The IRS harassment scandal could impeach Obama if any of the allegations being claimed are true. Never mind if the Benghazi scandal involves Obama.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the IRS harassment was linked to the White House by lawyer Cleta Mithcell who represents six of the hundreds of Tea Party and conservative groups targeted by the IRS. All in all, 471 groups were targeted by the IRS even though the former IRS commissioner originally told Congress last year that none of these allegations were true.

After the IRS apology Obama blamed Bush through Jay Carney, claiming that the White House did not have anything to do with the IRS harassment because the previous IRS leader was hired by the Bush administration. The White House claims that low level IRS agents in Cincinnati were primarily involved in persecuting the IRS harassment of conservative groups. So far, the IRS document trail proves this to be false, with documents proving the IRS harassment scandal goes at least to the IRS Washington headquarters.

Cleta Mitchell claims she has more evidence linking Washington to the IRS harassment scandal:

“They may try to say it was low-level people. It was not low-level people. They weren’t in Cincinnati. It was being directed out of Washington, and I have them on record saying that. … We know the White House used the Department of Health and Human Services to try to silence critics about Obamacare. So if we know they used HHS, why wouldn’t they also use the IRS or other federal agencies to try to silence political critics?”

The targets of the IRS harassment are very diverse, but all tend to be political critics of President Obama or his policies. Besides political groups, Christian conservatives like Billy Graham are claiming IRS harassment along with other Christian ministries audited by the IRS who say their stance on gay marriage was put to the question. A Catholic professor claims IRS harassment after speaking out against Obama, with IRS auditors wanting to know what her politics were. Progressive Catholics were allegedly ignored by the IRS. It also came out that Jewish groups were targeted by IRS, with one group alleging they were investigated to make sure their organization’s activities did not “contradict the [Obama] Administration’s public policies.”

Even reporter Larry Conners feels the IRS harassed him after President Obama was asked difficult questions. Conners says, “I don’t accept ‘conspiracy theories,’ but I do know that almost immediately after the interview, the IRS started hammering me. At the time, I dismissed the ‘co-incidence,’ but now, I have concerns … after revelations about the IRS targeting various groups and their members …”

Of course, other reporters rushed to find any Democrat-leaning groups which received similar IRS inquiries. Only three were found compared to the supposed hundreds of conservative and Republican-leaning groups, never mind the individuals claiming persecution by the IRS.

Conservative groups are reporting the IRS harassment allegedly included audit-like demands, surprise visits from multiple agencies including the FBI, and “voluminous requests for information” among other forms of harassment. Multi-agency visits are fairly unusual for an IRS matter.

Federal agencies are directed by the executive branch, which is led by Obama as President. Whether or not Obama himself was directly involved, it seems apparent that at least someone in Obama’s administration was involved. So we have three scenarios: either Obama knew nothing about what is own people were doing, which makes him a poor President, or President Obama did know about it and did nothing, or was involved directly somehow.

Besides the IRS harassment of conservatives, President Obama allegedly may have misused the IRS in other ways. President Obama’s half-brother allegedly received preferential treatment from the IRS, receiving tax exempt status retroactively within one month while Tea Party groups waited years. The IRS even leaked documents on conservative groups to progressive groups.

Before the 2012 election, the Obama campaign attacked Mitt Romney with IRS documents that “came directly from the Internal Revenue Service and was provided to NOM’s political opponents, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).” The document showed Romney donated $10,000 to NOM, which opposes gay marriage.

NOM president Brian Brown believes this other IRS scandal benefited President Obama politically:

“The American people are entitled to know how a confidential tax return containing private donor information filed exclusively with the Internal Revenue Service has been given to our political opponents whose leader also happens to be co-chairing President Obama’s reelection committee. It is shocking that a political ally of President Obama’s would come to possess and then publicly release a confidential tax return that came directly from the Internal Revenue Service. We demand to know who is responsible for this criminal act and what the [Obama] Administration is going to do to get to the bottom of it.”

How could the IRS harassment scandal impeach Obama? Based upon Federal law, it’s a criminal offense to misuse for political gain any information submitted by a taxpayer, an entity, or anybody who submits any information to the IRS. IRS agents are supposed to be limited in what they say, ask, or do with the information.

By definition, an impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment. Reasons for Presidential impeachments are treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors. The House of Representatives, currently controlled by Republicans, can define what “high crimes or misdemeanors” means so it’s possible the IRS harassment scandal could qualify if President Obama is involved. But since the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats, has to prosecute the impeachment articles there doesn’t seem a chance they’d actually impeach Obama.

40 years ago this week on May 18, President Richard Nixon was served articles of impeachment for the misuse of the IRS to go after political enemies. Like the IRS scandal, the Watergate scandal was initially blamed on underlings by President Nixon. With House Speaker John Boehner already asking who should go to jail for the present IRS harassment scandal, impeaching Obama might become a high priority depending on what is discovered.

Based upon a poll released today, 57 percent of Americans believe the offenders behind the IRS harassment scandal should be jailed. An amazing 55 percent “think it is at least somewhat likely that President Obama or his top aides were aware that Tea Party and other conservative groups were targeted by the IRS.”

Do you think the IRS harassment scandal could impeach Obama?

IRS Harassment Scandal Could Impeach Obama For Targeting Political Enemies is a post from: The Inquisitr

That Syrian heart video is getting some buzz, so I’ve posted it below for serious adult viewers who have a strong stomach. The piece appears both on the Syrian Truth Facebook page and on the Syrian Truth Network YouTube Channel.

Folks, these posters are clearly taking the Syrian government’s side of the current civil war. As you may know, the conflict has been going on since spring 2011, with the rebels seeking to oust the Syrian Ba’ath party government.

There’s a lot of sympathy in the west for the rebels, and their fight has sometimes been described as part of the Arab Spring movement.

The Syrian pro-government forces know darn good and well that they’re unpopular in some quarters. They have responded in the past by calling the rebels terrorists and accusing them of being members of Al-Qaeda, the group behind the 911 terror attacks in America.

The piece, to me, has the look and feel of another possible smear campaign. I don’t know how many rebels really have time to cut out and eat their victim’s hearts on film.

I was tempted to give the story a complete pass, but a CNN report said that they talked to a rebel named Tariq al Sayed, who said he’s a friend of the guy in the video and that he is indeed a member of the insurgency.

Al Sayed added: “[His] actions do not represent the FSA. His actions only represent himself. This is not just a normal person who sits home. He has had two brothers killed.”

Well, maybe. But I’m not ready to accept a clip as authentic on the word of one guy who says he’s the friend of somebody unnamed.

Another weird thing: Al Sayed also told CNN that he asked his friend to take down the video. Erm, how could he do that if he was in fact a rebel? The video is posted on pro-government pages.

For me, there are too many open questions to accept this video as proof that one side or another has people out there eating real hearts.

I do believe that civil war is a terrible thing and that atrocities will occur. But I don’t need a video to convince me of that.

Again, before you click that button to watch, be aware that even if it’s fake, it’s graphic. You have been warned.

Feel free to share your thoughts. I’m clearly not the final authority on the authenticity of the Syrian heart video.

[Syrian civil war photo courtesy Voice of American News via Wikimedia Commons]

Syrian Heart Video Claims To Show Rebel Cut Out, Eat Heart [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

YouTube paid subscriptions have started, but this might not go over so well in the long run.

This past week, YouTube debuted their paid subscription channels, and while this may be profitable for YouTube, it could also spell the end of the casual viewer. As YouTube has revealed in the past, they obviously care more about making money than they do about their roots. I have gone on to call the site “ThemTube” because it stopped being about the viewer content and began focusing more on Partner channels.

You’ve noticed by now that newcomers on YouTube hardly even get noticed any more unless they’re already a major video company or advertiser. Smaller channels, the ones that YouTube was built on, have gotten thrown in the “bargain bin” so to speak while channels that are already guaranteed to be a success are given the front page. Hence why I took to calling it “ThemTube.”

Paid channels are supposedly going to offer viewers 14 days to see their videos for free before they have to pony up the dough and reinforce the money vacuum that YouTube is becoming. Apparently any channel that is doing well enough will be offered this option. This may very well be the end of YouTube and the final nail in the coffin of casual viewership. All of those channels on the front page could start charging you by the month.

Remember the music videos that you enjoyed watching from the beginning? Now imagine having to pay each artist’s channel to see the same videos. You see where this is going, don’t you?

Monthly charges could go as high as $9.99 a month, and a lot of the YouTube channels you’re already subscribed to could just cut you off because you won’t pay to watch them any more.

I don’t know about anybody else, but personally I’m not going to pay to watch a video that I’ll probably forget in a week, never mind a channel. It’s just not worth it.

How do you feel about YouTube’s paid subscriptions?

YouTube Paid Subscriptions: This Could Go So Wrong [Op-Ed] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Once upon a time America loved Justin Bieber.

We couldn’t get enough of his mop-topped hair, pre-puberty voice, bright eyed ‘kidness,’ and that irrepressible smile.

But the times, it seems, are a-changing and a new music-centric poll by Public Policy Polling,“Americans Hate Justin Bieber,” revealed citizens have not only turned their backs on the formerly beloved singer, they came together to do it.

Yes, Bieber has done what Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Bush Jr. couldn’t, and what our present incumbent President Barack Obama so far hasn’t: Unite the reds, blues and those ever-shifting greys.

Thrown into a music superstar soup that included Taylor Swift, Rihanna, Jay-Z, Justin Timberlake, Lady Gaga, Beyonce, Adele and even Chris Brown, a notably older skewed mix of Republicans, Democrats and Indy’s, essentially said Bieber was the all but last one they would fish out.

The exact figures for the 19-year-old?

Opinions on the teen were: 20% favorable, 54% unfavorable and 26% not sure.

But the real kicker? The Canadian is the only artist who punched in a majority of unfavorable ratings across party lines.

It could be worse, but not much. Brown, who looks set to spend the rest of his natural life in permanent public contempt after his 2009 beat down of his then, now, and perhaps always on-off girlfriend Rihanna, notched up a 57% negative rating. But obviously, that will be small solace to Bieber.

Lady Gaga also scored unfavorably along with Brown, albeit Democrats looked on both artists more favorably than Republicans.

Swift, Adele, Beyonce and Timberlake aced with approval ratings of 53%, 54%, 51% and 52% respectively, although more Democrats liked the cut of their jibs than Republicans.

Timberlake’s hip (he takes drugs at music festivals and he’s touring with Jay-Z this summer) but equally urbane (he golfs a lot) appeal, found favor with 34% of all partisans polled as the artist they would most like to see as president.

Sadly, Sid and Nancy aka Brown and Rihanna’s political stump never made it out of the gate — 5% and 2% do not an Oval Office resident make.

Clearly, daily chronicling of Bieber’s Believe tour odyssey — a paparazzo face-off, vomiting, fainting, monkey troubles, late concert starts, Anne Frank, social media riot acts, passport pandemonium, persistent shirtlessness, tour bus drug bust, Dubai speeding fines, did I miss anything out? Oh, yes, battery allegations — have taken a toll on the American public’s patience.

So what does this now officially documented mass dislike mean for the Biebs?

A shuffling walk of shame back to Ontario? Public penance of some kind? A year as Drake Bell’s runner, swapping out his supercar collection for a family hatch, tattooing “Sorry” across his forehead, or withholding his drop-crotch pants wardrobe à la ‘the helicopter’?

If I may suggest, none of the above. We’ve been here before folks. Freeze frame some of the biggest names in popular culture and you will find they’ve all spent time in the stocks.

Think a pre-Vegas Elvis Presley scandalizing 50′s America, Elizabeth Taylor’s scarlet lettering only marginally appeased by marriage to Eddie Fisher, and the rage visited on Kristen Stewart post those Rupert Sanders pictures.

Think, too, of the undiluted venom slung at Gwyneth Paltrow, Anne Hathaway, Kate Winslet and Kim Kardashian, and was once directed at Robert Downey Jr., John Mayer, Bill Clinton and Ben Affleck.

To most members of the public, being world famous — especially if you’re an in-your-face, impossibly rich, social media accelerated megastar like Bieber — means you’re fair game.

Add in an entertainment news cycle that feeds on and exploits lowest common denominators like envy, hate, and anger and revels in the type of coverage that today saw much tutting about an Instagram of Bieber legally drinking beer on a South African safari; and one reading of Public Policy’s poll is that the teen star really is an icon of our hypercritical times.

Whether it’s at the beginning, middle or end of their careers, ever-present pap stalking of stars means more are finding themselves in the crosshairs, just ask Reese Witherspoon. The trick is to keep on moving.

Bieber’s recent history may be strewn with actual and perceived missteps and a look further back reveals instances of flipping under extreme pressure, but he does have one advantage. He’s a teenager, and whether he knows it or not, he will eventually grow up.

Perhaps one day the vast swathes of the American public that backs politicians who blocked expanded background checks on gun-owners, are part of the mass apathy towards the over 45 million without basic health insurance, continuing domestic fails like obesity, our prison system and ailing infrastructure, will also grow up and let Justin Bieber stumble into adulthood just like everybody else.

Justin Bieber Unites A Divided Nation But This Too Shall Pass is a post from: The Inquisitr

COMMENTARY | Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries recently made headlines for announcing that he only wanted ‘thin, beautiful and cool’ kids shopping at Abercrombie & Fitch stores.  Now, the internet is up in arms, with strongly worded open letters to Abercrombie and Fitch and Mike Jeffries, and even Inquisitr’s own Kim LaCapria calling Jeffries a “partially melted penis candle.”

My question is this: Has no one ever been inside of an Abercrombie & Fitch store?  Has no one ever seen half-naked, live models standing outside of an Abercrombie and Fitch store location?  Has no one ever seen the Abercrombie & Fitch store employees?  Has no one ever seen an Abercrombie and Fitch ad, catalog or the website?  Or has no one ever noticed the people that actually like to wear Abercrombie and Fitch clothing?

Or maybe you’ll remember a 2006 interview that Jeffries gave, in which he stated very openly: “That’s why we hire good-looking people in our stores. Because good-looking people attract other good-looking people, and we want to market to cool, good-looking people. We don’t market to anyone other than that.”

If you ever even noticed just one of these things, then you’ll know that Jeffries’ ‘cool kids’ statement isn’t breaking news, just more like an obvious statement of fact, which has been turned into some very successful, free public relations for the brand.  The fact that now everyone has decided to become angry about a store that never bothered to hide its aims or target demographic is frankly, just a waste of time.

While obviously not in agreement with Abercrombie and Fitch or Mike Jeffries’ position, my questions are as follows: “Have you not noticed these things before? And why do you care?”

As long as Abercrombie and Fitch isn’t any breaking state or federal laws, then I hate to break it to people, but as a private company, they can target their tired polo shirts and has-been cargo shorts to whomever they see fit to do so.

Truly, if people are angry at Abercrombie and Fitch’s cool kids only and no fat chicks policy, why not just vote with your spending dollars and just choose not to shop there?

Alert Captain Obvious: Abercrombie And Fitch Is For Thin And Beautiful Customers Only is a post from: The Inquisitr

NFL insiders say media hype saw Tim Tebow blackballed. But is the blackballing of Tim Tebow more directly related to Tebow’s very public stance on his Christian beliefs?

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Michael Silver says Tim Tebow was blackballed:

“Yet as Tim Tebow’s career wheezes to an underwhelming halt, with less apparent interest in his services than Massachusetts funeral parlors have in Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s remains, something strange is happening. Against all odds, I’m starting to wonder whether the man who helped the Denver Broncos become one of the league’s most stunning success stories in 2011 is getting unjustly blackballed.”

If Tim Tebow is being blackballed for media hype it seems obvious Tebow’s Christian beliefs is the 300 pound elephant in the room. While, yes, there are plenty of Christians in the NFL, Tim Tebow’s blackballing becomes more noticeable precisely because Tim Tebow’s walk as a Christian was so squeaky clean.

Tim Tebow became well known for humbly giving all praise to his team, wearing the Bible verse John 3:16 on his face, and for his “tebowing” to praise God for any victory, even if small. Tim Tebow has written books on the subject and loves to serve at churches. Funnily enough, when Tim Tebow faced the Steelers in 2011, the Nielsen rating of 31.6 and Tebow’s passing yards (316) and yards per completion (31.6) evoked the Bible’s John 3:16.

Some people like to say it’s not Tim Tebow’s Christian beliefs but his NFL stats as a quarterback. Well, Tim Tebow’s limitations as a quarterback were known before Tim Tebow earned a Heisman trophy, a BCS National Championship, three team MVP’s and dozens of records including the Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week, and first round pick in the NFL draft. So there’s definitely more to Tim Tebow being blackballed than that.

While Tim Tebow’s NFL statistics show him to be an average-to-below-average NFL quarterback, he was supposedly a fantastic leader with the Broncos. Tim Tebow was even named Forbes’ most influential athlete for the year. In 2012, Tim Tebow was ranked number 95 by his peers in the NFL Top 100. Near the end of the 2011-2012 season, Tim Tebow was ranked number five out of the NFL’s 32 starting quarterbacks.

So, yeah, while Tim Tebow was obviously not a quarterback superstar with his throwing arm, Tim Tebow was never given a serious chance by the New York Jets. Other NFL quarterbacks who did worse overall than Tim Tebow in 2011-2012 are still in the NFL while Tebow was tossed to the wind as a free agent.

Do you think Tim Tebow was blackballed for his Christian beliefs?

Tim Tebow Blackballed From NFL Due To Christian Beliefs? is a post from: The Inquisitr

As Dennis Rodman rips Obama for North Korea, we have to wonder whether President Obama is doing the right thing in its treatment of Kim Jong-Un’s regime.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Dennis Rodman ripped Obama, saying the President “can’t do sh*t” when it comes to North Korea:

“We got a black president [who] can’t even go talk to [Kim Jong-Un] … Obama can’t do s**t, I don’t know why he won’t go talk to him. … Obama? F**k him!”

US citizen Kenneth Bae was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor in North Korea. Dennis Rodman says, ”I’m gonna try and get the guy out. It’s gonna be difficult.” Rodman already tried once asking Kim Jong-Un to release Kenneth Bae, but North Korea says the US citizen is not a bartering chip.

