Blame America


For me, September 11, 2016 is a more significant date than September 11, 2001. It demonstrates how far we have sunk as a nation in a scant fifteen years.

We now have a political-media narrative of negativity and defeat; one that labels patriotism as hate speech, promotes tribalism as opposed to national unity and fosters the notion that the United States is the embodiment of evil in the world.

We now have a President who enables rather than opposes the aims of our enemies, one whose divisive rhetoric and destructive policies are deliberately designed to weaken and humble a great nation.

We now have political correctness as a substitute for the First Amendment.

We now have a flag, a pledge of allegiance and a national anthem that are considered offensive.

Read More

Let’s face it, we knew what President Obama’s worldview meant for us long before he set foot in the Oval Office: American must lower its super-power profile, he told us. Settle for soft diplomacy rather than confrontation, scale down, be humble, apologize for its colonial errors.

Read More

Multiculturalism — as opposed to the notion of a multiracial society united by a single culture — has become an abject contradiction in the modern Western world. Romance for a culture in the abstract that one has rejected in the concrete makes little sense. Multiculturalists talk grandly of Africa, Latin America, and Asia, usually in contrast to the core values of the United States and Europe. Certainly, in terms of food, fashion, music, art, and architecture, the Western paradigm is enriched from other cultures. But the reason that millions cross the Mediterranean to Europe or the Rio Grande to the United States is for something more that transcends the periphery and involves fundamental values — consensual government, free-market capitalism, the freedom of the individual, religious tolerance, equality between the sexes, rights of dissent, and a society governed by rationalism divorced from religious stricture. Somehow that obvious message has now been abandoned, as Western hosts lost confidence in the very society that gives us the wealth and leisure to ignore or caricature its foundations. The result is that millions of immigrants flock to the West, enjoy its material security, and yet feel little need to bond with their adopted culture, given that their hosts themselves are ambiguous about what others desperately seek out.

Continue Reading


A group of Mexican and U.S. citizens are taking a tour across the United States, backing a movement for peace. Continue Reading

The vast majority of guns into Mexico come from a world market: Russia, Latin America, Eastern European, and Chinese: The U. S. doesn’t even register on the radar compared to those other markets.

Propaganda on America’s use of drugs fueling the war in Mexico: In 2008 SAMHSA released a study ‘prevalence of substance abuse among racial and ethnic subgroups in the United States’ and found that the largest consumer of illicit drugs IN the U.S. are Mexicans. The study also found that Mexicans are the largest consumer of alcohol. With our open borders policy, the problem of Mexican drug/alcohol use has grown exponentially.

Not only are Mexicans the number 1 importer of drugs into the U.S., they are in fact the largest consumers of both illicit and legal drugs in the U.S.

( – U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has come under fire for apparently endorsing an “anti-terrorism conference” hosted by Iran, at which the United States and Israel repeatedly were attacked and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reprised his 9/11 conspiracy claims. Continue Reading

By Daniel Greenfield  

Like a Rorschach test which tells you more about the patient, than about the image on the card, Wikileaks reveals more about the left than it does about America. And what it reveals is that the left’s antipathy toward America is not policy based at all. If Wikileaks’ heavily edited helicopter video at least allowed the left to pretend that it was opposing American war crimes, the leaked diplomatic cables are based on nothing more than opposing American diplomacy. Not even the capital D diplomacy, but the small letter diplomacy. The minor observations, petty notes and random scribbles of a bored diplomatic corps observing well known situations.

The diplomatic cable leaks were not broadcast to protest against the war, or to undermine a right wing government—they were broadcast because Anti-Americanism is a compulsive need. While American liberals fancy that the right man in D.C. can make the world love us, their own comrades internationally need an America to hate. If an America didn’t exist, they would have to invent it. A more confident pro-American leader like Bush may stir up more venom and outrage, but America was not beloved under Clinton. And it’s not adored under Obama. If Che were dug up, pumped full of zombie juice and stuck in the oval office—the red che t-shirt wearing crowd would be burning American flags anyway.

