millions with only one bad reaction had to be evaluated for safety by reference to the hundreds of millions of cases rather than the one isolated exception.

So it is clear that even if the frenzied claims of root causes made by Leftists are totally addled, they do set a precedent for others to look at root causes too — but hopefully in a more rational manner. And if Leftists say that conservatism is the root cause of Breivik’s deeds, why should I not make the case that Leftism is the root cause of Breivik’s deeds? What’s good for the goose is surely good for the gander.

So I contend that the root cause of Breivik’s onslaught is not to be found in Breivik’s head (though the proximate cause lies there) but rather in the long-term policies of the antisemitic and Muslim-loving Norwegian Left.

And those policies have been destructive indeed. Norway now has Muslim ghettoes where the police rarely go and crimes such as rape have become a Muslim specialty — with ANY crime by Muslims being rarely prosecuted and punished. The Norwegian Left has inflicted grave harm on Norwegian society. And adding insult to injury, you will usually be abused as a racist if you even mention any of that harm (but calling for Israel to be bombed is perfectly respectable, of course). An excerpt from just one report of what the Norwegian Left has wrought, by way of example:

I live in Oslo, Norway. We have lots of problems with muslim immigrants. Official crime statistics over a three year period shows 49 of 49 assault rapes in Oslo was made by a person from a “non-western background” which is basically government code for muslim immigrants. Just yesterday Aftenposten; on of Norway’s most respected newspapers, interviewed the police chief in Oslo where she advised Norwegian women not to walk the streets alone at night, the police have basically given up combating the problem with crime.

The muslims in Norway are just as hatefull as in Sweden, which has the same problem but in a much worse degree. From a young age they openly call Norwegian women for whores, their own sisters are locked inside the home to protect them from the Norwegian society. The young muslim men often date Norwegian girls, but do not marry them because they are perceived as whores; they are ok to have sex with but too filthy to marry, basically.

Muslims in Norway also are not very interested in their kids learning to read or write in Norwegian, making them losers in the educational system from an early age. This is also true for second and third generation immigrants. Across my streets lives the only muslim family in my neighborhood, all the kids (they have like 5 of them with one 1/2 to 2 years between them) talk Arabic and never Norwegian.

While Norwegian kids are more quiet and reserved the muslim kids seem to be more violent, usually carrying sticks and shouting all the time where Norwegian kids are more silent and withdrawn. When growing up in Oslo I experienced the same violent behaviour with my muslim peers, personally I believe that their whole culture is more based around the “power of the strong”, where if you are strong you are perceived to have more power; which the muslims look up to as something good.

My impression from dealing with immigrants is that they feel Norway owes them something, even though it is *them* who don’t fit in. Many muslims don’t like Norwegians or Norwegian rule, but they rarely move back to a muslim country and change citizenship.

The worst thing is when that the socialists, who are the major political force in Norway, hear these arguments they immediately call you racist or Islamophobe. They also have concealed crime statistics for years by refusing to publish crime numbers based on origins. Once when they did it was found that 10% of the population, the immigrants, stood for 90% of the crime and more specifically 100% of assault rapes in Oslo! I personally am against any religion or ideology that spreads separation and hate, be it Islam or Christian fundamentalism.

So am I blaming the victim? Am I blaming the Leftist elite whom Breivik targeted? I certainly am. If someone initiates an assault and gets hurt in the reaction, then they are certainly to blame for the hurt they suffer. And the Norwegian Left has inflicted great harm on ordinary Norwegians. And even before Breivik, Norwegians had begun to wake up to that. Despite their long domination of Norwegian politics, the Labour party lost the last election and had to form a Red/Green coalition with two other parties to stay in government.

And this disillusionment with the pro-Muslim policies of the Norwegian Left has led — as we are repeatedly told by Norwegian experts themselves (a recent example here) — to views such as Breivik’s becoming widespread among Norwegians. So Breivik was quite normal in his beliefs and different only in doing something about them.