Even as Dennis Rodman rips Obama North Korea is still maintaining some of its missiles in their launch positions. North Korea has a long history of saber rattling in order to get United States Presidents to make concessions or fork over money. But this time Kim Jong-Un wants North Korea’s nuclear status officially recognized by the world and all sanctions dropped. Despite the opinion of Dennis Rodman, that’s not something President Obama could, or should, do.

This time, President Obama, the United States, and the world are taking a stand, not willing to give an inch with any concessions. Even China, historically the backer of North Korea, has decided enough is enough and grabbed a North Korean bank account’s money being used to fund weapons programs. Unlike Islamic nations like Iran, North Korea’s motive is maintaining money and power, not the desire to blow their enemies to kingdom come and self-destruct in the process. So, in this case, not negotiating with North Korea has been a long time coming.

As Dennis Rodman rips Obama, what do you think should be done with North Korea?

Rodman Rips Obama For North Korea, But Is The President Doing The Right Thing? is a post from: The Inquisitr

As we see a teacher fired over a bikini photo, is this sending the message to kids that modeling is bad?

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the teacher fired over the bikini photo is named Olivia Sprauer, a 26-year-old mother of two from Broward County in Florida. She professionally models under the pseudonym Victoria V. James.

While this teacher was fired over bikini photos, Olivia Sprauer apparently thinks her modeling career is enough to sustain her, since she jokes, “I’m too sexy for my job…Lol…” But she knew the risk when she started modeling:

“Lots of teachers get fired or asked to resign for the same things I did. I knew I didn’t want to come back next year and I knew I wanted to go to grad school so I decided if I made it to the end of the year I would be happy. I felt like it would have been nice for my students to finish out the year with me. They trusted me and they made me happy so that aspect of it was sad.”

Going by Olivia Sprauer’s modeling page for Victoria V. James on Model Mayhem, her photos tend to show poses you might expect from Kate Upton. The focus tends to be on modeling lingerie and bikinis, which is about the same as what your kids might see if you walk by Victoria’s Secret in the mall.

Except for perhaps two lingerie photos, there’s nothing explicit or anything that could be construed as purposefully pornographic. Although, a quick Google search turns up photos a little more risque and now that she’s no longer a teacher Olivia Sprauer is already saying she wouldn’t mind posing fully nude.

The issue of teachers being fired for modeling photos could be taken several ways. Olivia Sprauer didn’t exactly advertise her moonlighting as Victoria V. James, so it’s not like she expressed any danger as a teacher to impressionable children. But it could be argued that now her secret is out of the bag the children may have trouble taking her seriously.

So is the message we should take from this is that any type of modeling featuring partial nudity is inherently bad? My own wife has done modeling in the past. One of my friends is Florida model Kayla Boles, who makes a living doing bikini photo shoots. Does this make them unfit to be a teacher if they chose to pursue that career?

Do you think it’s fair this teacher was fired over a bikini photo?

Yes, I do nudes.My limitations have changed since deciding not to return to teach high school.

— Victoria V. James (@VictoriaVJames) May 8, 2013

[Image from Victor V. James Facebook page]

Teacher Fired Over Bikini Photo, So Modeling Is Bad For Kids? is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Glenn Beck Nazis image portraying mayor Michael Bloomberg like Hitler is making waves, but the usage of the Nazis reference may be slightly ironic considering Hitler’s gun control history.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the Glenn Beck Nazis image is said to be misunderstand by the famous talk show and radio host.

Using a Nazi-like image as a backdrop, Glenn Beck repeatedly blasted Mayor Bloomberg in regards to gun control and several other “public choices”:

“When somebody argues for gun control, they are either living in self-imposed ignorance or they are just living an argument of control…”

But is Glenn Beck’s Nazis image misplaced? Way before the Nazis and Hitler came to power in 1933, the Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles stated, “Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless.”

So Germany had gun control before the Nazis and Hitler took power. After 1945, the Allies implemented full control and private gun ownership was not allowed in Germany until 1956. But under Hitler gun control was actually relaxed with the 1938 German Weapons Act. Professor Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago says, “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition.”

So do the NRA and proponents of gun deregulation actually have more in common with Hitler than Michael Bloomberg? Unfortunately, gun control proponents like quoting Professor Harcourt out of context in order to feed their argument. While gun ownership in Nazi Germany was regulated and allowed, the Glenn Beck Nazis reference becomes somewhat relevant if you consider the full situation detailed by Harcourt:

“If you read the 1938 Nazi gun laws closely and compare them to earlier 1928 Weimar gun legislation – as a straightforward exercise of statutory interpretation – several conclusions become clear. First, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. Third, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws,Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms.”

Searching for “Hitler gun control” will return a quote saying, “To conquer a nation, you must first disarm its citizens.” This false Hitler gun control statement could be construed as a paraphrase of what Hitler actually said about gun control laws:

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police.”

What do you think about the Glenn Beck Nazis image after reading about Hitler’s gun control laws?

Glenn Beck Nazis Image Ironic Considering Hitler Gun Control History is a post from: The Inquisitr

Sandy Hook parent Neil Heslin has been smeared in a vicious attack by a Connecticut gun advocacy group, and Connecticut Carry slammed the grieving father in a a lengthy statement issued earlier this week.

Neil Heslin’s son Jesse Lewis was one of Newtown’s child victims, killed in the massacre at Sandy Hook in December.

Heslin’s testimony months later was heart-wrenching, as he recalled his last moments with Jesse and lamented the loss of the child he called his only family — apparently motivation enough to prompt the Connecticut Carry smear.

Heslin had said:

“Jesse was the love of my life … He was the only family I had left. It’s hard for me to be here today to talk about my deceased son. I have to. I’m his voice.”

He also testified:

“Prior to that when he was getting out of the truck he hugged me and held me and I could still feel that hug and pat on the back and he said everything’s going to be ok dad. It’s all going to be ok … It wasn’t ok. I have to go home at night to an empty house without my son.”

Heslin may be a grief-stricken parent coping with the loss of his only child, but Connecticut Carry had no qualms about attacking the hell out of him for past sins in a news release, suggesting that prior arrests and a possible foreclosure make a man whose son was shot unqualified to claim gun violence causes people pain.

Um.

In the press release, the group alleges:

“The article by News Times failed to report the fact that records from the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection show a long history of criminal behavior and that Neil Heslin is a felon. All of which means that Neil Heslin is not allowed per State and Federal law to purchase, own or possess any firearms. So often we find that the strongest critics of the right to bear arms are those people who cannot be trusted with firearms themselves.”

After discussing the evils of drunk driving, the pro-gun group goes on to ad hominem:

“Another major issue left out of the reporting so far has been Heslin’s financial and civil issues. He has been sued several times for not paying his bills through his businesses and for not paying child support as well. Now, Mr. Heslin has found the employment he has needed for so long lobbying against the rights of the citizens of Connecticut and the rest of the country as well.”

Connecticut Carry adds:

“While we all, as humans, share in the sorrow and outrage of Mr. Heslin’s tragic loss, as well as everyone who lost someone on that terrible day; we don’t all have to feel ok with Mr. Heslin profiting off of the tragedy and hurting the gun owning, law abiding citizens who did nothing wrong that day.”

It is not clear whether CT Carry’s claim that Sandy Hook dad Neil Heslin is “profiting” from his son’s death in any way bears out, but regardless of his past actions, it seems Heslin is tragically more than qualified to speak to the need for gun reforms.

Sandy Hook Dad Neil Heslin Smeared By Connecticut Gun Group For Speaking Out is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Benghazi hearings are currently ongoing, but already some are wondering whether the testimony could impeach Obama and prosecute Hillary Clinton for their actions, or lack thereof.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Mike Huckabee believes the Benghazi hearings could impeach Obama, or at least get Obama removed from office. Huckabee believes the justification for impeaching Obama would be based upon the Benghazi cover-up:

“I believe that before it’s all over, this president will not fill out his full term. I know that puts me on a limb, but this is not minor. When a president lies to the American people and is part of a cover-up, he cannot continue to govern. And as the facts come out, I think we’re going to see something startling. And before it’s over, I don’t think this president will finish his term unless somehow they can delay it in Congress past the next three and a half years.”

Greg Gutfeld recently summarized the Benghazi hearings in this fashion:

“The thing is Benghazi isn’t complex; it’s very simple. People needed help on 9/11. They were denied. Four people died. The government falsely blamed a video. You can’t get any easier than that. That’s Scandal 101. Even Howie Kurtz could follow it, and he is an idiot. Especially compared with other massive scandals — Watergate: people lied, no one died, Benghazi: the president shilled after people were killed.”

Update: Included more information from Benghazi hearings, which were on-going during the writing of this article.

Whether Hillary Clinton is involved in the Benghazi cover-up is currently being contested at the Benghazi hearings. But some unnamed sources claim another reason to impeach President Obama is because only he could have prevented special forces from being put on the ground:

“I have a hard time thinking it was Hillary alone. Hillary may have tried to circumvent the counterterrorism board and deal with this. I think in order for her to tell General Ham, ‘No, you’re not going to get involved,’ she would have had to talk to the president. The president would have had to say, ‘No, take your commands from Hillary.’ He would have had said something, because Ham does not work for the Department of State; he works directly for the president.”

Many of the statements made by Ambassador Susan Rice attempted to politicize the Benghazi attacks to make them appear favorable to President Obama. The Rice narrative included Al-Qaeda losing ground, which the State Department knew to be untrue, and that the Middle East’s public sentiment toward the United States was improving. The Benghazi attack was specifically stated by to not be connected to any U.S. foreign policy decisions by the Obama White House.

Under military law, specifically the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),  reasons for impeachments are treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors. Congress can define what “high crimes or misdemeanors” means so it’s possible the altering of the Benghazi talking points and the following cover-up might qualify.

By definition, an impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment. A commander-in-chief can be indited for watching troops die, while having the capability do prevent those actions, but then purposefully taking no action. But Congress has to be the one to call for impeachment. That can be done if in fact Obama watched the troops die and did nothing about it due to political reasons.

Outside of the Benghazi cover-up that occurred after the attack, based upon what we do know I will summarize quickly how it could be construed that the personnel in Benghazi were purposefully put in danger by the State Department and the Obama administration:

Security budgets were cut through “normalizing.” Multiple requests for maintaining internal security levels were denied despite the Red Cross and the British being attacked. Charlene Lamb never responded to the Tripoli embassy’s request for continued security resources. Internal security was thus reduced from 34 people to just three. Instead, groups tied to al Qaeda terrorists were hired to guard Benghazi and these groups abruptly ended this contract right before the attack. During the attack, special forces were denied a Benghazi rescue mission twice even though the flight time was less than an hour.

During the Benghazi hearings, Mr. Hicks and Nordstrom testified that the United States government never requested permission from the Libyan government to fly our military airplanes over the country with the exception of an unmanned drone that was approved prior to the attack. Mr. Thompson stated his opinion that the United States should showcase the resolve to rescue any US personnel under attack both currently and for the future. Because of this testimony, it could be said that we never seriously attempted a rescue mission at the very least.

The damage from Benghazi extends beyond the deaths at Benghazi. At one point, Hillary Clinton famously declared “what different does it make?” Asked about this, Mr. Hicks said the Libyan government was insulted, the president was angry, and our credibility around the world was hurt. The FBI also was unable to get to the crime scene for 17 days. The Benghazi suspects, whose photos were recently released, are thought to be connected to al Qaeda, but so far the leads have not produced any results.

But will the Benghazi hearings even provide the evidence necessary to finger Hillary Clinton, never mind impeach Obama? So far, based upon the available evidence, President Obama himself has not been directly implicated in making any of these decisions, although many critics would like to speculate since these actions all directly benefited Obama during the 2012 Presidential Elections.

But connecting the dots to President Obama is proving not be easy for his critics. As far as this writer can determine, there are no classified documents released that connect Obama to any major fateful decision. The emails detailing how the Benghazi talking points were altered show how “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” We know the final version of the Benghazi talking points were produced at the White House, as well as the YouTube story, but President Obama is never named directly in all of these instances. At one time, President Obama did say he would take the blame for anything said by Susan Rice, but this was done in a general sense.

Even Hillary Clinton has mostly managed to evade a direct connection to the decision to reduce security in Benghazi. Representative Issa trumpeted a Benghazi security cable document bearing Hillary Clinton’s signature, but quite frankly it cannot be proven that Hillary Clinton read or even knew about the cables, which are actually emails. Never mind, based upon standard State Department protocols literally all of the communications during that timeframe bare Hillary Clinton’s signature as Secretary of State.

Still, we do know Hillary Clinton was at least involved during the Benghazi attacks because her staff was nice enough to make this admission to a CNN reporter:

“As you know, she’s not that interested in focusing on herself. But obviously, she was here very late that night. She was getting regular updates from both the DS Command Center and the senior NEA leadership in the building, she was making phone calls to senior people, and so she was obviously very much involved.”

During the Benghazi hearings, Eric Nordstrom, the security chief in Libya, averred that Hillary Clinton “absolutely” would have been briefed on his and Stevens’ repeated requests for an increased security presence in Libya. But, as far as I’m aware, there is no paper trail proving Hillary Clinton a liar.

So, really, despite the Benghazi hearings so far we only have mid-level government officials making claims of higher ups putting pressure on them, but with no names named. Back in the fall, Mr. Nordstrom claimed Charlene Lamb told him Benghazi security couldn’t be maintained “because there would be too much political cost.” What we don’t know yet is who in the Obama administration gave Charlene Lamb this idea.

Unless a major bombshell is released by the Benghazi hearings an Obama impeachment seems very unlikely. The House of Representatives have sole power of impeachment, but the Senate has the sole power to try impeachments. This is Article 1 of the United States Constitution. The majority of the House of Representatives is Republican, while the majority of the Senate is Democratic. Even in the event of a bombshell, Democrats may pull the same stunt they pulled with President Clinton, who was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice but the Senate rejected the articles sent from the House.

Do you think the Benghazi hearings could lead to an Obama impeachment?

Benghazi Hearings Could Impeach Obama, Prosecute Hillary Clinton? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Google Glass ban talk is already becoming a hot topic and the product is not even available for sale yet.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, potential Google Glass bans include bars, strip clubs, “glassing” while driving, and pretty much anywhere where smartglasses might be seen as dangerous or an invasion of privacy.

But I have to say that any Google Glass ban should stop short of making smartglasses illegal. They’re here, they’re inevitable, and simple regulations should serve instead of an outright ban.

Even the group Stop the Cyborgs, which has launched an anti-Glass campaign, believes there should be a limited Google Glass ban. Stop the Cyborgs contends there should be three simple rules to protect against privacy invasion:

1. They will never allow any face recognition system or any app which automatically identifies people to work on Google Glass or on any server system connected to Glass.

2. They will implement a do not track system which allows people to opt out of being tracked or having information captured about them by Glass. This system should not require the person to identify themselves.

3. That all information gathered by Glass will remain the property of the owner or subject and will be encrypted so that it is impossible for it to be data-mined, made available to security services or used for commercial purposes.

Google chief Eric Schmidt is equally open to a limited Google Glass ban:

“I think you’re describing a world of tracking which I think is highly unlikely to occur, because people will be upset about it in the same way you are. Governments won’t allow it, and it’ll be bad business. And ultimately, in a competitive market, companies want the consumers to be happy. So it’s true tracking in this context…you’re taking a much broader view of the word ['tracking'] than any I would use. A situation where you go to people and say, ‘Oh, here’s our phone, and we’re going to track you to death,’ people are not going to buy that phone. It’s just a bad business model.”

At the same time, any potential Google Glass ban or regulations should allow for people who want to use the Google Glass to its full potential. Augmented reality games will probably start to push the limits of smartglasses first, but there’s other technology that will be coming down the pipeline to transform how we use smart devices like Google Glass. So while I agree that indiscriminate facial recognition is probably not a good idea, there should be put in place a standard technological method for such devices to signal that the user is okay with being scanned and identified.

For example, let’s say Facebook eventually extends to augmented reality with the Google Glass. If smartglasses users don’t mind their face being scanned, then whenever you see a fellow Facebook user with your Google Glass then an informational cloud would hang over their head. Like the Facebook page itself, Facebook users could determine what information is available to those looking at the world with Google Glass.

What do you think is fair for a potential Google Glass ban?

Google Glass Ban Makes Smartglasses Illegal, But Is Regulation Necessary? is a post from: The Inquisitr

White House racism is being claimed by Seema Jilani, who calls the Secret Service racist for her treatment at the entrance’s security checkpoint.

As previous reported by The Inquisitr, the White House racism allegations claim the Secret Service boldly applied double standards in regards to a journalist attendee’s wife, Seema Jilani, who was trying to get keys from her spouse.

Jilani, who was not in possession of a ticket, alleges the security staff engaged in racial profiling due to her skin color and identity as a Muslim. As she attempted to obtain the needed keys from her spouse, security allowed several white women without tickets to pass through as she watched in horror.

Jilani takes a stand on both the alleged White House racism and the practice of racial profiling for security purposes:

“Despite being a native English speaker who was born in New Orleans and a physician who trained at a prestigious institution, all people see is the color of my skin. After this incident, I will no longer apologize, either for my faith or my complexion. It is not my job to convince you to distinguish me from the violent sociopaths that claim to be Muslims, whose terrorism I neither support, nor condone. It is your job.”

In her narrative about White House racism, Jilani takes a swipe at conservatives, saying, “I suppose the “support the troops” rhetoric by the right only applies to white veterans.” She’s outraged that earlier in her life she was asked whether she “would wear a burqa or if my parents would arrange my marriage during interviews.” She calls bigotry for anyone who makes “dirty looks at my hijabi friend.”

The problem I have with all this is that Jilani conflates actual racism and hate crimes toward Muslims with racial profiling designed and intended for security purposes. When police investigate a crime, they create a profile of what the suspect most likely looks like based upon past history, demographics, and known facts.

For example, I’ve seen police create early profile of potential suspects. The suspect is rendered in drawings as being black based upon crime statistics in the area, although the real suspect may prove to be white in the end. But it must be mentioned there is a debate over the accuracy of racial profiling and black crime statistics.

In regards to national security, terrorism targeting America tends to involve suspects who are Muslim, highly educated, and non-white. Obviously, this racial profile of a potential suspect is not going to be 100 percent and evidence of this is the white Boston bombing suspects.