During the Bush era, the chattering classes liked to believe that America’s PR problem was fixable. But America’s PR problem exists because it is a global superpower. The problem isn’t the War on Terror or McDonalds or Hollywood or the dollar. Or any of it apart. It’s all of it together. There’s no fix for it, except to dethrone America. Turn it into a has-been, a former empire feeding off the good graces of others and opening its historical institutions to tourism. That won’t fix the problem. The UK is not exactly all that beloved either. But it will dial down the obsessive hatred to a dull roar.

As the first fully Anti-American leader to sit at the helm of the country, Barack Hussein Obama is self-aware enough to understand that it is not any single element, but the perception of America as a global power in every arena that feeds that hatred. And it is why he’s done everything to weaken American power and independence across every spectrum, from its economy to its military to its space program and its culture. But even a wholly anti-American leader wasn’t enough to fix the PR problem.

The willingness of the American left to cheer Assange on shows that not only couldn’t America Lite (TM) win over Europe’s leftists, but it couldn’t even win over their slower and pudgier American counterparts. But what’s the basis of their opposition? Do they really believe that diplomats shouldn’t be able to privately report their assessment of what is going on in another country? And would they be willing to apply the same standard to journalists or NGO officials? Obviously not.

The romance of Wikileaks has little to do with policy, and a good deal to do with anti-Americanism

The romance of Wikileaks has little to do with policy, and a good deal to do with anti-Americanism as an emotional response, sticking it to “The Man”, even when you are the man. Especially if you are the man.

The appeal of the anti-American brand is directly linked to American power. Not the abuse of that power, merely the power or even the perception of that power alone is enough. The existence of that power alone is perceived as arrogant, isolationist and imperialistic. It’s perceived that way, because there is a psychological need to perceive it that way. For all that the left envisions a paranoid America seeking out phantom enemies that don’t exist, it is the left that desperately needs that phantom enemy. That phantom empire to childishly batter its fists against. The Big Daddy to rail against and finally slay.

Anti-Americanism is not an informed critique, but an uninformed rant

Anti-Americanism is not an informed critique, but an uninformed rant. An ongoing tantrum and a status symbol. It is that latter part which so effectively mobilizes the left. It is what drew Assange to successfully cash in on the glamour of anti-americanism. And what drew decrepit leftist shill, Michael Moore, out of his cave to grab a piece of the action. After Obama’s victory, the left has quickly exhausted the possibilities of cheerleading the White House. As emotionally fulfilling as it might have been for them to finally win, they would rather act out their revolutionary fantasies, than settle down to the boring work of supporting every initiative. The left is at its best when fighting enemies. And while Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich still offer up the usual targets—America itself is a much bigger target.

It’s hard to claim to be oppressed by Sarah Palin. And there’s only so much mileage that even the greenest of environmentalists can milk from his love of elk. But being oppressed by America—there’s always mileage in that. Before Assange, the left had to make do with detained Gitmo terrorists, who did the sort of things that their ACLU defenders could only fantasize about, but lacked that edge of cool. With Assange, Anti-Americanism isn’t just about defending some Kuwaiti or Somali terrorist with a Koran in one hand and a copy of Harry Potter from the Gitmo prison library in the other, anymore. Assange makes anti-Americanism cool again, replacing the more overt violence, with sabotage. Assange calculatedly acts out the fantasies of the left. And the left flocks to defend him.

Assange allows the left to play at revolution, without fear of getting hurt. People may die because of Assange, but it will generally be in parts of the world that they hardly ever visit, except as protest tourists, flashing their EU or American passports, sweeping in to take some photos of the native wildlife, pose with a local human rights activist, maybe wave a sign or throw a stone, and then head on home to their flat and their flatscreen and their good life.