In those circumstances it seems clear to me that if Breivik had not struck then somebody else would eventually have done so. There was a head of steam building up in Norway that would eventually have burst out somewhere. The Viking genes can’t entirely have died out there.

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Obama’s is one of the most disastrous foreign policies of any president ever. His latest outrage is the dual absurdities of, on one hand putting Israel on a list of state sponsors of terrorism, while on the other hand opening a dialog with and bestowing diplomatic legitimacy upon the terrorists of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

This is the schizophrenic mess that Obama’s anti-western centric foreign policy ideas have created. It shouldn’t be much of a surprise, though. Upon becoming President Obama almost immediately launched into a series of one more example of Obama giving Israel the back of his hand.

In 2008, the Bush administration created a list of nations whose citizens asking to visit our country the administration thought needed to be watched. This list contained nations that were determined to be possible state sponsors of terrorism. Nations like North Korea, Yemen, Libya, Turkmenistan, and Syria appeared on this list of nations that, in the State Department’s words, “have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.”

However, the list put out during the Bush years has been altered by the Obama administration. On the 2011 list, North Korea has been removed while Israel has been added. Obama apparently feels Israel is worse than North Korea.

As my friend Jeff Dunetz says: “Only in the twisted world of the Obama Administration, where allies are trashed, and enemies are embraced, could the tiny nation of Israel, on the front lines of the war on terror for decades, be on a list of 36 nations which “have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.’”

Then, to offset that news, the Obama administration has made another decision as opposite of the one above as possible. Obama and his State Dept. have decided that actual terrorists deserve to be given official diplomatic recognition!

That’s right, Obama has decided that the terrorists of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt deserve to be treated as a legitimate political body, one that deserves official recognition by the USA.

In explanation, an Obama administration official told the media that, “The political landscape in Egypt has changed, and is changing… It is in our interests to engage with all of the parties that are competing for parliament or the presidency.”

So, on one hand, Israel, our truest ally in the Mid East, is called a “state sponsor of terror,” while an actual terrorist outfit is “in our interests to engage.”

Meanwhile, the president himself won’t even cross the national mall to go meet with Senate Republicans to discuss the budget. I suppose it won’t be long before Obama puts the GOP on the list of state sponsors of terror.

On Friday Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu schooled President Obama — who is clearly out of his depth — on Middle East diplomacy. This would not have been necessary if Obama had not tried to turn decades of American foreign policy on its ear, if he had not turned against our only real Mid East friend, and if he hadn’t made to come to the comfort of radical Islamists without conscience who only want to kill Jews and Americans. Obama also proved that just killing bin Laden does not equal foreign policy expertise.

Coming off his high after presiding over the end of America’s number one enemy, Obama thought he saw an opening to help bin Laden’s Islamist pals win a small battle over Israel. He planned his big speech on America’s new Mid East policy. Unfortunately for President Obama, the Hindenburg had a more successful flight than Obama’s new foreign policy ideas.

Most of the president’s speech was pedestrian and meandering, but one sentence was snuck in that completely changed American Middle East policy, or at least it was intended to.

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Now, many on the left are claiming that this is an unremarkable sentence and is nothing less than the repetition of foreign policy espoused by presidents going back decades. This spin is, however, wholly incorrect. This sentence is a major shift away from Israel and toward the radical Islamists that want Israel destroyed.

Prime Minister Netanyahu understood full well what a major shift this was and during his joint press conference with President Obama the Israeli PM shot down Obama’s foolish attempt to change direction in no uncertain terms. Why did the Israeli PM so sternly reprimand President Obama? Because Obama’s shift changes decades of American foreign policy in the favor of the so-called Palestinians.

Obama is the first president to claim that the 1967 border goal is an American goal. Previous presidents always couched this as a Palestinian goal, not an American one. This may be subtle, but it is important. The U.S. has never backed the Palestinian’s claim that the 1967 border is a condition for peace. Past American presidents talked of that border, yes, but only to mollify Palestinian sensibilities never as an American goal.