The United States and much of the western world seems to be the only ones who care if racial profiling for security purposes offends anyone. Israel regularly implements racial profiling at airports, while our TSA is not allowed to discriminate even though terrorist suspects tend to fit certain recognized patterns. The interesting part is that in Israel they don’t even have a Hebrew word or term for the English phrase “racial profiling” because they believe the practice is so self-evident. Despite any claims of White House racism, racial profiling works well despite its unfortunate side effects, with Israel suffering no issues in airports since 1972.

On a personal level, I happen to live in an area where a local Muslim mosque helped the 9/11 terrorists by picking them up at the airports and giving them cars. Locals know these Muslims were celebrating in the streets early on, so people tend to be suspicious. Still, I have several friends of middle eastern, one who was at my house this past night. But should I be considered racist if I choose to employ racial profiling around anyone associated with that mosque based upon this history?

What do you think about these claims of White House racism in regards to racial profiling and security?

White House Racism Article Calls Secret Service Racist For Muslim Racial Profiling is a post from: The Inquisitr

The 3-D printable handgun by Defense Distributed called the Liberator actually does work, but after reading up on the specs I believe the gun control types are freaking out over nothing.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the 3-D printable handgun was designed by Defense Distributed, a group of 3-D firearms enthusiasts who designed the gun and posted free downloadable instructions for making the weapon on its website. Over 150,000 downloads of the 3-D printable gun were made after an Obama speech on Gun Control.

Defense Distributed already posted their intentions for the aptly named Liberator:

“The specific purposes for which this corporation is organized are: To defend the civil liberty of popular access to arms as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, through facilitating global access to, and the collaborative production of, information and knowledge related to the 3D printing of arms; and to publish and distribute, at no cost to the public, such information and knowledge in promotion of the public interest.”

Gun control proponents are already complaining, calling for a 3-D printable handgun ban, and claiming, “Security checkpoints, background checks, and gun regulations will do little good if criminals can print plastic firearms at home and bring those firearms through metal detectors with no one the wiser.”

So let’s get one thing straight right off the bat. The 3-D printable handgun called the Liberator already includes metal parts to comply with United States law. But it’s true that someone might make their own design for a 3-D printable gun that does not use metal parts. But I think that’s a needless worry.

The proponents of gun control are not considering the limitations of engineering and materials. The instructions for the Liberator already recommends “printing multiple barrels and using each only once. Swapping the barrels is simple and fast.” My guess is that a single shot from a .22 bullet is enough to warp the plastic barrel. So, quite frankly, a single shot 3-D printable handgun is unlikely to be used by terrorists. Politicians simply need to regulate the sale of certain gun parts just like they would the full gun.

Never mind there already are plastic guns out there. It’s called airsoft and it’s a sport that uses military style simulation guns to shoot 6 mm plastic BBs at opponents, which leave merely a red welt similar to paintball. The major difference is that airsoft uses compressed air to fire BBs at anywhere from 200 to 600+ feet per second (FPS), while bullets propelled by gun powder are traveling at thousands of FPS.

So it could be argued that a better design for a 3-D printable gun could work like a high end airsoft gun and shoot 6 mm 0.4 gram flechette ammo for maximum damage. But once again this 3-D printable gun would require metal parts. Standard flechette ammo is fired at 1250 FPS to 4500 FPS. Fully plastic airsoft guns, which are shooting plastic BBs, cannot shoot beyond 300 FPS without falling apart quickly. Even getting beyond 600 FPS requires high end reinforced metal parts unless you are using an electro-pneumatic gun.

Do you agree with my assessment that 3-D printable handguns need metal components in order to pose a decent lethal threat? If so, do you agree that the politicians are overreacting?

3-D Printable Handgun Needs Metal Parts, Gun Control Types Freaking For Nothing is a post from: The Inquisitr

COMMENTARY | I remember way back in 2010 when Steve Jobs stood on a stage and declared that the iPad was a “magical” device that would further “revolutionize” the mobile industry. Fast forward to 2013, and, indeed, Apple’s iPhone and iPad devices have helped revolutionize the way smartphones and tablets are designed from the hardware they feature to the software they support.

With Apple devices losing some of their appeal, according to recent surveys, it was only a matter of time before analysts and reviewers began focusing on the “next big thing” in tech. In late 2012, along came Google Glass.

Almost immediately after the technology was revealed, analysts began complaining. There were complaints about privacy, complaints about daily living with technology overload, complaints about battery life, and complaints for the sake of complaining. Let’s face it: Google Glass is the whipping boy of the wearable tech industry.

In reality, Google Glass is an experimentation in what wearable technology could and shouldn’t be. On the one hand, the technology allows users to pull up mapping, take photos, share information with friends, and basically discover the world around them with ease and efficiency. On the other hand, Google Glass can take photos where it shouldn’t (locker rooms, bathrooms, etc.), access information where it shouldn’t be accessed (hospitals, court rooms, etc), and even distract drivers and workers who might cause serious injury and potentially life threatening accidents.

Google Glass however is not meant to be the “magical” iPad device Steve Jobs showcased in 2010 or the revolutionary iPhone platform he debuted in 2007. The technology is meant to be a roadmap for the future, a piece of technology that figures out what wearable tech could be when executed properly.

After finally releasing Google Glass, we will likely hear complaints about battery life, OS issues that still need to be solved (rumors point to a Google Android supported build),  eye strain issues, and various other issues.

I don’t expect to see 100 million people walking around with Google Glass; however, the technology will likely lead to more discussions about how to create technology on a smaller yet usable scale.

Google jumped into the autonomous vehicles field without a second thought and since that time numerous autonomous vehicle company’s have developed technology that will ultimately lead to the first mass produced vehicles.

Google Glass, for its part, is an experiment in wearable tech that won’t reach mass adoption but will reach mass appeal for developers who are always looking for something shiny and new.

If nothing else, Google Glass gives the tech giant bragging rights as a first adopter of new technology, and, in the eyes of consumers, a first adopter is an innovative adopter.

In the meantime, Google Glass will continue to be poked fun at while offering a new way to think about technology. I leave you with this fun “review” of the technology from the fine folks at Saturday Night Live:

Google Glass Is An Experiment In Wearable Tech, Deal With It is a post from: The Inquisitr

Justin Bieber and Linda Perry.

To most, the connection between the zeitgeist pop heartthrob and the former 4 Non Blondes frontwoman now über-songwriter — Aguilera’s ”Beautiful,” Pink’s “Get The Party Started” and Stefani’s “What are you Waiting For?” — would seem faint, if not non-existent.

But in a recent Huffington Post Live talk, the ever-creative Perry somehow found one.

As well as sharing her thoughts on Beyonce — “I like her but I’m a little tired of her brand,” Madonna “I just know in my heart there’s something I can pull out that she hasn’t done yet,” Courtney Love “a beautiful mess” and Rihanna “she’s awesome” — when asked, Perry unleashed a rash of offensive opinions on what her host called “the Bieber phenomenon.”

Despite the fact the Canadian teen has been in an on-off and now back on again relationship with Selena Gomez for over two years, Perry — recently engaged to The Talk co-host and actress Sara Gilbert — apparently thinks he should also declare his pink credentials.

“Well, honestly, I think it would be the best prank ever if he just finally came out and said ‘I’m really a lesbian,’ and he’s a girl,” said the 48-year-old.

Perry continued: ”Can you imagine how amazing that would be if Justin Bieber really was a girl?”

“I would like to start that rumor, can I?” she quipped, then throwing sensibility to the wind, added:

“He kinda looks like a girl. He looks like a little dyke, he does. He looks like a little baby dyke and I keep looking at him going, is this guy pranking us?”

While Perry’s comments were offered as a joke, they were still pretty backward given her position in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender community.

Perry’s long-standing relationship with the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian center is an active one. On May 18, she is headlining a music event which will be live streamed from the center with other artists such as Natasha Bedingfield, singer and songwriter Sia and comedienne Kathy Griffin in a benefit for services to help LGBT girls and women.

In light of the LGBT movement’s core belief that everyone has an inherent right to express their true sexuality without external labels being foisted on them, it was demonstrably crass of Perry to publicly call Bieber’s sexuality and gender into question.

Not least, because she now joins the ranks of those who find pleasure in doing the same — but more importantly — because it doesn’t reflect the reality that males and females across the sexual spectrum come in all shapes and sizes.

To many, not just his young fans, Bieber’s now taut and heavily tattooed body is clearly masculine. From others — who presumably think anything less than The Rock is a poor example of manhood — accusations of femininity abound.

It’s an over-used missile often hurled at young men — and conversely, young women ‘accused’ of masculinity — who don’t fit the majority’s fixed ideas of what they should look like.

On October 20, 2012, Matrix, Cloud Atlas director Lana Wachowski, formerly known as Larry, gave (what was for her) a difficult but important speech at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual gala dinner in San Francisco.

Two passages from it seem especially applicable now.

Wachowski spoke of an isolating, alienated childhood because her “gender was less typical than others” in a “society that refuses to acknowledge the spectrum of gender in the exact same blind way they have refused to see a spectrum of race or sexuality.”

Later, she went on to describe a sophomore year in high school where he (as she was then) was afraid to develop facial hair and “in the absence of words to defend myself, without examples, without models, I began to believe voices in my head — that I was a freak, that I am broken, that there is something wrong with me, that I will never be lovable.”

Although Wachowski was talking about her journey from presenting socially as a male only to embracing her true identity as a transgender person, underlying her entire speech the theme of accepting others as we find them powered through loud and clear.

The irony that Bieber’s appearance and sexuality was held up for trite, public deconstruction by an out and proud lesbian with a potent voice in more than ways than one, is more than disappointing.

It added unnecessary and unwelcome fuel to an already insult-laden national conversation about the singer’s physicality and sexuality that likely puts more pressure on a 19-year-old who isn’t exactly lacking in that area.

The hacking of E! Online’s Twitter account and posting of messages stating the singer had come out as “a gay,” a topical case in point.

Looking beyond Bieber, Perry’s wider message to millions of young girls, boys, women and men who don’t conform to how others think they should look, is that in 2013 ignorant gender-guessing stereotypes are still acceptable.

Her final words on the teen: “Success is awesome … it’s just what they do with it becomes the true test. Giving them success and watching what they do with it,” never seemed more self-parodying.

Justin Bieber Gets Called ‘Out’ By Linda Perry And It Wasn’t Cool is a post from: The Inquisitr

Introduction By The Inquisitr’s Political Commentator Wolff Bachner:

No one likes to learn the information they have been fed by the mainstream media and many of our elected leaders is tainted by willful ignorance, denial, and out-right lies. When the average American is told the downtrodden Christian population in Muslim majority nations is being deliberately annihilated, most people either shake their heads in stunned disbelief or they start screaming “ISLAMOPHOBE” at the top of their lungs.

Americans have been fed a a steady diet of guilt and blame for so long that they are starting to believe the country is somehow responsible for every terrorist act and bloody war being fought across the globe. It doesn’t matter that since 9/11 there have been more than 20,000 acts of terror committed by men and women who proudly quote the Koran and proclaim the superiority of Islam to anyone who is willing to listen. We continue to give credence to Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who announced “America’s Chickens are coming home to roost!” after the World Trade Center lay in ruins and 3000 innocent Americans lost their lives.

Our government, for reasons we can only speculate, continues to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the Arab Spring, and they refuse to say one word against the ruthless persecution of the Copts in Egypt or the uprooting and murder of the Christian minority in war torn Syria. America continues to send deadly weapons and financial support to the “so-called freedom fighters” in Libya, despite the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens at the hands of those same al-Qaeda affiliated “Freedom Fighters.” Nor will the current administration speak out for the 85 million Christians in Nigeria who have been brutalized since 2001 by Boko Haram, a terrorist group dedicated to imposing Sharia Law on all of Nigeria and devoted to killing anyone who refuses to convert to Islam.

Last year, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, the highest authority in all of Islam, proclaimed that every church in the Arabian Peninsula should be burned to the ground. Unlike the American politicians and journalists who constantly claim the violence is caused by poverty and the lack of social justice, the Grand Mufti was bluntly honest about where his inspiration to burn every church to cinders originated. He was inspired by the the Koran and the 7th century CE legal commentaries written by Islamic scholars, especially the Hadith in which Mohammad told his followers not to allow one Christian church to exist in any nation ruled by Islam. The Grand Mufti was more than happy to follow the Koran and Islamic law to the letter, no matter what the rest of the world thinks.

There is a great debate raging in the West about reaching out to moderate Muslims. Unfortunately, many Muslims living in the Middle East, Africa and Asia do not agree with the concept of moderate Islam. Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey, leader of one of the most technologically advanced and powerful Middle Eastern nations, refuted the entire concept of Moderate Islam when he said, “It is unacceptable for us to agree with such a definition. Turkey has never been a country to represent such a concept. Moreover, Islam cannot be classified as moderate or not, Islam is Islam.” He went on to say, “The mosques are our barracks, the domes are our helmets, the minarets are our swords, and the faithful are our army.” It should be noted that Turkey also leads the world in imprisoned journalists.

While it is possible for two societies to fundamentally disagree and still co-exist in a peaceful manner, it will not work when one side refuses to acknowledge reality, creates a mythical “Religion of Peace” and ignores the constant human rights violations. The West has chosen to overlook the subversive activities and constant doublespeak when dealing with the Islamic world. Prominent Imams and political leaders pontificate about religious equality for all faiths in English and then completely support  Islamic supremacy when speaking to their own citizens. The comments made by President Morsi of Egypt in 2009 are case in point, when he called Jews “descendants of apes and pigs” in an Arabic language speech to the Muslim Brotherhood, while claiming he respects Israel’s right to exist when speaking to American and European reporters.

Our jaded leaders and the mainstream media continue to make all sorts of excuses for every act of intolerance and persecution in the Islamic world, blaming it on colonialism, cultural differences and the lack of modern social benefits. We shake our heads in dismay when we read about the terrified kid in Saudi Arabia who will have his spine severed by a surgeon as punishment under Sharia Law for crippling another teenager. We excuse such completely barbaric behavior by saying we shouldn’t judge another nation’s ancient religious traditions. The Saudi Royal family laughs at us, cripples kids, and beheads women for witchcraft. We refuse to hold adults responsible for savage acts of inhumanity and we conveniently forget that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind!

Enough of my opinions for the present, let’s turn the floor over to our good friend, and Inquisitr contributor, Raymond Ibrahim for another no holds barred interview exposing Islam’s new war on Christians.

The Inquisitr interviews Raymond Ibrahim, world renowned expert on terrorism and the author of The al-Qaeda Reader:

Wolff Bachner: Raymond, your ground breaking new book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, has just been published and it is available from Amazon.Com or in bookstores across America. Why did you decide to write the book and what has the reaction been to such a powerful and controversial study?

Raymond Ibrahim: Thanks, Wolff. I wrote the book to fill the vacuum, since the mainstream media and others—such as the Obama administration—have to varying degree decided to ignore or whitewash this otherwise growing epidemic of human pain and suffering. If any other group but Christians were being attacked as they are in the Islamic world, their plight would make international headlines. But because from childhood on up in America—from high schools to universities, from the media to Hollywood—Americans are conditioned to think of Christians and their history as the fanatical and intolerant, it is difficult to acknowledge that, in fact, Christians are by far the most persecuted religious group around the word, especially the Islamic world. A January 2013 Reuters report estimates some 100 million Christians around are being persecuted for their faith. Thus I wrote this book to give voice to the many voiceless Christians suffering under Islam.

Wolff Bachner: How bad is the situation today for Christians in Muslim majority countries?

Raymond Ibrahim: The situation has gone from bad to worse, particular in light of the so-called “Arab Spring” and the Obama administration’s enthusiastic support for it, despite the fact that it continually exposes its true face as an Islamic takeover. Almost every single country that Obama has helped rebels and opposition forces to topple the secular ruling regimes has gotten markedly worse for Christians. Under Gaddafi, one never heard of Libya’s immensely small Christian minority suffering. Post-Gaddafi, and thanks to Obama’s support for the al-Qaeda linked jihadis who were always a part of the opposition, the very few churches there are under attack and bombed; nuns are harassed and forced to flee; Christians possessing Bibles are arrested and tortured (one recently died from his torture). It is the same now in Syria, which, under secular strongman Bashar Assad was tolerant towards its Christian minorities. Now, the “freedom-fighters”—code for the Obama-supported foreign jihadis—are targeting Christians for killing, displacement, and hostage taking for ransoms. The atrocities being committed are many and barbaric—beheadings, enslavements, rapes, and wholesale massacres—filling the over 300 pages of Crucified Again.

Wolff Bachner: Is the widespread persecution a product of modern social and political grievances or does the hatred of non-Muslims have a long tradition in Islam?

Raymond Ibrahim: This is a good and important question. The persecution is 100% a product of Islamic tradition. Consider: the Christians being persecuted by Muslims are identical to their persecutors: they share the same race and ethnicity; speak the same languages; are nationals of the same countries. There is nothing to distinguish the Christian from the Muslim in widely different countries like Egypt, Nigeria, and Indonesia—except, of course religion. Moreover, in all the countries I survey in Crucified Again, Christians are also politically marginalized and poorer than their Muslim counterparts. Thus it is clear that Muslim attacks on Christians and their places of worship are animated first and foremost by religious hostility, as there is no other valid or even conceivable reason to explain the violence daily visited on Christians under Islam. And yes, this hostility has a very long tradition in Islam and its teachings and doctrines, much of which I cover in the book.

Wolff Bachner: Is life improving for Christians in countries like Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Morocco, and Tunisia since the uprisings against the region’s dictators and monarchies?

Raymond Ibrahim: No, life is getting worse. Once of the most overlooked phenomena of our age is that Muslims are returning to Islam. This sounds redundant and meaningless, but I speak of a “lost history” that has blinded the West to the implications of this return. In short, because Islam is a religion that makes might right, after the Islamic world was subjugated by the West beginning with Napoleon’s easy conquest of Egypt in 1798, Muslims began seeing Westernization as pivotal to success, and thus largely turned their backs on Islam, being “Muslim” only in name. However, around mid-20th century, beginning in earnest in the “liberal” 1960s, when Western culture took a nosedive, became sexually and morally unrestrained, apologetic for itself, and seeing Western civilization, especially Christianity, as the root of the world’s sufferings, Muslims went from trying to emulate the West, to having great contempt for it, and naturally began returning to their own heritage, Islam and its Sharia—all of course to “multicultural” Western applause, since, to the West, Islam and its Sharia were, and continue to be portrayed, as great things. But of course, as Muslims turn to Islam, so too do the things of Islam—like Christian persecution—return. In fact, because I believe this era and its significance are pivotal not only to understanding Muslim persecution of Christians, but the rise of Islam as a political force, I have an early, and important chapter titled “Lost History,” where I fully elaborate on this theme.