Seen in that light, Wikileaks is less a resource and more of a theme park, lending the experience of virtual revolution to the pampered sons and daughters of the prosperous West, allowing them to participate in imaginary assaults on the regime without ever leaving the comfort of their living room. So much of the activism has been headed that way, like Twitter campaigns in which people with nothing at stake pretend that they’re making a difference in the protest movements of countries like Iran, where protesters are tortured, raped and murdered.

Virtual activism leads to actual dehumanization, whether it’s the informants whose lives Wikileaks placed at risk, or the women who have accused Assange of rape. The detachment of activism from those affected by it, makes it easier to reduce violent acts to button pushing. With no skin in the game, activism becomes a game. A social media contest with egotistical, not moral stakes. Not a contest of ideas, but of wills.

America as a cartoon villain remains a vital prop in this virtual theme park

America as a cartoon villain remains a vital prop in this virtual theme park. It’s a vital villain to the left, which forms a revolutionary identity by fighting against the powerful. Not those in the wrong, those with the power. By equating evil with power, greed with wealth, armed forces with war crimes, and ability with crime—the left’s own ideology makes anti-americanism inevitable. If America is powerful than it must be evil.

Obama has severely hurt America, but he hasn’t come close to destroying it. And the Anti-American left doesn’t want him to. It needs America as a windmill to tilt against. And if America were to fall, Russia or China would not make nearly as satisfactory a villain. Because they don’t look much like daddy and they won’t treat their attacks as a game. Without an America to assail, they would be left in a cold world where revolution isn’t a game, but a firing squad. Where denouncing the government doesn’t bring you book deals, but cold prison cells.

It is that combination of power and fair play that makes America into such an appealing target. Its morality is a perfect target for accusations of hypocrisy. Like children bent on proving their parents wrong, the more America tries to do what’s right, the more it’s denounced as a monstrous evil regime. That way the game of revolution can go on endlessly. The anti-American junkie’s rush of fighting the power, before heading off to work, swollen with self-satisfied outrage at his own moral courage.

Wikileaks is an important reminder, not for the present, but for the future, that anti-Americanism cannot be sanded away with progressive administrations. America will still be hated no matter which party and what man sit in power. It will be hated because its haters define their identity through that hatred. Their conspiracy theories enlarge their self-image. Their anti-American activism is a form of petty rebellion by overgrown children. Their sabotage is not policy based, it’s ego based. Anti-American is an emotional addiction, not a reasoned policy critique. And there’s no way to take the product away from the addict. We are not the problem. They are.


Associated Press Writer

DETROIT (AP) – More than 1,000 documents, including some dating back to the beginning of the Nation of Islam, were found in the attic of a home in Detroit, the city where the secretive movement started 80 years ago, a lawyer said.

Attorney Gregory Reed unveiled some documents, letters and a booklet Thursday at a Detroit mosque, including a rare 1933 signature of Nation of Islam founder W.D. Fard. Reed said the well-preserved documents detail the early structure and teachings of the group founded on the ideals of black nationalism.

“Very few have seen the internal workings of how (the Nation of Islam) was put together,” said Reed, whose Keeper of the Word Foundation oversees collections and exhibits that include the works of Malcolm X, Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela.

He said the boxes which also included detailed literature about the early movement’s educational and leadership training were recently discovered by an unidentified man whose family members were Nation of Islam “pioneers.” Reed said he was contacted by the family, which owns the home, because of his work with other collections.

Reed described another piece as a “manifesto” handwritten by Fard that became required reading for Nation of Islam members through the 1950s. It was not displayed at the mosque, remaining instead with the vast majority of artifacts remaining in a vault.

He said the material has been reviewed and appraised by several collectors and auctioneers he didn’t name. A foundation set up by the family in association with Keeper of the Word controls the rights to the collection.

Reed said officials with the Chicago-based Nation of Islam are aware of the documents and Reed’s plans to publicly display them at a proposed center in Detroit. He said the family is working with him on plans for the “W.D. Fard Founder’s Center,” which they hope to jointly announce within 60 days.

Messages left Friday by The Associated Press for top leaders of the Nation of Islam were not immediately returned.

Lawrence Mumiya, a Vassar College professor of religion and Africana studies, said the documents should be most revealing and rewarding for scholars and others outside the movement. He said the Nation of Islam has a significant collection that isn’t shared with nonmembers.

“I think this trove of 1,000 documents is very important for scholarship and for the writing of the history of the Nation,” he said. “It won’t change much for the Nation itself, but it may change things for people like myself who have never seen these documents.”

Fard attracted black Detroiters on the margins of society with a message of self-improvement and separation from whites. Fard said whites were inherently evil because of their enslavement of blacks.

The Nation of Islam was rebuilt by Farrakhan in the late 1970s after W.D. Mohammed, the son of longtime leader Elijah Mohammed, broke away and moved many followers toward mainstream Islam.

The Nation of Islam continues to be led by Farrakhan, who has haltingly moved toward mainstream Islam but maintains a separatist ideology.

Nation of Islam members traditionally have believed that God came in the form of Fard; Islam recognizes only one God.

In the past, Farrakhan’s most inflammatory comments have included referring to Judaism as a “gutter religion” and calling Adolf Hitler “wickedly great.” Farrakhan has over the years denied claims of anti-Semitism, arguing his remarks are often taken out of context and that criticism of Jews in any light automatically earns the “anti-Semite” label.

A longtime target of federal surveillance, the movement is highly secretive. Even researchers who follow the group closely do not know how many members or mosques it has, or how much money it makes.

By Doug Hagmann  

Under the administration of Barack Hussein Obama, the United States submitted its first ever “Universal Periodic Review (UPR) report” to the United Nations.  This is the first time in the history of the United Nations that the U.S. has submitted a report to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council, which is the first step in submitting the United States to international review by some of the most repressive and abusive nations in the world.  The 29-page report can be read here.

The report is the product of about a dozen conferences held across the U.S. between January and April 2010. The participants of these conferences featured such luminaries as Stephen Rickard and Wendy Patten, from George Soros’ Open Society Institute; Devon Chaffee, Human Rights First; Andrea Prasow, Human Rights Watch; Imad Hamad (a suspected member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist-Leninist terrorist organization), American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; Dawud Walid, Council American Islamic Relations; Nabih Ayad, Michigan Civil Rights Commission; Ron Scott, Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality; Osama Siblani, Arab American News; Shannon Minter, National Center for Lesbian Rights and Cynthia Soohoo, Center for Reproductive Rights, among others.

According to its authors, the report to the United Nations “gives a partial snapshot of the current human rights situation in the United States, including some of the areas where problems persist in our society.” Obviously, one of the “problems” identified with the report is illegal immigration and Arizona’s own initiate to solve the problem through state legislation. SB 1070 has been a particularly thorny issue to the Obama administration, which has now been moved to an international venue and potential international oversight by the United Nations. The stakes for our national sovereignty have been just raised by the submission of this document, which is the first step of “voluntary compliance” to the provisions of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council.

It is no surprise that the report is dripping with the all too familiar “blame America first” rhetoric that has been the gold-standard of “citizen of the world” Barack Hussein Obama. The report promises that “President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system…” and promises to work “with fellow members of the Human Rights Council.”

Taking counsel from the list of individuals and organizations, some who have openly called for the subjugation of our country to the United Nations and supported our enemies, while engaging in self-flagellation before an international body of dubious distinction… it’s the “gold-standard” of Barack Hussein Obama.

William Kristol

Last Tuesday, standing in front of the Statue of Liberty, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke on the subject of the proposed mosque at Ground Zero. His remarks will be read with curiosity by future generations of Americans, who will look back in astonishment at the self-deluding pieties and self-destructive dogmas that are held onto, at once smugly and desperately, by today’s liberal elites. Our liberation from those dogmas, and from those elites, is underway across the nation. But it’s worth taking a look at Bloomberg’s speech, if only to remind us of what we need to ascend from so our descendants can look back with curiosity at the ethos to which we did not succumb.