Wolff Bachner: How has the withdrawal of US forces impacted the lives of Christians in Iraq and Afghanistan? Dr. Wagdi Gonium, a popular radical cleric in Egypt, ridiculed America when he said, “What do you think — that America will protect you? Let’s be very clear, America will not protect you. If so, it would have protected the Christians of Iraq when they were being butchered!”

Raymond Ibrahim: Honestly, the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan has not really exacerbated the sufferings of Christians, as they were still being persecuted even when U.S. forces were there. In fact, if anything, the presence of U.S. forces sometimes enables the persecution of Christians. For example, I have a whole section in Crucified Again explaining the concept of collective punishment, and how vulnerable, indigenous Christian are regular attacked in response to the actions of U.S. forces or the West in general, as many Muslims conflate the West with Christianity (when Muhammad cartoons are published in Europe, Christians around the Islamic world are attacked, their churches bombed). Speaking of churches, although some existed in Afghanistan before the U.S. invasion, a year ago the last church was formally demolished by the U.S.-installed government—and while U.S. troops were there. As for Iraq, the year following the ousting of Saddam Hussein, in 2004 and under U.S auspices, jihadis went on a church bombing spree, destroying countless churches and killing many Christians.

Wolff Bachner: Why is the Obama Administration, and the Bush Administration before them, so unwilling to say one word about the horrible violence being done to Christians across the Islamic world? For a nation that prides itself on protecting the helpless, the United States seems to have buried its head in the sand when it comes to the suffering of Christians.

Raymond Ibrahim: Quite true. There is a difference, however subtle, between Bush’s handling and Obama’s: when Bush “liberated” Iraq, and jihadis went on, among other things, a Christian persecution spree, it was still unknown to most U.S. politicians that that would be a consequence; there really weren’t many precedents to go by. On the other hand, even before Obama came to power, the fate of Christian minorities in countries “liberated” from the grip of autocrats was known (since the ousting of Saddam, more than half of Iraq’s indigenous Christians have either been killed or fled their homeland). So there was a precedent for the Obama administration to go by. Nonetheless, the administration has done all it can to empower radical forces under the umbrella of the “Arab Spring,” and the same pattern that took place a decade earlier in Iraq—the persecution of Christians, not to mention jihadi intolerance for all that is non-Islamic—has, as expected, come to all of those countries where Obama helped empower the Islamist opposition—including Egypt, Libya, and now Syria, where a recent fatwa, an Islamic decree, made it permissible for jihadis to rape all non-Sunni women, as a reward for waging jihad to empower Sharia law in Syria.

Wolff Bachner: Why do you think so many citizens in Western nations are unaware of the persecution of Christians? Every time a Jew dares to build a house on Jewish land in Jerusalem there is a major protest and its front-page news, but hundreds of Churches have been burned in the Middle East, Africa and Asia without a word in the Mainstream media.

Raymond Ibrahim: I discuss this at length in Crucified Again. In a nutshell, the mainstream media, to a great extent, exists to validate its liberal narrative, a narrative which suggests that all violence is a byproduct of some material, tangible grievance. Thus the Arab-Israeli conflict is a favorite topic for them to cover, for no matter how many rockets are shot into Tel Aviv by Hamas and Hezbollah, that will only be portrayed as proof positive that Muslims in PA territories are aggrieved and frustrated, and thus lashing out at their Israeli “oppressor.” And no matter how many times jihadi groups articulate their rage in purely Islamic terms, the media will portray their animus as a product of grievance and land conflict. On the other hand, the media finds it difficult to rationalize away Muslim attacks on Christians—Christians who are of the same race, ethnicity, and speak the same language as their Muslim persecutors. In this context, the media can’t portray the violence as a “land” dispute or a product of “grievance” (if anything it is the ostracized and politically dis-empowered Christian minorities who should have grievances). So since they can’t articulate the attacks on Christians in the established secular paradigm, their primary recourse is not to report on Christian persecution, for it is a phenomenon which throws a wrench in their otherwise well-oiled narrative of “Muslim-violence-is-a-product-of Muslim-grievance.” Other times, when they have no choice but to report on it—I have in mind the most spectacular attacks on Christians, where dozens are often killed—but only after using their entire arsenal of semantic games and relativistic, equivocating language that minimizes the religious element.

Wolff Bachner: How can the United Nations claim to be dedicated to world peace, yet they refuse to discuss or debate the treatment of Christian Copts in Egypt, the forced conversion to Islam of thousands of Christians, the violent jihad against Christian worshipers in countries like Nigeria or the public calls from prominent Islamic leaders to destroy every church in the Arabian Peninsula?

Raymond Ibrahim: Because most of those in the United Nations are byproducts of the mainstream media’s secular and liberal narrative so that, like many in the Western world, they simply cannot see Christian persecution for what it is, and much prefer to focus on those peoples whom the powers that be have bestowed the honor of being portrayed as persecuted people, chief among them Muslim Palestinians (who, ironically, often persecute the Christian minority in their midst).

Wolff Bachner: What do you foresee as the future of Christianity if the West continues to ignore the rampant persecution and murder of Christians across the Middle East, Africa and Asia?

Raymond Ibrahim: Extinction. Many forget that, when Islam burst out of Arabia during the first major wave of Islamic conquests in the 7th century, half of the world’s entire Christian population lived precisely in those lands we nonchalantly call the “Arab World”—from Morocco to Egypt in north Africa, from Syria to Turkey in Asia. Fourteen hundred years of sporadic jihads and dhimmitude has seen the slow decimation and forced conversion of Christians to Islam, making that region nearly purely Islamic. With the exception of the Christian “golden age” during and after the colonial era, when Muslims were Western-leaning, today’s jihad has resumed in an effort to eradicate Christianity from its birthplace—the Middle East—once and for all.

Wolff Bachner: What can a concerned private citizen do to help end the persecution of Christians in the Islamic world? Can they do anything to help or is it simply too late?

Raymond Ibrahim: It’s nearly too late—in some countries like Iraq, the indigenous Christian population has been decimated, and outside of Egypt, the whole of north Africa has something less than 1% of a Christian population—but there are many Muslim majority nations where Christians exist and are fighting for survival, Pakistan, Egypt, and Syria for example. Concerned citizens should contact their representatives, and visit some of the human rights organizations that fight for Christian survival I list in Crucified Again. Most importantly, they should spread the word. At this point, our paralysis is fundamentally tied up to our ignorance.

IMPORTANT UPDATE 1:00 AM CST:

Breaking news on a disturbing article just published by Raymond Ibrahim about the fate of an American citizen and Christian pastor, Saeed Abedini, rotting away in prison in Iran since the beginning of the year. The Iranian born pastor returned to the land of his childhood to open an orphanage and visit his family. He was charged with “threatening the national security” of Iran and sentenced to a minimum of eight years imprisonment in one of the worst prisons on the planet.

The pastor was sentenced in January of 2013. Since then the State Department has excluded Abedini from its Iran Prisoners List and President Obama refuses to answer questions about the case or speak out to demand the release of an American citizen being held in violation of every UN Treaty on human rights and religious freedom. We can only speculate that disarming law abiding American citizens, playing golf with Tiger Woods, and ridiculing Republicans is more important to the President than a devout and dedicated Christian pastor who is being tortured by a totalitarian religious theocracy that hangs teenage homosexuals from cranes in the public square and finances most of the world’s terrorists.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

“In January, an American Christian was sentenced to an eight-year prison sentence on charges of “endangering national security” in Iran. A 32-year-old married father of two from Boise, Idaho, Pastor Saeed Abedini traveled to his country of origin last year to visit family and help build an orphanage, only to be arrested and sent to Tehran’s brutal Evin prison.”

“According to Fox News, Abedini, a Muslim convert to Christianity—also known as an apostate deserving of death under Islamic Sharia law—is “facing physical and psychological torture at the hands of captors demanding he renounce his beliefs.” In a recent letter smuggled to family members, he recounted the “horrific pressures” and “death threats” he endures: “My eyes get blurry, my body does not have the strength to walk, and my steps become very weak and shaky… They are only waiting for one thing… for me to deny Christ. But they will never get this from me.””

Read the full story on the Human Events website.

‘Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War On Christians’: The Inquisitr Interviews Author Raymond Ibrahim is a post from: The Inquisitr

Justin Bieber’s dramatic past few months, although overblown in some reports, has led to concerns that the teen superstar is spiraling out of control, or at least struggling.

Tellingly, Cody Simpson, a friend of the “Boyfriend” star, and one of the support acts on some dates of the Believe tour, couldn’t be happier that Selena Gomez is back in the Canadian’s life.

Simpson, a 16-year-old Australian singer, recently told Hollywood Life:

“It’s good to see that. She’s always been a great influence on him. She’s amazing every time I’ve met her when I’m with him. She’s a super sweet girl. I’m happy for them.”

And it seems Simpson isn’t the only one who’s happy.

Ever since Gomez met up with Bieber in Oslo, Norway, on April 18, the 19-year-old has shown his happiness on Twitter, in a spontaneous onesie-wearing dance for Swedish fans, and most recently, in a steamy Instagram declaration of the couple’s togetherness.

So will the Spring Breakers actress’ romantic return to her once ex-boyfriend’s side calm him down? The love of a good woman and all that.

Possibly, and probably in some areas. But in others, perhaps not. Here’s why:

Although it seems clear that much of Bieber’s ‘acting out’ of the last two months has been driven by heartbreak and frustration over his relationship difficulties with Gomez, some of his behavior presents as a fairly normal — and necessary — example of teenage rebellion.

The massive step-up in tattoos, the bigger physique, his alleged liking for illicit ‘substances’ and the sexed-up stage shows, are all indications that the “Baby” singer of yesteryear is eager to cut ties with his clean-cut, kid persona.

Robyn Silverman — author, teen development specialist and public speaker — told USA Today she thought Bieber is simply going though the normal process of “identity development.”

“Most teens work through this in private but because he’s a mega superstar, we’re all watching it take place in tight, glass box. It looks to me like he wants to break out of it in some way,” said Silverman.

That ‘breaking,’ which often expresses itself as testing limits is something nearly everyone goes through on their way to adulthood, and isn’t something another person can control or change.

If Bieber is hell-bent on walking the wild side in what is officially his last year of teendom, then he will — girlfriend or not.

Having said that, nights in with La Gomez may prove more enticing than a night out with friends, and some of Bieber’s other extracurriculars may also get the heave-ho.

Ultimately, any young person — whether it’s a multi-millionaire pop superstar or your average sophomore on campus — is going to live their life exactly as they please.

There’s also this: Most healthy-minded females don’t get into a relationship to change their partner, they do it because they want to be with that person.

Despite the widely held belief that the benefit in the Gomez-Bieber union is a one-way street, it’s likely that a couple that have fought as hard as they have to be together believe they each have something to offer the relationship.

[Image via Joe Seer / Shutterstock.com]

Selena Gomez: A ‘Great Influence’ On Justin Bieber, But Will He Listen? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Justin Bieber’s equal parts shocking, entertaining and concerning Believe world tour marches headlong into its latest incident.

Swedish police have confirmed that a small amount of drugs and a stun gun were found on the singer’s tour bus during a search in Stockholm on Wednesday.

Speaking to Agence France-Presse, Stockholm police spokesman Lars Bystrom declined to identify the drug but said it had been sent to a lab for analysis. He also said no-one had been arrested because the tour bus was empty at the time of the search.

Police took the decision to search the bus after smelling what they suspected to be marijuana coming from inside the bus while it was parked outside Bieber’s Stockholm hotel. A drug squad performed the search outside the Globen Arena while the singer performed onstage.

Bieber’s Twitter response: ”Some of the [rumors] about me … where do people even get this stuff. whatever … back to the music,” followed a note to his 38 million plus followers that he had arrived in Finland.

For the past few days, there seemed to be a lull in the drama that has beset the Believe tour, coinciding with the arrival of Selena Gomez in Oslo on April 18 as Bieber performed the last of three dates in Norway.

The Spring Breakers actress was later seen in an Instagram with Bieber that he posted on Saturday then deleted, fueling speculation that the pair have reunited.

But with 28 concerts still left to go in the 125-date tour, red flags about Bieber’s behavior have given way to billboard sized questions asking what is going on with the “Baby” singer, who is no longer a baby?

Previous tour lowlights include the quarantining of the singer’s pet monkey by Munich customs officials last month. Reportedly, the teen has now decided to let the monkey be re-homed in Germany pending transfer of ownership.

Other incidents range from the social media firestorm that erupted — arguably needlessly — over a guestbook entry Bieber wrote at Amsterdam’s Anne Frank House after an April 12 visit; a run-in with a paparazzo in March; a late showing at London’s 02 Arena; fainting; nightclub rows and an allegation that he spat at and threatened his neighbor during an argument at his Calabasas home last month.

In between those in bold moments, Bieber’s persistent shirtlessness, gas mask wearing, social media venting, ab-exhibitionism avec Instagrams, and largely TMZ-Radar Online driven tales of alleged debauchery in the singer’s California mansion, have gifted an embarrassment of riches to entertainment writers and journalists around the world.

So where will it end? An intervention, a quick adjustment to maturity that will recall these past few months as just a hiccup in Bieber’s history, or somewhere much darker?

Most, if not all, of Bieber’s escapades are simply the indiscretions of youth. But, due to his intense fame they are distorted into catastrophes. The last two years look increasingly like the timeline of someone struggling to cope with the shift from child to adult star, life under the media’s white hot gaze, latterly his tour and whatever other unknowables may also be in play.

For his part, Bieber previously said in one of his many social media missives in March:

“I’m a good person with a big heart. And don’t think I deserve all this negative press … All this isn’t easy. I get angry sometimes. I’m human. I’m gonna make mistakes. [I'm] gonna grow and get better from them …”

Although it was a brutally honest statement of where he was at, unfortunately Bieber undermined its effect with an ill-thought last sentence about Lindsay Lohan which he then deleted — but not in time.

Some observers are sympathetic to the teen star’s growing pains, others not so much. But the Canadian has received support from a line-up of celebrities who empathize with Bieber’s evident discomfort.

These include; Will and Jada Pinkett Smith, will.i.am, Matthew McConaughey, One Directions Liam Tomlinson, Liam Gallagher, 50 Cent, Chris Brown, Joan Rivers, Miley Cyrus, Jessie J., Michael Buble and Mark and Donnie Wahlberg.

Speaking to The Associated Press, Donnie, former member of New Kids on the Block, said:

“Justin Bieber’s making mistakes that everyone makes and he’s probably trying things and exploring things that most kids his age explore, but the problem is he’s got 50 paparazzi chasing him when he does it.”

It’s a well observed point that echoes much of my Bieber coverage on not only the paparazzi component of his life, but the media reporting attending it.

USA Today’s Maria Peunte noted the same, writing: “The coverage of Bieber’s recent antics begins to look a little as if the media … are piling on.”

The outlet quotes Robyn Silverman — author, teen development specialist and public speaker — who says Bieber is simply going though the normal process of “identity development.”

Silverman said:

“Most teens work through this in private but because he’s a mega superstar, we’re all watching it take place in tight, glass box. It looks to me like he wants to break out of it in some way.”

A publicist’s dream for years, Bieber now chafes because the yoke of a sanitized heartthrob no longer fits. So, it seems the glass box needs to break. Question is whether Bieber will be allowed to do it at his own pace, or will it come from the sizable stones being hurled in his direction in the shape of traffic-hungry gossip media, paparazzi and the projections of his own fans?

Certainly, Bieber is responsible for the choices he makes and who and what he has chosen to surround himself with. But that process is undeniably hindered by irresponsible reporting and the kind of targeting some outlets have gone in for. Radar Online’s “disgraceful” Elizabeth Arden photo shoot ‘story’ a case in point.

Where it will end is still moot, still unwritten. But, if we aren’t to find ourselves sitting in front of screens typing that article surely no-one wants to write, we should have a care about what we put out into the slipstream. For Bieber’s sake and for all the ‘public’ children and teenagers to come.

[Image via Featureflash / Shutterstock.com]

Justin Bieber’s Assault On Precinct Europe Continues, Where Will It End? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Introductory Comments By Wolff Bachner:

Yesterday, The Inquisitr presented Part One of Raymond Ibrahim’s ground breaking article, Death to Churches Under Islam: A Study of the Coptic Church. For many of our readers, his article was a stunning introduction to a devastating Human Rights crisis that is endangering more than 10 million innocent human beings; Coptic Christians who simply want to worship the god of their choice, and be treated as equals, in the nation their ancestors inhabited hundreds of years before the birth of Mohammed and the creation of Islam.

Mr. Ibrahim described the history of the Muslim conquest of Egypt and the cruel treatment of those Copts who refused to convert to Islam. Their churches were burned by the thousands, Coptic property was stolen by Muslim looters or confiscated by the Caliphate, helpless nuns and priests were raped and murdered with impunity, and entire Christian families were sold into slavery.

Until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century, the Copts were forced to pay the Jizya tax imposed by Islam as a penalty on “unbelievers and infidels.” As Mr. Ibrahim so clearly illustrated, all this was done with the sanction of Islamic law and documented in detail by proud Muslim historians, who celebrated the persecution of the Copts as a fate they deserved for refusing to accept Allah.

Today, in Part Two of his article, Mr. Ibrahim introduces us to Coptic life in the modern era. Since the fall of Mubarak in 2011, the persecution of the Copts shifted from the more subtle economic and social inequality imposed by the previous government to a level of violence and oppression that has not been seen in several centuries.

Once again, history is going full circle, as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis take advantage of their now absolute control of Egypt to return the nation to the ruthless, authoritarian Muslim theocracy of 7th and 8th century; a time when every Christian in Egypt was forced to live under Islamic law that condemned all non-Muslims to a life of misery as permanent second class citizens:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” – Quran (9:29)

While we sit here in America, fretting about taxes, gun control and the Boston Marathon bombing, Coptic Christians are being threatened with genocide, robbed, assaulted, raped and murdered on a daily basis. Hundreds of thousands of Copts have fled Egypt since Morsi came to power last year and the millions of Copts who are unable to leave Egypt are living in constant fear for their lives.

The dedicated Islamists in the Morsi government are openly calling for the restoration of the Jizya tax on the Copts and they constantly warn that if Morsi falls from power, the Muslims will hold the Copts responsible and wipe them out to the last man, woman and child.

“A message to the church of Egypt, from an Egyptian Muslim: I tell the church — by Allah, and again, by Allah — if you conspire and unite with the remnants [opposition] to bring Morsi down, that will be another matter…. our red line is the legitimacy of Dr. Muhammad Morsi. Whoever splashes water on it, we will splash blood on him. I’m warning you now: do not play with fire! What do you think — that America will protect you? Let’s be very clear, America will not protect you. If so, it would have protected the Christians of Iraq when they were being butchered!” -  Dr. Wagdi Ghoneim, a popular Muslim Cleric and Radical Islamist firebrand.

The situation in Egypt is explosive and the potential for violence threatens to embroil the entire region in a bloodbath of unthinkable proportions. This must be prevented and the Coptic Christians of Egypt must be granted fully religious, economic, social and political equality. Not in a week or a month or a year or a decade, but today. As the fallen American President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy said, so many years ago, “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”

Death to Churches Under Islam: A Study of the Coptic Church, Part Two

By Raymond Ibrahim

The Modern Era

The sort of Muslim attacks on Christian churches described by the historian Maqrizi and conforming to the Conditions of Omar are reoccurring with increased frequency. Again, while the patterns described above are occurring all around the Muslim world—sometimes even in the West—modern day Egypt alone, with its significant Christian population, offers an abundance of recent examples.

After some 14 centuries of persecution and church attacks, Egypt’s Copts ushered in the 2011 new year by having one of their largest churches attacked: during midnight mass in the early hours of January 1, 2011, the Two Saints Coptic Church in Alexandria, crowded with hundreds of Christian worshippers praying for the new year, was bombed, leaving at least 23 dead and approximately 100 injured. According to eyewitnesses, “body parts were strewn all over the street outside the church. The body parts were covered with newspapers until they were brought inside the church after some Muslims started stepping on them and chanting jihadi chants,” including “Allahu Akbar!” Islam’s victory cry since the days of Muhammad. Eyewitnesses further attest that “security forces withdrew one hour before the church blast.” One year earlier, “drive-by Muslims shot to death six Christians as they were leaving church after celebrating Christmas mass in 2010” in Nag Hammadi.

No Church Bells, Crosses, or Renovations

The story of St. George Coptic Church in Edfu is especially instructive of the plight of churches in Egypt. Built nearly a century ago, during the Christian “Golden Age,” St. George was so dilapidated that the local council and governor approved its renovation and signed off on the design. Soon local Muslims began complaining, making various demands, including that the church be devoid of crosses and bells—as stipulated by the Conditions of Omar—because they were “irritating Muslims and their children.” Leaders later insisted that the very dome of the church be removed. Arguing that removal of the dome would likely collapse the church, the bishop refused. The foreboding cries of “Allahu Akbar!” began; Muslims threatened to raze the church and build a mosque in its place; Copts were “forbidden to leave their homes or buy food until they remove the dome of St. George’s Church”; many starved for weeks.

Then, after Friday prayers on September 30, 2011, some 3,000 Muslims rampaged the church, torched it, and demolished the dome; flames from the wreckage burned nearby Christian homes, which were further ransacked by rioting Muslims. Security, which was present, just “stood there watching,” according to Christian eyewitnesses. Edfu’s Intelligence Unit chief was seen directing the mob destroying the church. Even the governor of Aswan appeared on State TV and “denied any church being torched,” calling it a “guest home.” He even justified the incident by arguing that the church contractor made the building three meters higher than he had permitted: “Copts made a mistake and had to be punished, and Muslims did nothing but set things right, end of story,” he proclaimed on TV.

It was this incident which caused Egypt’s Christians to protest in October 2011, leading to the Maspero Massacre, when the Egyptian military intentionally targeted and killed dozens of Christian protesters, including by running them over with armored vehicles—even as state media lied by portraying the Christians as the aggressors and the military as the victim, a narrative which the Western mainstream media gullibly disseminated.
In July 2011, a Muslim mob went on a violent spree, attacking, among others a 5-month pregnant Christian woman and other Christians who were “beaten with iron rods and pipes.” According to Fr. Estephanos of the region, “The real reason behind this assault was the church bell, which has greatly angered the Muslims in the village. This is the first time such an incident has taken place in this village which is 60-75% Christian, and the reason is definitely the presence of the church bell.” As seen in the Conditions of Omar, church bells are forbidden in Islam.

Similarly, in October 2011, in the Upper Egyptian village of Elmadmar which only has two churches to serve 15,000 Christians, Muslim mobs surrounded one of these two churches, St. Mary’s Church, hurling bricks at it and trying to demolish it, while chanting “No to the church.” Although it has had state security approval to operate, its license was still pending. According to the priest, “Muslims claim that we hold a mass every day at 4 PM, and we ring the church bell, which the church does not have, besides singing hymns, which they claim disturbs them.”

Collective Punishment

Many attacks on Coptic churches occur in the context of “collective punishment,” which also has echoes tracing back to the Conditions of Omar. After naming any number of other conditions—including not displaying crosses, not ringing bells, not singing loudly—the Conditions of Omar concludes by having Christians agree that “if we change or contradict these conditions imposed upon ourselves . . . we forfeit our dhimma [covenant], and we become liable to the same treatment you inflict upon the people who resist and cause sedition.”

Accordingly, throughout Islamic history to the present moment, anytime any Christian anywhere has been accused of breaking Sharia’s dhimmi laws, churches—at once the most obvious and vulnerable representation of Christianity—are first to be attacked in retribution by the Muslim mob, often in the context of collective punishment.

This has centuries of historical precedents. While discussing the status of churches in the Middle East after the Islamic invasions, Bat Ye’or writes “they were often burned or demolished in the course of reprisals against infidels found guilty of overstepping their rights.” Collective punishment is even doctrinally approved: the Yemeni jurist al-Murtada wrote, “The agreement will be canceled if all or some of them break it.” At the other end of the Arab world, the Moroccan jurist al-Maghili taught that “the fact that one individual (or one group) among them has broken the statute is enough to invalidate it for all of them.”

Thus, for some 14 centuries churches have been treated as hostages to guarantee good (that is, submissive) Christian behavior. For example, in March 2011, a Muslim mob attacked the local Church of the Two Martyrs in Sool, south of Cairo, burning it down, even as a Muslim prayer leader called on Muslims to “kill all the Christians.” Adding insult to injury, the attackers played “soccer” with the ancient relic-remains of the church’s saints and martyrs. Afterwards, throngs of Muslims gathered around the scorched building where they spent some 20 hours pounding its walls down with sledgehammers to cries of “Allahu Akbar.”

Even minor details like desecrating the relics of Coptic saints have immense continuity. Discussing the Muslim attack on the Church of Shubra, Maqriz writes: “after it had been demolished, the fingers of a [Christian] martyr which were kept in a casket…. Were then burnt in presence of the Sultan…”

Neither the military nor state security appeared—and this was happening near Cairo, Egypt’s capital, not some inaccessible village. After demolishing it, a group of Muslims held prayers at the site and began making plans to build a mosque atop the destroyed church—a live example of history, almost identical to the examples recorded a millennium earlier by the Egyptian historian Maqrizi and others. Because of the attack, Copts in Sool fled to adjacent villages. Women who remained in the village were sexually assaulted.

Less violently, in January, 2012, before a bishop was going to celebrate Epiphany Mass in the Abu Makka church, several Muslims, mostly Salafis and Muslim Brotherhood members, entered the building, saying that the church had no permit and no Christian can pray in it. One Muslim was heard to remark that the building would be suitable for a Muslim mosque.

In May 2011, throngs of Muslims, estimated at 3,000, fired guns and rifles and hurled Molotov cocktails at Coptic churches, homes, and businesses in the Imbaba region near Cairo: twelve Christians were killed—some shot by snipers atop rooftops—232 injured; three churches were set aflame to cries of “Allahu Akbar,” while Coptic homes were looted and torched. As usual, Egyptian leadership did little to stop this rampage, showing up nearly five hours after it began, providing ample time to terrorize the Copts. One priest said “I called everyone, but no one bothered to come. I mourn all those young people who died.” The pretext for this particular attack was that a Christian girl had converted to Islam and the Coptic Church had supposedly responded by abducting and torturing her into renouncing Islam. Muslims found this argument persuasive, of course, because that is precisely what Islam requires Muslims to do to female apostates who convert to Christianity.

In February 2012, thousands of Muslims attacked a Coptic church, demanding the death of its pastor, who, along with “nearly 100 terrorized Copts sought refuge inside the church, while Muslim rioters were pelting the church with stones in an effort to break into the church, assault the Copts and torch the building.” They did this because a Christian girl who, according to Islamic law, automatically became a Muslim when her father converted to Islam, fled her father and was rumored to be hiding in the church. Again, one is reminded that the Conditions of Omar stipulate that Christians shall not prevent any of their family members from converting to Islam—or in this case, aid a hapless Christian who, because of Sharia law, found herself Muslim one day.

No to Churches, Period

In June 2011, hundreds of Muslims surrounded another St. George Church, south of Minya, vowing to kill its priest—who was locked inside serving morning mass to several parishioners. The Muslims cried “We will kill the priest, we will kill him and no one will prevent us,” adding that they would “cut him to pieces.” As usual, police and security forces gave the terrorists ample time to terrorize—appearing a full five hours after the incident began; and when they escorted the priest out, it “looked as if he was the criminal, leaving his church in a police car.” Several reasons were given for this attack, from claims that the priest had earlier tried to make renovations to the 100-year old church, to claims that the priest refused demands from local Muslims that the Christians in the region must pay jizya.

In May 2011, hundreds of Muslims, angered by the prospect of a government-closed church re-opening in their neighborhood, protested and rioted in front of the church, causing the provisional military authority to back away from its promise to reopen it. Before its scheduled reopening, the Church of the Virgin Mary and St. Abraam in Ain Shams, a poor section of northeastern Cairo, was surrounded by Muslims preventing anyone from getting in and trapping the priests who were inside. Fights ensued between Copts and Muslims, leading to the injury and arrest of the former. Muslims besieged the church and threatened to kill the head priest of the congregation, trapping those inside.

Other times, the mere rumor of a church being built or renovated prompts Muslim violence and chaos. On January 16, 2013, hundreds of Muslims in the village of Fanous destroyed a social services building belonging to a Coptic Church while chanting Islamic slogans. Security forces arrived only after the building was completely destroyed. “The social services building had all the necessary government permits; it had a reception hall on the first floor and a kindergarten on the second. But the Muslims insisted that it would become a church.” Even so, surrounding mosques began called on Muslims through their megaphones to go and help their Muslim brethren in Fanous, because Christians were “building a church.”

Earlier, in March 2012, some 1,500 Muslims—several armed with swords and knives and shouting Islamic slogans—terrorized the Notre Dame Language School in Upper Egypt, in response to calls from local mosques which falsely claimed that the private school was building a church: “Two nuns were besieged in the school’s guesthouse for some eight hours by a murderous mob threatening to burn them alive”; one nun suffered a “major nervous breakdown requiring hospitalization… The entire property was ransacked and looted. The next day the Muslims returned and terrorized the children. Consequently, school attendance has dropped by at least one third.”

In fact, attacks on convents in Egypt—often followed by mass rapes—have a long history. Maqrizi recounts several, including one at the hands of a caliph, Marwan II (r.744–50). During one of his raids ordered on churches and monasteries, Marwan “made captive a number of women from among the nuns of several convents. And he tried to seduce one of them.” The account describes how the enslaved nun deceived him into killing him, by telling him she had a magic oil that make skin impenetrable: “She then took some oil and anointed herself with it; then stretched out her neck, which he smote with the sword, and made her head fly. He then understood that she preferred death to defilement.”

Islamic Supremacism

Other attacks are simple byproducts of the culture of Islamic supremacism, and the hate and contempt it engenders for Christians and their “houses of infidelity.” On Friday, February 15, Muslims in the village of Sarsena attacked and set fire to the church of St. George and hurled stones at it. This latest assault was prompted by Salafi Muslims instigating the villagers to attack the church because it is “an unlawful neighbor to the Muslims who live adjacent to it and must therefore be moved.” According to the report, “The mob climbed to the church dome and started demolishing it and setting it on fire. The dome collapsed into the burning church and caused great damage. Muslims used bricks from the dome and the holy cross and hurled it at the altar inside the church, causing part of it to be demolished; all the icons of saints were destroyed.” Security was present throughout this entire attack but did nothing.

In October 2012, another group of Muslims, led by Mostafa Kamel, a prosecutor at the Alexandria Criminal Court, broke into the Church of St. Mary in Rashid near Alexandria and proceeded to destroy its altar, under claims that he bought the 9th century church, which, in fact, was earlier sold to the Copts by the Greeks due to the latter’s dwindling numbers in Egypt.  Two priests, Fr. Maximos and Fr. Luke, rushed to the police station for aid. Kamel and his two sons also came to the police station where they openly threatened to kill the two priests and their lawyer. Said Fr. Maximos: “We stayed at the police station for over six hours with the police begging prosecutor Kamel and his two sons not to demolish the church”; Fr. Luke said that the prosecutor had earlier lost all the cases he brought against the church, “So when this route failed, he tried taking the matter into his own hands.”

In June 2012, because many visiting Christians came to attend service, Muslims surrounded St. Lyons Coptic Church during Divine Liturgy “demanding that the visiting Copts leave the church before the completion of prayers, and threatening to burn down the church if their demand was not met.” The priest contacted police asking for aid only to be told to comply with Muslim demands, “and do not let buses with visitors to come to the church anymore.” Christian worshippers exited halfway through Mass to jeers outside. As they drove away, Muslims hurled stones at the buses.

The same story repeated itself in October 2012, when a Muslim mob consisting mostly of Salafis surrounded the St. George Church in the Beni Suef Governorate.  Armed with batons, they assaulted Christians as they exited the church after Sunday mass, leaving five hospitalized with broken limbs.  The Salafi grievance was that Christians from neighboring villages—who have no churches to serve them—were traveling and attending St. George.  The priest could not go out of church for hours after mass, even though he contacted police, who only came after a prominent Coptic lawyer complained to the Ministry of Interior concerning the lack of response from police, saying “I want the whole world to know that a priest and his congregation are presently held captives in their church, afraid of the Salafi Muslims surrounding the church.”

This desire to make things complicated for Christians by not allowing them to enter churches out of their jurisdiction is echoed by Muslim prophet Muhammad’s command to Muslims: “Do not initiate the Salam [peace greeting] to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley,” which has always been interpreted to mean that Muslims should make things hard on dhimmis.

Outside Egypt

Amazingly, even when Copts quit their homeland in hopes to practice their Christian faith in peace, Muslim persecution follows them. Most recently, in New Jersey, two Coptic Christian youth were found buried, decapitated and with their hands cut off. Police say they have not been able to unearth the motive of their murderer, a Muslim. Yet one cannot but remember the haunting words of the Koran: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, so strike [them] upon the necks [decapitate them] and strike from them every fingertip.” [Koran 8:12]

Coptic churches are under attack outside Egypt. In Libya, for example, where, thanks to U.S. support, “freedom fighters” took over the nation, on Sunday, December 30, 2012, an explosion rocked a Coptic Christian church near the western city of Misrata, where a group of U.S. backed rebels hold a major checkpoint, killing two. Two months later, on February 28, another Coptic Christian church located in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked by armed Muslim militants, resulting in serious injuries for the priest and an assistant. This is to say nothing of the approximately 100 Coptic Christians who were arrested and tortured—including with acid and by having their heads shaven, concentration camp style—on the accusation that they were trying to “proselytize” to Libyans. One Christian man, Ezzat Atallah, died under torture.

The attacks on Christian churches have now even reached North America. In Canada in late October 2012, just as happens regularly in Egypt, a Molotov cocktail was hurled through the window of a newly opened Coptic church near Toronto.  Unlike in Egypt, however, firefighters came quickly, even as “Police have no suspects or motive in the incident.” Needless to say, for centuries, Copts have only been all too familiar with the suspects and motives. Thus as Egypt’s Christians flee their indigenous homeland searching to worship in peace, the jihad of hate follows.

Conclusion

While the above anecdotes, both past and present, have almost exclusively dealt with Egypt, the fact is that churches throughout the entire Islamic world have experienced, and continue to experience, a similar pattern of abuse at the hands of Muslims. The key to understanding why Egypt is especially paradigmatic has to do with numbers. How many Christians and Muslims there are in any given country—especially their ratio to one another—is the primary factor behind which countries see the most and least attacks on Christian churches. For example, Saudi Arabia, which is vehemently more anti-Christian than Egypt, also sees much less accounts of persecution of Christians. The reason for this conundrum is simple: Saudi Arabia has nipped the problem in the bud by banning Christianity altogether; there are no churches to bomb or burn. Similarly, the ravages of the historic jihad have seen the decimation of Christianity in Muslim lands not traditionally deemed “radical.” For instance, the whole of north Africa—which, prior to the Islamic conquests, was Christian, giving the world giants like St. Augustine who played a major role in articulating Western Christianity—sees much less Christian persecution than Egypt, simply because there are virtually no Christians left to persecute (less than 1% of the entire population, from Morocco to Libya).

On the other hand, the very large numbers of Christians in Egypt—according to the baptismal records of the Coptic Orthodox Church, there are some 16 million Christian Copts in Egypt—prompt regular attacks on Christian churches. Thus, due to the large number of Christians in modern day Egypt, that nation offers a live glimpse of history—a live glimpse of the fate of Christians and their churches under centuries of Islam, and the true reason millions of Christians ended up converting to Islam: to evade oppression as Christians.

End Of Part Two – Be sure to join us next week for Part Three of this series, when we conduct an interview with Raymond Ibrahim to discuss his new book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of Wolff Bachner and Raymond Ibrahim and do not reflect the opinion of The Inquisitr.

The Fate Of Egypt’s Coptic Christians: Part Two With Raymond Ibrahim is a post from: The Inquisitr

Introduction By The Inquisitr’s Wolff Bachner:

The Coptic Christian Church of Egypt was once the world’s largest Christian community. After the Islmaic conquest that began in 639 CE, the invaders gave the Copts a choice of converting to Islam or death and most of Egypt’s Christians became Muslims. The great congregation of Christian believers was scattered and the Copts of Egypt began their slow descent as a powerless minority.