As is the way of contemporary liberals, Bloomberg spoke at a very high level of abstraction. He appealed to the principle of religious toleration, while never mentioning the actual imam who is responsible for and would control the planned Ground Zero mosque. To name Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf might invite a consideration of his background, funding, and intentions. Do Rauf and his backers believe in the principles underlying the “inspiring symbol of liberty” that greets immigrants to the United States and before which Bloomberg stood? Bloomberg didn’t say. It apparently doesn’t matter. Toleration means asking nothing, criticizing nothing, saying nothing, about whom or what one is tolerating. This is the Sergeant Schultz standard of toleration: I know nothing.

Knowing nothing, or wishing to know nothing, about the mosque, Bloomberg took it upon himself to lecture his fellow New Yorkers on their obligation to be true to “the best part of ourselves.” That part is apparently the part of us that allows at once for intellectual obfuscation and moral preening. Bloomberg never acknowledged that sane and tolerant people might object to a 15-story Islamic community center and mosque right next to Ground Zero. He could not be bothered to take seriously the reservations and objections of a clear majority of his constituents. “In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists—and we should not stand for that.” So public sentiment be damned. There’s nothing to be learned from the ignorant and bigoted residents of New York.

Instead, Bloomberg lectured: “On September 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked ‘What God do you pray to?’ ‘What beliefs do you hold?’ ” True, certainly true. But Bloomberg did not permit himself to ask what vision of god, what set of beliefs, inspired those who set those buildings aflame. Bloomberg said that it was our “spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11.” But attacked by whom? Bloomberg wouldn’t say.

In fact, he denied the propriety of asking such a question. It would have been one thing—a more defensible thing—if Bloomberg had argued that there was little that could be done legally to stop the mosque and that New Yorkers should therefore make the best of a bad situation. But that was not his message. Instead, Bloomberg came to the Statue of Liberty not simply to accept the mosque, but to praise it: “Of course, it is fair to ask the organizers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation—and in fact, their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. By doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our City even closer together. .  .  . I expect the community center and mosque will add to the life and vitality of the neighborhood and the entire City.”

But have the real, existing organizers of the mosque shown much sensitivity to other New Yorkers? The answer is no—but if you’re a contemporary liberal, you don’t get into the actual, existing facts in order to make a judgment. You govern on the basis of what the organizers’ “plan” nominally “envisions,” you appeal to a hope and expectation that even Bloomberg can’t really believe in. But it allows him to avoid coming to grips with what is really happening and what lies behind the popular sentiment of disgust, even revulsion. 

The conclusion of Bloomberg’s speech was odd: “Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure—and there is no neighborhood in this City that is off limits to God’s love and mercy, as the religious leaders here with us can attest.” Do the rest of us need Bloomberg’s hand-picked religious leaders to tell us that there are no limits to God’s love and mercy? We do doubt that encouraging this mosque to be built is an appropriate expression of respect for God’s love and mercy for those who were killed almost nine years ago. And we would note that no expression of New Yorkers’ love and gratitude for the victims of September 11 has yet been built at the site of Ground Zero during Mayor Bloomberg’s tenure.

It is likely, we believe, that civic pressure will cause the mosque to be moved elsewhere—Bloomberg’s lecture notwithstanding. But if Bloomberg were to have his way, it’s worth noting that he would presumably attend a dedication of Feisal Abdul Rauf’s mosque at Ground Zero before he would attend a dedication of a proper memorial to those who died there.

Contemporary liberalism means building a mosque rather than a memorial at Ground Zero—and telling your fellow citizens to shut up about it.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon


Mexico and Washington flip us the bird

By David Karki [May 20th 2010]

Mexican President Felipe Calderón addressed a joint session of Congress today, in which he had the unmitigated gall to effectively give America the finger for Arizona’s passage of a law to try and clean up the mess resulting from his country being a drug cartel-controlled, crime-riddled, corrupt-to-the-core, third-world craphole which he simply wants to keep shoving north of the border rather than clean up – a law not nearly as stringent as Mexico’s own against illegal immigration, by the way.