Recently, we witnessed the unprecedented attack on Cairo’s St. Marks Cathedral, the most sacred site in Coptic Christianity. The attack by a heavily armed mob of Muslim Brotherhood supporters was witnessed by security forces and Egyptian police, who refused to intervene while hundreds of Christians trapped inside the Cathedral were pelted with fire bombs and snipers fired into the building from the surrounding rooftops. To the world’s Coptic faithful, the attack on the Cairo Cathedral is as serious as an attack on the Vatican would be to Roman Catholics or an attack on the Kaaba in Mecca would be to Muslims.

Every day, more Christian Churches are burned in Egypt, more Copts die at the hands of the mob, more Coptic teenage girls are kidnapped, forced to convert to Islam and marry their abductors, and more Copts flee their homeland for safety in foreign countries. The international community has barely noticed the unrelenting persecution of 10 million human beings and the constant calls for genocide by Salafi and Muslim Brotherhood Preachers. Obama continues to give hundreds of millions of dollars to the Morsi government and sends jet fighters and tanks to arm the same soldiers who do nothing when the Copts are being attacked, unless they use the tanks to run over Coptic mourners on their way to bury their dead.

Raymond Ibrahim is the son of Coptic Christian parents who left Egypt to find freedom in America. He is recognized around the world as a leading expert on al-Qaeda and militant Islam. As the author of The Al Qaeda Reader, Mr. Ibrahim was the first scholar to translate the actual writings of Osama Bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri. His ground breaking work gave the non-Muslim world insight into the religious philosophy that is the motivating factor behind everything the Radical Islamists do and say; all of which is based on their interpretation of the Qu’ran and 1400 years of Islamic jurisprudence.

Over the years, many apologists for Radical Islam have used most American’s lack of fluency in Arabic as an excuse to claim Westerners misunderstand the Qu’ran or they are being lied to by people who hate Muslims. Raymond Ibarhim grew up speaking English and Modern Arabic and he speaks both languages with equal skill. He is also fluent in classical Arabic, the original language of the Qu’ran, He has studied the Qu’ran and he has studied the Hadith, the Sunnah, and Sharia; all in their original Arabic. He is fully versed in Islam and he can not be dismissed as a Western outsider, ignorant of the practices and language of Islam.

Raymond Ibrahim is one of the few brave individuals willing to put his life and his reputation on the line to inform the world about the plight of the Coptic people. He has written extensively about the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt and the assault on their faith by the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafi extremists, and the Morsi government. His new book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, will be released later this month. The book is a must read for anyone who cares about human dignity and the right to worship the god of your own choosing, free from persecution and oppression.

Many of our readers are already familiar with the work of Raymond Ibrahim as a contributor to The Inquisitr and through several in-depth interviews he conducted with our political writer, Wolff Bachner. Over the next few days we will be presenting a three part article by Mr. Ibrahim, Death to Churches Under Islam: A Study of the Coptic Church. The article will reveal the danger facing 10 million innocent human beings in Egypt, who are at risk of genocide simply because they have chosen to worship Jesus Christ.

Part One of Raymond Ibrahim’s article will introduce you to the early history of the Coptic Christian Church and give you a clear picture of what life was like for Coptic Christians after Islam conquered the region in the 7th century. The documentation for Mr. Ibrahim’s article does not come for Western historians. It comes directly from the writings of Islamic scholars and historians dating back to the actual events. The faithful recorders of Islamic history never tried to deny or hide the truth. They kept accurate records of the events of the times, unvarnished by any fear of outside criticism or political correctness. To the great Muslim writers, Islam was the only correct religion and they felt no need to apologize for wishing to make it the one faith for all of mankind.

Join us now for Part One of Raymond Ibrahim’s powerful article. The very survival of ten million Copts hangs in the balance.

Death to Churches Under Islam: A Study of the Coptic Church, Part One

By Raymond Ibrahim

Christians throughout the Islamic world are under attack. Unlike Muslim attacks on Christians, which are regularly confused with a myriad of social factors, the ongoing attacks on Christian churches in the Muslim world are perhaps the most visible expression of Christian persecution under Islam. In churches, Christians throughout the Islamic world are simply being Christians—peacefully and apolitically worshiping their God. And yet modern day Muslim governments try to prevent them, Muslim mobs attack them, and Muslim jihadis massacre them.

To understand the nature of this perennial hostility, one must first examine Muslim doctrines concerning Christian churches; then look at how these teachings have manifested themselves in reality over the course of centuries; and finally look at how modern day attacks on Christian churches mirror the attacks of history, often in identical patterns. The continuity is undeniable.

Because tracing and documenting the treatment of churches across the thousands of miles of formerly Christian lands conquered by Islam is well beyond the purview of this study, a paradigm is needed. Accordingly, an examination of the treatment of Christian churches in Egypt suffices as a model for understanding the fate churches under Islamic dominion. Indeed, as one of the oldest and largest Muslim nations, with one of the oldest and largest Christian populations, Egypt is the ultimate paragon for understanding all aspects of Christianity under Islam, both past and present. [For a complete survey of the fate of Christians and their churches throughout the entire Muslim world, both past and especially present, see author’s new book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (Regnery, April, 2013).]

Muslim Doctrine Concerning Churches

Sharia law is draconian if not hostile to Christian worship. Consider the words of some of Islam’s most authoritative and classic jurists, the same ones revered today by Egypt’s Salafis. According to Ibn Qayyim author of the multi-volume Rules for the Dhimmis, it is “obligatory” to destroy or convert into a mosque “every church” both old and new that exists on lands that were taken by Muslims through force, for they “breed corruption.” Even if Muslims are not sure whether one of “these things [churches] is old [pre-conquest] or new, it is better to err on the side of caution, treat it as new, and demolition it.”

Likewise, Ibn Taymiyya confirms that “the ulema of the Muslims from all four schools of law—Hanafi, Shafi‘i, Maliki, Hanbali, and others, including al-Thawri, al-Layth, all the way back to the companions and the followers—are all agreed that if the imam destroys every church in lands taken by force, such as Egypt, Sudan, Iraq, Syria … this would not be deemed unjust of him,” adding that, if Christians resist, “they forfeit their covenant, their lives, and their possessions.” Elsewhere he writes, “Wherever Muslims live and have mosques, it is impermissible for any sign of infidelity to be present, churches or otherwise.”

Echoing the words of the jurists that the church is “worse than bars and brothels” and “houses of torment and fire,” in August 2009, Dar al-Ifta, an Al Azhar affiliate, issued a fatwa likening the building of a church to “a nightclub, a gambling casino, or building a barn for rearing pigs, cats or dogs.” In July 2012, Dr. Yassir al-Burhami, a prominent figure in Egypt’s Salafi movement, issued a fatwa forbidding Muslim taxi-drivers and bus-drivers from transporting Coptic Christian priests to their churches, which he depicted as “more forbidden than taking someone to a liquor bar.”

Regardless, one need only examine the Conditions of Omar—an influential document Muslims attribute to 7th century Caliph Omar, purportedly ratified with a conquered Christian community—to appreciate the plight of the church under Islam. Among other things, conquered Christians had to agree:

Not to build a church in our city… and not to repair those that fall in ruins or are in Muslim quarters;…. Not to clang our cymbals except lightly and from the innermost recesses of our churches; Not to display a cross on them [churches], nor raise our voices during prayer or readings in our churches anywhere near Muslims; Not to produce a cross or [Christian] book in the markets of the Muslims;…. [I]f we change or contradict these conditions imposed upon ourselves . . . we forfeit our dhimma [covenant], and we become liable to the same treatment you inflict upon the people who resist and cause sedition.

History

When it comes to churches, Islamic history is a testimony to Islamic doctrine: under Muslim rule, from the 7th century to the present, tens of thousands of churches that were once spread across thousands of miles of formerly Christian lands, were attacked, plundered, ransacked, destroyed and/or converted into mosques. Such a large number is consistent with the fact that, at the time of the Muslim conquests, half of the world’s entire Christian population lived in those lands invaded and subjugated by Islam.

According to one medieval Muslim historian, over the two-year-course of a particularly ruthless Christian persecution campaign, some 30,000 churches were burned or pillaged in Egypt and Syria alone. Major church attacks during Abbasid rule include when “the Muslims in Jerusalem made a rising [in 936] and burnt down the Church of the Resurrection [believed to be built atop the tomb of Christ] which they plundered, and destroyed all they could of it.” Nearly a century later, Caliph Hakim bi-Amr Allah (r. 996-1021) ordered that the already ravaged Church of the Resurrection be torn down “to its very foundations, apart from what could not be destroyed or pulled up, and they also destroyed the Golgotha and the Church of Saint Constantine and all that they contained, as well as all the sacred gravestones. They even tried to dig up the graves and wipe out all traces of their existence.”

A Coptic Paradigm

The history, or plight, of Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox Church is well preserved. The History of the Patriarchate of the Egyptian Church, for instance, a multivolume chronicle begun under Coptic Bishop Severus ibn al-Muqaffa in the 10th century, records innumerable massacres and persecutions over the centuries, from destroyed churches, to crucified Christians, to raped and murdered nuns.

However, to bypass the objection that Christian writers may have been biased against their persecutors, let us content ourselves with the famous history of Taqi al-Din al-Maqrizi (1364 – 1442), the most authoritative Muslim scholar of Egyptian history in the Middle Ages. His account appears especially objective when one considers that the pious Muslim Maqriz was no friend to the Christians. For example, after recounting centuries of persecution and church destruction at the hands of Muslims, Maqrizi concludes by sounding like a modern-day Salafi, blaming Christians for their own persecution: “For from the traces they left, will then be seen how shamefully they intrigued against Islamism and the followers of it, as any one may know who looks into the lowness of their origin, and the old hated of their ancestors towards our religion and the doings thereof.”

In Maqrizi’s account, things appear relatively quiet during the first century of Islam’s occupation of Egypt (circa 641-741), no doubt due to the fact that Christians still numerically overwhelmed their Muslim conquerors. By 767, however, after decades of Coptic uprisings in face of abuses, “heavier hardships than ever fell upon the Christians, who were obliged to eat the[ir] dead; while their new churches in Egypt were destroyed. The church of Mary anent (alongside) that of Abu Senuda in Egypt was also pulled down, as well as that in the ward of Constantine, which the Christians entreated Suliman bin Ali, Emir of Egypt, to spare for fifty thousand dinars; but he would not.” By 845, al-Mutawakal ordered Christian churches to be pulled down. In 912, “the great church in Alexandria, known as that of the Resurrection, was burnt down.” In 939, “the Muslims made another rising in the city of Askalon, where they demolished the Greek Church of Mary, and plundered what was in it.”

Then comes the era of the aforementioned Caliph Hakim bi-Amr Allah, who decimated the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem. In the words of al-Maqrizi:

And in his [al-Hakim’s] time, hardships such as one never saw befell the Christians…. He then laid his hands on all endowments of the churches and of the monasteries, which he confiscated to the public treasury, and wrote to that effect to all his provinces. He then burnt the wood of a great many crosses, and forbade the Christians to buy men or maid servants [which were often set free]; he pulled down the churches that were in the street Rashida, outside the city of Misr [Old Cairo]. He then laid in ruins the churches of al-Maqs outside Cairo, and made over their contents to the people, who plundered them of more goods than can be told. He threw down the convent of al-Qosseir, and gave it to the people to sack….He then set about demolishing all churches, and made over to the people, as prey and forfeit, all that was in them, and all that was settled on them. They were then all demolished, all their furniture and chattels were plundered, their endowments were forfeited to others, and mosques were built in their place. He allowed the call to prayer from the church of Senuda in Misr; and built a wall around the church of Mo’allaqa [the Hanging Church], in Qasr esh-Sema. Then many people [Muslims] sent up letters to request to be allowed to search the churches and monasteries in provinces of Egypt. But their request was hardly delivered [at headquarters], when a favorable answer was returned to the request; so they took the vessels and chattel of the churches and of the monasteries, and sold them in the market places of Egypt, together with what they found in those churches of gold and silver vessels, and things of the kind; and bartered their endowments. The emir also wrote to the intendants of the provinces to support the Muslims in their destruction of the churches and of monasteries. And the work of demolition in Egypt was so general in the year 1012, that according to statements on which one can rely, as to what was demolished at the end of the year 1014, both in Egypt and in Syria and the provinces thereof, of temples built by the Greeks—it amounted to more than 3,000 churches [the original Arabic says 30,000]. All the gold and silver vessels in them were plundered, their endowments were forfeited; and those endowments were splendid and bestowed on wonderful edifices.

Finally, after describing different forms of persecutions against Christians during Hakim’s reign, Maqrizi, the Muslim historian, makes an interesting observation: “Under these circumstances a great many Christians became Muslims.” In another place, after recounting how “the greater number of the churches of the Sa‘id [Upper Egypt] had been pulled down, and mosques built in their stead,” the historian notes again the typical consequence: “more than four hundred and fifty Christians became Muslims in one day.”

It bears repeating that the Muslim Maqrizi had no great love for Egypt’s Christians, and made disparaging observations concerning them in his volumes—thereby making his account of persecution all the more trustworthy.

Because Hakim’s persecution was so terrible and far-reaching, most modern Western historians acknowledge it, even as they portray it as an aberration of a madman, implying that Christians suffered only under his rule. Yet there is no dearth of Muslim leaders throughout the whole of Islamic history that did not at one time or another persecute Christians and their churches.

If Hakim is remembered as a terrible and insane tyrant, consider Caliph Harun al-Rashid, who in the West is depicted as a colorful and fun-loving prankster in the Arabian Nights. Though renowned for his secular pursuits—including riotous living, strong drink and harems of concubines, to the point that a modern day female Kuwaiti activist referred to him as a model to justify the institution of sex-slavery—Harun al-Rashid was still pious enough “to force Christians to distinguish themselves by dress, to expel them from their positions, and to destroy their churches through the use of fatwas by the imams.” Similarly, Saladin (Salah ad-Din)—another Muslim ruler who is habitually portrayed in the West as magnanimous and tolerant—commanded that all crucifixes on Coptic church domes be destroyed, and that “whoever saw that the outside of a church was white, to cover it with black dirt,” as a sign of degradation.

Indeed, in 1354, well after the “mad caliph” Hakim was gone, churches were still under attack, including by Muslim mobs, who, according to Maqrizi, “demolished a church anent the Bridge of Lions, and a church in the street el-Asra in Misr, and the Church of Fahhadin within the precincts of Cairo; also the Convent of Nehya in Djizah, and a church in the neighborhood of Bataq al-Tokruni; they plundered the wealth of the churches they demolished, which was great; and carried away even the woodwork and slabs of alabaster. They rushed upon the churches of Misr and Cairo…”

Such was the state of affairs of churches under Islam, explaining how, over the course of nearly 14 centuries, former centers of Christianity like Egypt, were reduced to sporadic enclaves that came to resemble dilapidated strongholds of Christianity surrounded by a sea of Muslim hostility.

And such is the state of affairs of Christian churches throughout much of the Muslim world at this very moment as the past returns to the present.

End Of Part One.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of Wolff Bachner and Raymond Ibrahim and do not reflect the opinion of The Inquisitr.

The Fate Of Egypt’s Coptic Christians: Part One With Raymond Ibrahim is a post from: The Inquisitr

Justin Bieber’s estrangement from his pet monkey Mally appears to be nearing its inevitable conclusion.

Yesterday, it was widely reported that the Munich animal shelter — where the monkey is being cared for — told The Associated Press they had received two emails from a representative claiming to be from Bieber’s management team, asking for information with a view to placing Mally in a zoo.

“Our team is looking into the idea of placing Mally at a zoo in Germany. Would you happen to have any recommendations for places that Mally would be safe and thrive?” said one email, according to the AP.

The email added: “Again, we are very concerned that Mally is safe and placed in the best possible residence.”

Munich customs spokesman Thomas Meister later confirmed Mally wouldn’t be going anywhere until either Bieber or someone with his power of attorney gets in touch with them directly.

Meister said: “If by May 17 there is nothing, then he loses ownership of the animal and it becomes the property of the Federal Republic of Germany.”

Bieber took Mally to Munich on March 28 via private jet ahead of a Believe tour concert that same night. The now 17-week-old monkey was a birthday gift from a producer named Jamal ‘Mally Mall’ Rashid.

Understandably, Munich customs officials removed Mally from Bieber when he was unable to provide health and ownership documentation at the airport. The capuchin was immediately placed in quarantine.

Karl Heinz Joachim, boss at the Munich Animal Protection League Shelter told Mail Online, said Bieber’s reps had originally tried to arrange for Mally’s return. ”[They] indicated that they want the monkey back,” said Joachim earlier this month.

“But that just isn’t acceptable [because] the baby monkey needs company and to be with other monkeys at this crucial age in its life … [He] was never going to be suited to be on a world tour, even if he is travelling by private jet. He should be out in the wild climbing trees,” he added.

Joachim previously called on the Canadian teen to “do the decent thing and let the monkey be free for adoption,” their preference an animal welfare sanctuary rather than a zoo.

Such is the context of the Bieber-Mally saga. So, what now?

Clearly, a 19-year-old superstar going through what appears to be a turbulent, teenage period of his life, exacerbated by the glare of constant media focus, is a totally inappropriate owner for a baby primate.

In fact, according to the enraged animal welfare groups who accused Bieber of “monstrous” “neglect” and “cruelty,” no individual should ever own a capuchin monkey, especially one taken from its mother at just nine weeks old.

Dr. Ros Clubb, senior physician for the UK’s Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), previously said:

“Many people see monkeys like capuchins and marmosets as small and easy to keep but this is far from the truth – they are very hard to look after and totally unsuitable as pets. They can also be dangerous.”

Therein, lies the paradox.

Most, if not all, the coverage on this story insists Bieber has “abandoned” Mally. One outlet went so far as to say the singer had left Mally “to die” in Germany. It should be noted that the Munich shelter assured Bieber’s representative (after he inquired) that animals in German shelters are not euthanized.

So, if we accept that Bieber made a bad decision to first accept the monkey as a gift and then travel with it (and without documents) — what’s the alternative?

The best possible scenario now for Mally is an appropriate home where he can integrate one with his own kind and develop normally, and doesn’t exploit him as a money-making sideshow.

Bieber cannot meet Mally’s needs. And it seems that he and/or his management team have also come to the same conclusion. In fact, provided he (or his reps) follows through and terminates ownership, it could even be argued that the teen singer has finally put Mally first.

Bieber made mistakes here, that’s a given. But the greater one would be to compound it.

[Image via Featureflash / Shutterstock.com]

Justin Bieber Gives Up Monkey: Damned If He Does, Damned If He Doesn’t is a post from: The Inquisitr

As Facebook receives $18 million in tax credits for 31 jobs in Iowa, some people are asking whether their tax money is being wasted.

Iowa politicians agreed to provide Facebook with an $8 million refund of sales tax and $10 million in tax credits, which is where the $18 million comes from. The overall cost raised from capital investment is expected to exceed $300 million. Facebook’s investment would grow to a billion dollars within five or six years.

Iowa Gov Terry Branstad says, ”It’s good to be friends with Facebook. It’s high-tech, high-profile. It’s going to put Iowa on the world map, along with our connections with the president of China. This is a big deal. Facebook, like Google and others that have located in Iowa, we expect this will grow. … It’s an exciting beginning.”

You might ask, why Iowa? Like Facebook, Google has data centers spread out over all the United States. The reason brings to mind the old real estate quote which says, “Location. Location. Location.” Iowa is central to the US and data centers tend to replicate information to be closer to users.

With the $18 million the Facebook data center will create 31 jobs, which amounts to $580,000 per job if given in only one year. That sounds like these IT guys will be way, way overpaid, does it not? So where is that $18 million in Iowan tax credits going?

The Facebook data center in Iowa is expected to pay at least $23.12 an hour on average. That works out to be about a $48,000 salary before benefits. But the Iowa tax abatement will be spread over 20 years, which shrinks that $580,000 a job down to a mere $29,000 if applied evenly per year. Data centers also use a lot of power, which means that over time power companies may have to expand, meaning even more jobs.

What do you think about Facebook receiving $18 million for “only” 31 jobs in Iowa?

Facebook Gets $18 Million For 31 Jobs In Iowa, Is Your Tax Money Being Wasted? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Wii U appears doomed, but can Mario save Nintendo this time?

Super Mario Bros. was the reason a lot of us bought Nintendo’s eight bit console, and the franchise has sold strong ever since. Between Mario and Zelda, Nintendo has never had to worry about money. The goofy Italian plumber and the silent elf-like swordsman of Hyrule have always pulled Nintendo out of some tight spots. It’s no wonder, really, as those games have always oozed quality and fun.

However, ever since the Virtual Boy, Nintendo has been slipping further into a financial hole. The failed virtual reality console gave us eye strain and called itself portable, but just try playing it on the bus and you’ll see how portable it really wasn’t. I never once felt the urge to buy one.

The last few consoles Nintendo has produced barely had a profit margin beyond the retail price, but the games have helped make them worth owning, so Nintendo stayed afloat. They went the shaving razor route, expecting the attachments to make all the money. It looked like doom was imminent with the N64, to be honest, and it was because of Super Mario 64, The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, and Goldeneye that the console gained staying power. The upgrade to 3D with most franchises failed most of the time (Castlevania, anyone?), and the N64 was hit the hardest with the bad attempts.

Now the Wii U has launched, and the games are trickling in like water through a terminated connection that someone forgot to turn off all the way. Need for Speed Most Wanted U, Dead or Alive 5 Plus, and possibly Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate look like the most promising games on the console, but it doesn’t seem to be enough to pull Nintendo out of the hole they dug themselves into.

Even the Virtual Console launch lineup looks like a list of games that will end up sitting on the shelf while you go back to Call of Duty on a console that’s still profitable in spite of the looming next generation. We’ve already played Super Mario World. We want something new and different.

It looks like Nintendo is going to need a phenomenal Mario or Zelda game to keep the Wii U from going the way of Sega’s Dreamcast. And I do mean phenomenal. No remakes or any of that noise: gamers demand things they haven’t seen before, and if anything can save Nintendo this time, it’s going to have to be a damn good Mario or Zelda game.

Mario is starting to stink of desperation now because we haven’t seen anything innovative from him in a while. Too little too late is only going to be the nail in the coffin.

Do you think Mario or Zelda can save the Wii U from being the death of Nintendo?

Wii U: Can ‘Mario’ Save Nintendo This Time? [Op-Ed] is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Boston bombing investigation has led some to say that crowdsourcing is a failure.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Reddit is apologizing for its role in the Boston bombing investigation.

The FBI actually set up a website where citizens could upload potential evidence, but by then the public had already beat them to the punch. The Boston bombing investigation method being called a crowdsourcing failure was the method Reddit and 4Chan employed in an attempt to gather as many Boston Marathon 2013 photos as possible onto a single public area.

People who took videos or photos at the Boston Marathon were asked to post them at the  r/findbostonbombers Reddit Boston Marathon section. But crowdsourcing the bomb suspect images lead to some false positives like Salah Barhoum, with some people calling it a “witch hunt.”

But crowdsourcing itself is not how the Boston bombing investigation got ugly. The FBI only initially used crowdsourcing to gather evidence from the public, not to involve themselves in the actual Boston bombing investigation. So crowdsourcing the evidence gathering was a success, while crowdsourcing the Boston bombing investigation only led to the crowd’s fears, prejudices, and suspicions becoming a prevailing factor. This is something the FBI never asked for.

Crowdsourcing an investigation is probably only legitimate when the criminal perpetrators are known for certain. The TV show America’s Most Wanted worked on this principle. By spreading word of the identity of the criminal to the crowd police are able to track down criminals hiding in the nation. But in the case of the Boston bombing investigation crowdsourcing experiment the crucial difference was that the identity of the criminals were not known.

Do you think the Boston bombing investigation is good reason to never use crowdsourcing in this manner again? Or do you feel there’s another approach that would work well?

Boston Bombing Investigation With Crowdsourcing A Failure? is a post from: The Inquisitr

The bomb suspect images from the Boston Marathon bombing and Big Data technology and/or crowdsourcing would be the perfect match for finding the terrorists who perpetuated this heinous crime.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Police reportedly believe the Boston Marathon bombs, which were made out of pressure cookers and metal shards, were most likely brought to the scene in a large, black duffel bag. Authorities have been scanning photos from the marathon looking for suspicious characters carrying large black bags.

Current search efforts focus on pushing the bomb suspect images and videos from the Boston Marathon out to the world in hopes that someone might know the suspects and report them. But so far these methods have only resulted in chaos.

Salah Barhoun was the target for one of these purported bomb suspect images, and fortunately he went to the FBI before things could get ugly. There were even reports that one of the bomb suspect images led to an arrest, but CNN quickly apologized for its false reports.

So what is Big Data and how could it help find the terrorists using the bomb suspect images? Big Data is the idea that it is possible to analytically process massive amounts of data in order to derive insights into problems facing the world. For example, one Big Data project called the  Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS) collects, integrates, and shares terabytes of data about animal migration, ocean salinity, temperature, currents, and carbon storage from a variety of sources. Before the 2012 Presidential election, a Big Data project from Avast correctly identified Obama as the winner through crowd sourcing.

One crowdsourcing method that is currently being employed is an attempt to gather as many Boston Marathon 2013 photos as possible onto a single area on Reddit. People who took videos or photos at the Boston Marathon are asked to post them at the  r/findbostonbombers Reddit Boston Marathon section. But crowdsourcing the bomb suspect images may be relatively slow and lead to some false positives as already seen.

The FBI is currently manually combing through all the data with the help of object/facial recognition companies. A Big Data bomb suspect images project would essentially automate the function of crowdsourcing. Using object recognition and other methods, it should be possible to build a database of images based upon position and direction of sight. The result might be similar to how Google maps allows you to “look around” from omni-directional photos taken from the Google car cameras.

An automated program could cross-reference photo timestamps, derived positional data, and video images to build a quasi-three dimensional progression of the events leading up to the Boston Marathon bombing. Hopefully, such an effort might accurately identify when the bomb carrying bags were placed and then backtrack to a bomb suspect image that portrays the facial features of the terrorist(s).

Do you think this Big Data bomb suspect images project should be undertaken?

Bomb Suspect Images And Big Data Tech Combined Would Be A Better Search is a post from: The Inquisitr

Joe Scarborough went “ballistic” against Republicans for voting down the Manchin-Toomey expanded background checks amendment in the US Senate yesterday and as a result he claims the party is on the verge of extinction.

The GOP has problems, to be sure, but it’s position on gun control is probably not one of them.

The self-important Scarborough and his Morning Joe panelists also blasted those Democrats who voted against cloture on the bill, but in keeping with the MSNBC corporate culture, Joe spent most of the segment this morning slamming his fellow Republicans.

Joe said, in part: “Mark it down, this is going to be a turning point in the history of the Republican Party as well … This party that killed this background check yesterday — this party is moving toward extinction. A new Republican Party is going to replace it. And this is going to be a vote that people will look back on and say, ‘That party, that extremism, that was unsustainable.’”

Scarborough claimed that 90 percent of the American people supported Manchin-Toomey or the equivalent; President Obama alluded to the same statistic — which is apparently based on some random poll –in his post-vote remarks. But Joe is wrong on that too, or at least that is quite an extravagant claim (unless the 90 percent applies to MSNBC employees, in which case it is surprising that it isn’t 100 percent).

While most Americans likely support expanding existing background checking procedures generally or in the abstract, many have misgivings about how it would be implemented in practice. Moreover, “90 percent” of the American people are for better or worse probably more concerned with Dancing With the Stars or Justin Bieber than any political machinations in Washington.

According to new Gallup Poll, only four percent (not 90) of Americans consider guns/gun control as an important problem in America. An AP poll found that only 49 percent favored stricter gun controls and that 52 percent disfavor President Barack Obama’s approach to additional lawmaking.

The Rasmussen poll explored voter attitudes toward gun control further:

” [P]ublic opinion is more complicated than gun control advocates want to acknowledge, and there is real political risk in voting for the proposed legislation.

“Expanding background checks for would-be gun owners is a commonsense proposal much like requiring a photo ID before someone is allowed to vote. Both have overwhelming support. But while people think requiring more background checks makes sense, most don’t think it will make much of a difference. Only 41% believe more background checks will reduce gun violence.

“Second, people want to make sure the checks are limited to only restricting convicted felons and those with serious mental health issues. Only 30% want broader background checks. Third, just 40% want to see a national database of gun owners created. This last point really frustrates some advocates of gun control, including President Obama … If people trusted the government, there would be no reason to be concerned about background checks, but only one-in-five voters believe the government currently has the consent of the governed.”

Joe’s contention that criminals, gang members, and terrorists would be deterred in any way by expanded background checks is optimistic in the extreme (if the word “extreme” can be used in this context). Joe clearly hasn’t been watching any crime or caper movies produced in Hollywood or in Europe or Asia where the bad guys and the good guys/anti-heroes often encounter very little difficulty obtaining black-market weaponry.

Much more seriously, it is also universally acknowledged that Manchin-Toomey or any of the Obama administration proposals would not have prevented the horrible crimes that occurred in Aurora, Colorado, or at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. For the most part, gun control regulations zero in on law-abiding citizens rather than the wrongdoers.

That being said, what Scarborough, his fellow MSNBC panelists, Obama/Biden, and others who seek to politicize public safety apparently don’t seem to process is this: Someone can still be a non-gun owner or never even have touched or held a gun (and want nothing to do with a gun perhaps or any gun-rights group) to nonetheless champion the Second Amendment.

Moreover, you can just be an ordinary gun-owning or non-gun-owning citizen –  rather than a conspiracy theorist wearing a camouflage vest who allegedly get his or her marching orders from the NRA — and support the Bill of Rights and the notion of preserving individual freedom against excessive government encroachment.

Similarly, you can be pro-choice on abortion and still feel that the Roe v. Wade decision was wrongly decided by the Supreme Court.

Moreover, while Manchin-Toomey theoretically ruled out any national gun registry (which opponents feared could eventually lead to gun confiscation), that’s not entirely the whole story from a common-sense standpoint.  Government, to put it charitably, often changes its mind or makes mistakes. Accepting government promises at face value … that speaks for itself. Taking it one step further, this president has a tendency to issue executive orders that circumvent Congress, and his successors in office might be tempted to do the same.

With regard to those potential changed circumstances, Wall Street Journal writer James Taranto pragmatically explained that “This columnist, for example, would not oppose ‘universal background checks,’ given sufficient privacy protections, if we were sure that advocates would stop there rather than push for more draconian gun controls. Since we are quite certain they will not, we were delighted to see the legislation fail.”

University of Denver Law Professor David Kopel argues among other things that in Manchin-Toomey “The provision which claims to outlaw national gun registration in fact authorizes a national gun registry … The limit on creating a registry applies only to the Attorney General (and thus to entities under his direct control, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives). By a straightforward application of inclusio unius exclusio alterius  it is permissible for entities other than the Attorney General to create gun registries, using whatever information they can acquire from their own operations. ” The Latin term means “the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.”

Kopel also claims that the ATF can compile a national gun registry from the records of gun stores that have gone out of business. He adds that it would be highly unrealistic to expect that the Justice Department would sue itself for violating Manchin-Toomey.

Mediaite‘s Noah Rothman observed that demonizing the NRA was essentially irrelevant to the defeat of the Manchin-Toomey in the US Senate: “Further, gun control backers refused to reconcile a discrepancy in public polling which showed some proposed new gun laws to be wildly popular in the same way that the fundamental right to own a firearm remains wildly popular … It was most certainly not because of the NRA’s actions after Newtown, but rather the popularity of the right they see it as their mission to protect — a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. By dismissing this, the nation’s gun control advocates were probably doomed from the start. They never framed their argument in terms of freedom, and a message of liberty almost always carries the day.”

Watch Joe Scarborough’s gun control rant on MSNBC’s Morning Joe:

‘Morning Joe’ Scarborough Claims GOP Faces Extinction Over Gun Control Vote is a post from: The Inquisitr

Last week, teen Katelyn Campbell of West Virginia exposed a harmful “abstinence” talk given at her school by anti-abortion activist Pam Stenzel, and Campbell says that speaking out after the factually incorrect, sex negative event prompted George Washington High School Principal George Aulenbacher to threaten her acceptance to Wellesley University.

Word of the talk given by Pam Stenzel at the high school earlier this month traversed the feminist blogosphere, but it is not known if a recording of the event referenced was ever made. However, below there clips of Stenzel speaking at a different event — pushing a lot of harmful, sexist stereotypes about sex as well as factually incorrect information about sex, birth control and sexually transmitted infection.

Katelyn Campbell declined to attend the event and objected to the content, a decision for which she says she was threatened by Aulenbacher and forced to seek an injunction against the school’s principal.

Why? Because, Campbell says, he threatened to call Wellesley — where she’d been accepted for the fall — and tell them he felt she was of “bad character,” jeopardizing her admission as well as her educational future.

While the specifics of Pam Stenzel’s talk at GW are not known — it was reported that she told students she can tell who is “promiscuous” by looking them in the eye, and that if they used birth control, their mothers “probably hate them” — in the clips below, the speaker makes several references to her belief that women who have sex are “stupid enough” to sleep with men and that they have “scarred fallopian tubes.”

ThinkProgress links to a local news source in which Campbell explains what happens after she objected to Stenzel’s scarelore and scientifically false assertions, and the teen says Aulenbacher allegedly threatened to tell Wellesley College “what bad character you have and what a backstabber you are.”

Campbell adds:

“I said, ‘Go ahead.’ … He continued to berate me in his office. I’m not an emotional person, but I cried. He threatened me and my future in order to put forth his own personal agenda and made teachers and students feel they cant speak up because of fear of retaliation.”

Aulenbacher has neither confirmed nor denied he made the threat, but it appears that Katelyn Campbell is safe — the following tweet was sent yesterday on Wellesley College’s official Twitter account, addressing the situation:

Katelyn Campbell, #Wellesley is excited to welcome you this fall. bit.ly/13jqRet

— Wellesley College (@Wellesley) April 17, 2013

Other teens present at the event corroborate reports of sexist, factually inaccurate and harmful statements made at the assembly, during which students were reportedly blocked from leaving.

Freshman Lindsey Hawks later stated:

“She was attacking and bashing the girls more. She was saying that it was all our faults. She was just crazy. She said things like, ‘It’s your parents fault for putting you on birth control’ and that birth control makes you more sexually active and more likely to get STDs.”

A Facebook page titled “Friends Of Aulenbacher” has been inundated with criticism of the principal’s alleged actions after the decision to host Pam Stenzel. Stenzel herself has not spoken of the event or its content on Twitter, nor has she addressed the controversy following her abstinence talk.

The Pam Stenzel controversy in West Virginia echoes a recent controversy on “slut shaming” billboards in New York lambasting teen mothers.

Teen Katelyn Campbell Allegedly Threatened By Principal After Speaking Out Against Pam Stenzel Abstinence Talk is a post from: The Inquisitr

COMMENTARY | Monday’s Boston Marathon bombings brought out the best in humanity (as we discussed here) and also the worst.

If you want to spend twenty minutes feeling sick to the pit of your stomach at humanity’s lowest instincts, a quick Twitter search is all you need.

The blood had barely dried on the streets of Boston yesterday when dozens of Twitter users — actually, let’s go with “racists” — started speculating about who was behind the bombing.

And, wouldn’t ya know it, it was those damn Muslims. Or Koreans. Or the government. Or basically, whoever fitted your warped, bigoted, paranoid view of the world.

Over to you, Twitter (there are loads more of these here):

(Warning: Unpleasant language ahead)

Fuck being racist, you all know it was some middle eastern mother fuckers

— Jeffrey Kowal (@JeffreyKowal) April 15, 2013

i bet it was them north koreans. gooks. — johnny maier (@johnnnymaier) April 15, 2013

Obamas soft we need to ice these Rice picking Gooks — Tex (@ItsTex) April 15, 2013

Prayers go out to those affected by the Boston Marathon explosions. If its North Korea’s actions I might just have to kill me some Gooks. — Jacob Turner (@JakeCTurner) April 15, 2013

I hope they find that stupid sand nigger and cut off every single limb and make him eat his own shit then like holes through his chest — Jordan McCall (@JayMackMcGee_13) April 16, 2013

@ultragrrrl ill bet that it was Muslims. IRDA were used — Whats da fuss? (@whatsdafus) April 15, 2013

A Saudi is a suspect in the bombing, figures. Fucking sand nigger — Buckwild Walker (@walker_1994) April 15, 2013

And don’t think this junk is limited to unknown Twitter users either. Here’s Congressman — Congressman! — Pete Hoekstra speaking yesterday:

“It’s way too early to identify the circumstances behind this and who the people responsible might be.”