This disgusting and hypocritical display by itself is not entirely surprising. Nor was President Obama and Congress’ stupidity in having given him the chance to insult us on our own soil to begin with. What was a bit surprising and a lot infuriating and outrageous was seeing Obama wholeheartedly agree with him, Democrats leap to their feet to give him a standing ovation, and Republicans do nothing, too gutless to even get up and walk out much less boo the crap out all of them as they richly deserved.

It could not be clearer that Obama and the Democrats have sided with America’s enemies and against her people. A foreign leader comes to our capitol, stands in the well of the House chamber, openly trashes one of our states and the citizens thereof, and not only is he not thrown out on his ass and told never to come back again, he’s embraced and applauded by the majority of America’s top government officials. And the rest sit there like bumps on logs, not uttering a peep of protest, so terrified of the race card are they.

Far from coming here and lecturing us, it ought to be the American president who goes to Mexico City and tells the crooked politicians of that third-world armpit that it’s inexcusable to have so much crime and poverty when their oil and beaches alone ought to generate a first-world standard of living for all Mexicans.  That Mexicans should grow some cojones and fight like hell to save their country from the drug lords, instead of cowardly fleeing to America and then once there, living off her generosity, hypocritically and ungratefully waving the Mexican flag in everyone’s face. That southwest America has never been Mexico’s and any attempt at reconquista will be treated and responded to as the violation of national sovereignty and overt act of war it is.

And finally that, until such time as conditions in Mexico sufficiently change for the better – or if American military invasion is ultimately the only way to clean up that disaster area south of the Rio Grande once and for all so that the border isn’t a de facto war zone and the rights of American citizens in the southwest are protected – a wall so big and impenetrable that China’s Great one will look like a piece of chain link by comparison is going up from San Diego, CA to Brownsville, TX immediately and permanently. Consider it our double upraised middle finger right back at you, Felipe.

But we all know that such a thing, as based in the truth and deserved as it would be, will not ever happen. Why? Because our own government has sided with Calderón and Mexico against us. They have, by their open embrace of this despicable stunt, committed treason. They have elevated serving another country’s leader and people over serving their own. They have made it clear that they are as committed to the destruction of this country, as it was founded, as any foreign enemy America has ever had.

Mexico at best, in an act of unconscionable irresponsibility, shoves a stinking mess entirely of their own creation and all of the related costs thereof onto us; at worst, they very possibly are setting the stage for attempting to violate and wrest back a portion of America’s sovereign territory. Is there any response to this inexcusable treatment of a neighbor? None whatsoever.

And when one state is finally forced to respond in self-defense, because the federal government absolutely refuses to uphold its sworn Constitutional duty to protect the national border, they allow Mexico’s leader to come here, taunt that state, and applaud him for it.  (Consider that their middle finger joining Calderón’s.)

It matters not that one side openly embraces the jerk-off foreign leader while the other cowardly slinks away – both are equally culpable for their equally sickening reactions and therefore the enemy of all who hold America dear. And we would be far better served to worry about them before anyone south of the Rio Grande, for without the enabling behavior of a treasonous President and Congress, Mexico’s situation would be none of our concern.

Of course, the fact that we have such a government doesn’t reflect well on us; nor does the lack of an immediate and infuriated outcry from all America’s people. That Obama and Congress didn’t feel the need to even try to hide this display is very telling, beyond the extreme arrogance and chutzpah shown. They clearly think that enough of us are either supportive or too wrapped up in whether Lee or Crystal will win American Idol to even notice. Sadly, they may be closer to right than I care to admit.

When something as alarming as this can be perpetrated, and it elicits no response, perhaps the real enemy and threat to America’s future isn’t in Mexico or Washington, but among us – maybe even in the mirror.

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” — Author Unknown

Heads_Up American Patrol

Next Page »