Way too early. That sounds sensible. Congressman Hoekstra is fully aware that a careful and considered investigation needs to –

“I think the short list would be probably al-Qaida [sic] out of the Maghreb region [of Northwest Africa] or it would be al-Qaida [sic] on the Arabian Peninsula out of Yemen, where al Awlaki came from and gave us the Detroit [underwear] bomber.”

Oh.

Or how about Fox News pundit Erik Rush?

Then there’s conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who’s already blamed Kenyan socialist gun thief Barack Obama and the government:

Our hearts go out to those that are hurt or killed #Boston marathon – but this thing stinks to high heaven #falseflag

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) April 15, 2013

Really, Alex? Based on what, exactly? A solid body of evidence culled through in-depth investigation of the crime scene and interviews with witnesses? Or your own nonsensical, paranoid fantasies? Well, that’s convincing, we’ll go with that.

We’ve been here before. Only yesterday, my colleague Wolff and I were recalling The Sun‘s infamous headline about the 2011 Norway attacks. For those who don’t know, the most popular newspaper in the UK ran this the day after a lone gunman killed 77 people:

There it is. Big, red letters. ‘AL-QAEDA MASSACRE.’ Yeah, it’s the Muslims, innit?

Except, of course, it wasn’t. It was the deeply un-Muslim Anders Breivik, a white supremacist and author of a 1,518-page manifesto on the impending Islamification of Europe. The Sun‘s knee-jerk reaction, published while the identity of the killer was still unknown, was disgusting and an embarrassment to decent journalism. No apology was forthcoming. Nobody was fired. Life goes on.

Anyway, these views may only be held by a marginal group of people, but here’s the biggest problem: we’re addicted to reading this kind of guff. Marginal, uninformed – again, UNINFORMED - views like those of Jones, Hoekstra, Rush, and halfwits on Twitter get a disproportionately large portion of coverage in the media. We just can’t help ourselves. We love to read what the most deranged, out-there individuals in society have to say.

Plenty of us mock this nonsense. Yet because it gains such wide exposure – it’s estimated 1 in 8 people read The Sun every day in Britain – some out there nod sagely in agreement.

In an ideal world, these sort of views would not be given the time of day. They’re the sort of opinions that mean my Muslim friends couldn’t use the London Underground after the 7/7 attacks without being glared at like dirt or having “terrorist” comments thrown at them. The sort of opinions that see an Asian student in Chicago beaten to within an inch of his life. The sort of toxic, crappy opinion that leads to the killing of victims like Vincent Chin.

Conclusion: As much as you might hate Muslims or Koreans or the government, for whatever crackpot reason you have, it’s probably time to pipe down and let the FBI do its work.

Boston Marathon Bombings: Twitter Racists Play The Blame Game is a post from: The Inquisitr

Day three of Justin Bieber’s public pounding over a guestbook note he wrote at the Anne Frank House museum on Friday and, in addition to the shadowboxing pictures — there are two new developments.

Firstly, CNN reports that a source close to Bieber and his representatives has confirmed that neither will be making an official statement about the row.

Secondly, while strictly speaking this happened yesterday, Anne Frank House’s press office have added to their previous defense of Bieber with some stinging words to the media about the ongoing flap.

In a statement obtained by E! News, the Anne Frank House reiterated that they were not offended by Bieber’s note, adding:

“We’d like to thank Justin for his continued display …. of positive, peaceful attitudes, and ask him and all others to help preserve the life, ideals and legacy of Anne Frank by spreading her universal message of tolerance and social justice for all.”

The museum also said it hoped Bieber would support the Anne Frank Sapling Project, which is an effort to plant saplings from the horse chestnut tree that represented freedom to Frank, her family and the Van Pels while they hid from the Nazis.

Then, the zinger.

“The remaining nine saplings are scheduled for planting in her [Frank's] name, voice and spirit across the US over the coming year. That the major media overlooked these initial plantings and instead focused on [Bieber's] harmless, innocent comments perhaps indicate that many bloggers, [editors], individuals and organizations have forgotten that tolerance for all lies at the very heart of Anne’s message.”

Certainly, it’s a significant step up even from the spirited defense of Bieber by two museum spokeswomen — Maatje Mostart and Annemarie Bekker — who said the singer’s comments were “quite innocent” and commended the teen star for visiting the museum in the first place.

Anne Marie Frank — a Jewish girl, then 13 — her family and the Van Pels hid from the Nazis between July 1942- August 4, 1944. After discovery, the group were arrested and deported. Anne died just under a year later of Typhus in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in March 1945. However, the diaries she wrote while in hiding live on and continue to humanize the statistics behind the Holocaust.

Meanwhile, vigorous defenses of Bieber’s teenage but well meaning guestbook comment are mounting. Of these, Lance Dickie at the Seattle Times, notably writes:

“Frank’s poignant diary connects across generations …  The moment was not lost on the 19-year-old, who wrote in a guestbook: ‘Truly inspiring to be able to come here. Anne was a great girl. Hopefully she would have been a belieber.’”

Dickie called it: “A respectful, innocent recognition that the young girl did not have a chance to enjoy the pleasures and diversions of adolescence, including life as a fan, in her own time. Indeed, a humble wish she might have found him worthy.”

He went on to say: “Bieber hit exactly the right, gracious note in his comments. Inexplicably the twits and tweets of social media have mocked and condemned him. The reaction has confounded his museum hosts, and others who have read her diary, and know her fondness for movie stars.”

Encouragingly, according to statistics at groke.se, Google searches for Frank roughly quadrupled on Sunday, while her Wikipedia biography page was the sixth most viewed English language article on Monday.

The Bieber-Frank debate is likely to rage for a while longer. But, in light of the museum’s, the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman and other voices’ agreement that the teen singer gave no offence, perhaps the pertinent question is: Why do so many continue to want to find it?

For more information about Anne Frank click here.

[Image via s_bukley / Shutterstock.com]

Justin Bieber, Anne Frank Museum: Two Developments is a post from: The Inquisitr

Yesterday was only the second day I have ever been truly afraid in my city.

The first was a day much like yesterday: an idyllic September day, summer’s last hurrah before the leaves began to turn and bathe the city in shades of red and orange. I was in my first year at Boston Latin School, the oldest public high school in the country. I was sitting in Mr. Simmons’ music class learning about Gregorian chants. I was thinking what a nice day it was outside and how I couldn’t wait to get out of school to go to Roberto Clemente field with my friends.

Then the somber voice of our headmaster, Cornelia Kelly, came over the intercom, announcing that two planes had crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City. There was confusion and fear as my classmates tried to process the news, with many thinking of family they had in the city. Mr. Simmons let our murmurs continue for a few seconds before telling us to get back to work. Who knows what — or who — he was thinking about. At the time, it seemed cruel to just go back to business as usual, but, in retrospect, I realize he was trying to protect us. There was too much we didn’t know about the situation, and he didn’t want our 12-year-old minds thinking the worst.

Parents called the school wanting to pick up their kids early, not knowing if what happened in New York would happen here. Our teachers and guidance counselors did their best to help us understand what happened. Grief counselors were made available to the students. Everything we knew about the world changed in the blink of eye.

That was nearly 12 years ago, and I remember that day, that scene of my classmates and me sitting in that classroom more vividly than any other day in my 24 years on this planet.

I was working from home yesterday when my mother told me to turn on channel 5. Two explosions had gone off at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. My first thoughts were of my fiancé, who lives around the corner from where the two bombs went off. My next was of the victims and their families. After that, my journalistic instincts kicked in, and I wanted to get down there as soon as possible. But I knew I wouldn’t be able to get anywhere near the scene, with the area being cordoned off and public transportation being rerouted or shut down. All I could do was watch from the safety of my home in Hyde Park, 8 miles away from the horror.

Back Bay has always been one of my favorite parts of the city. The Boston Public Library has always been my little slice of heaven. The Copley and Prudential Malls were where I spent the early days of my relationship with the man who will be my husband three months from now. I have never had anything but fond memories of the area. But now I know will never be able to walk those streets with my rose-colored glasses on again.

I watched the news for nearly five hours, writing as much as possible about the bombing and worrying, getting calls and texts and Facebook messages from concerned friends and family. We were all OK, I was happy to report. But some weren’t as fortunate. And that knowledge is absolutely heartbreaking.

One of the victims was an 8-year-old boy named Martin Richard who was waiting to meet his dad at the finish line. As he went back on the sidewalk, one of the bombs went off and he was killed. His sister lost a leg, his mother also wounded. I can’t imagine the pain and fear and anguish their parents felt. Again, my thoughts turned to my fiancé, who was about to pick up his daughter, my soon-to-be stepdaughter. She’s 10, just two years older than Martin. I feared for both of them knowing there was a possibility the danger wasn’t completely over. I said a silent prayer and kept texting him to make sure they were OK.

The thing you have to understand about Boston and its people is that, despite what any surveys or studies say about us being rude or arrogant, we are intensely loyal and caring. Before I left to attend college in New York five years ago, I made connections with other Bostonians and MassHoles — a badge I wear proudly — and when we all met on campus, there was an instant connection. We all had Boston running through our veins.

For 24 years, I have lived, loved, and learned in this city. I was born and raised here, I am getting married here, and I plan to raise my kids here. I have been to other cities, other countries even, but Boston is home. And whoever did this has severely underestimated the strength and will of Bostonians. You cannot stage an attack on our city on Patriot’s Day, a day that commemorates the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the first military engagements of the Revolutionary War, and get away with it. It will not stand.

This great city that I love, the city of champions, the Hub of the Universe, was bruised, but not broken, Monday. And while we are all looking for answers, wanting to know who wanted to hurt us and why, let us not forget our history. We are a city of fighters, a fact President Obama acknowledged in his press conference yesterday evening. And we can and will get through these troubling days and weeks, and maybe even months, ahead together.

Boston, You’re My Home: A First Person Reaction To The Boston Marathon Bombing is a post from: The Inquisitr

The hate mongers from the Westboro Baptist Church are at it again, trying to spread their Satanic messages of evil to the world. Earlier this evening, The Inquisitr reported that the WBC expressed their support for the Boston Marathon Bombings on Twitter and Facebook and threatened to picket the funerals of the victims.

Over the past few months, the WBC has repeatedly failed to show up for planned demonstrations. Ever since the church was completely owned by Anonymous after they announced their intentions to picket the funerals of the Newtown Shooting Victims, the Westboro Baptist Church has kept a rather low profile. For a group that claims to have God on their side, they are exhibiting a large amount of cowardice, which is the normal behavior pattern for mentally disturbed hate mongers.

Most sane human beings, even those of us who still believe in a higher power, have long since abandoned the concept of a perfect being who spends his or her time punishing the human race.  Just as we refuse to obey the dogma of any church that instructs us to hate other religions, we refuse to embrace the divisive rhetoric of the Westboro Baptist Church. Just as we choose to love every one of our brothers and sisters, no matter their race, gender or sexual orientation, we refuse to spread the loathsome words of the Phelps family and their brainwashed followers.

Since we do accept and support freedom of speech, the members of the WBC have the right (in the United States) to spew their filth and make absolute fools of themselves. On the other hand, the time has come to hold the adult members of the WBC to the same standards as any other American citizen when it comes to the welfare of their minor children.

In most modern societies, any parent who straps a sign covered with hate speech on a minor child, and encourages that child to endanger their safety by parading in public, would receive an immediate visit from the child protection services. Perhaps Governor Brownback of Kansas would be so kind as to explain why the members of the Westboro Baptist Church get a free pass to teach this sort of hate to their children and put their kids at risk. Do they get an exemption from human decency and the laws of civil society simply because they attach some religious significance to their ravings?

While I certainly do not advocate any retaliation or physical violence against the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, I shudder to think what may happen if they show up in Boston to picket the funerals of the Marathon bombing victims. Obviously, the Westboro Baptist Church would love to incite a riot. That way they could proudly display the victim card right next to their well-worn, self-righteous idiot card.

The time has come for the American people to inform the Phelps family and the members of their so-called church that we will not tolerate anyone spreading a message of hate in the name of some twisted fantasy. For every member of the church that shows up in Boston, we should put 10,000 counter-protesters in the streets and celebrate our love for each and every member of the human race.

We should also send messages of support to the victims and their families. Take a moment and go to Twitter and Facebook to let the Westboro Baptist Church know that you choose kindness over brutality and mercy over judgement. Lets drown their message of hatred in a sea of overwhelming love.

Image by Samuel Perry / Shutterstock.com

This commentary is the sole opinion of Wolff Bachner and does not reflect the opinion or the policies of The Inquisitr or Inquisitr.com.

Westboro Baptist Church Pours On The Hate: Threatens to Picket Boston Marathon Funerals [Commentary] is a post from: The Inquisitr

There are some truly evil people in this world. People that make you suspicious of your neighbors, that make you doubt good deeds. People that can instill hate and fear inside of you. People, like the ones responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing today, that make you question whether humans are ultimately good or evil.

People that can make you “lose your faith in humanity.”

A video of the attack surfaced today showing the moment when the bomb detonated at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The video captures the fiery explosion of one bomb and the thunderous boom of another. But it also captured something else.

Before the dust had settled from the explosion police officers and marathon runners were rushing to the scene to help those who were injured. No one knew at the moment what was going to happen next. No one knew if there would be another explosion. All they knew was that there were people who needed help and they rushed to help them.

Dozens of fire fighters and rescue workers carried wounded people away from danger. Hundreds of marathon runners lined up at the Red Cross’s emergency tent to donate blood. Thousands of people donated to the salvation army online and an uncountable amount of people called friends and family across the country to tell them that they loved them.

The Boston Marathon bombing was planned by one man, or one group, for reasons we don’t understand yet. But there is one thing that we know for sure. There are more of us than there are of them. By the thousands. By the millions.

There are more good people in this world than there are evil ones.

Thanks to generosity of volunteer blood donors there is currently enough blood on the shelves to meet demand. #BostonMarathon

— American Red Cross (@RedCross) April 15, 2013

Sadly, this won’t be the last time that tragedy will strike. There will be more school shootings and more bombings and more unnecessary and deadly evil. But that isn’t a reason to lose faith in humanity.

Look at all of the people out there that are helping and realize that moments like this, moments of pure malice, should only strengthen the belief that there is more good in the world than evil. It can be hard to see, sure, but all you have to do is look for the helpers.

Mr. Rogers said: “When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, ‘Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.’”

Look For The Helpers: Boston Marathon Bombing Strengthened Faith In Humanity is a post from: The Inquisitr

Hearkening back to the days of Strom Thurmond, Lester Maddox and George Wallace, current Georgia Governor Nathan Deal proved once again that the ugly ghost of segregation is not truly dead. While the question of how Wilcox County High School was able to hold “separate but equal” segregated proms in 2013 certainly bears investigation by Eric Holder’s Department of Justice, Governor Deal not only refused to condemn the racially separated proms, but he insulted the brave young students who are attempting to hold the school’s first integrated prom. The noble Governor refused to condemn the schools’ tolerance of racial separation and his spokesman called the integrated prom a “silly publicity stunt.”

Perhaps the good Governor will resort to another common practice from the days of segregation and slavery and take his spokesman Brian Robinson to the woodshed for a good flogging. When a local television station asked if the Governor planned to support the student’s efforts to hold their own integrated prom, Robinson replied that the Governor had nothing to say about the matter. Mr. Robinson then added fuel to the fire by attacking Better Georgia, a non-partisan activist group supporting the students. Robinson conveyed this pearl of wisdom in an email to the television station:

“This is a leftist front group for the state Democratic Party and we’re not going to lend a hand to their silly publicity stunt.”

Georgia has a centuries long, unfortunate history of obnoxious Caucasian Governors who supported slavery and segregation. Even after the passage of the Civil Rights Act Of 1964, Georgia remained resistant to change. The fact that in the year 2013 Governor Deal would be willing to continue this ugly tradition makes one wonder if he is a fit person to represent the great state of Georgia.

Happily, many of Georgia’s elected officials were willing to speak out on behalf of the students, who at great risk to their own safety, decided to put an end to Wilcox High School’s racist proms. State Representative Edward Lindsey, a Republican, the State House majority whip, Republican Representative Buzz Brockway, and State Senator Steve Henson, a Democrat and Senate minority leader, all took a stand and expressed their approval of the student’s efforts to end segregation in Georgia.

While we have come to expect some resistance to abandoning the hateful policies of the past, it is truly alarming that an institution of higher learning would support this sort of behavior. Wilcox County High School was desegregated more than 30 years ago, but the school administration managed to circumvent the spirit of the law by allowing white and African American students to hold privately financed proms.

Recently, the police refused to allow a bi-racial student to attend the 2013 white only prom. For any young person to be stopped by the police and prevented from attending a high school dance because of the color of their skin or the race of their parents is simply disgusting and completely unacceptable. The state of Georgia and the Governor owe an apology to the individual student and to all the students of Wilcox High.

At the present time, Wilcox High officials claim they are carefully examining the possibility of holding an integrated prom in 2014. This is simply not enough. The time has come for school officials to call for an immediate end to any and all segregated activities involving Wilcox students. Any educator who endorses segregation on any level is dishonoring their profession.

Some Americans may be tempted to call for the involvement of the Secretary of Education and US Department of Education in this matter, but as a supporter of States Rights, I believe it is incumbent on the 10,000,000 million citizens of Georgia to put an end to the vestiges of segregation in their states educational institutions.

Perhaps the final word on this troubling incident should go to the folks from Better Georgia, who implored Governor Deal to put aside his partisan politics and stand up for the civil rights of the children of Georgia:

“Gov. Deal has once again proven that he would rather call us names than do the right thing.

Better Georgia has called on ALL elected officials to support these students who are leaders in their community. We are calling on Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents.

This is not a partisan issue.”

 
This commentary is the sole opinion of Wolff Bachner and does not reflect the opinion or the policies of The Inquisitr or Inquisitr.com.

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal: A Sad Reminder Of Southern Segregation is a post from: The Inquisitr

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s “secret Ashley Judd tape” controversy gets stranger and shadier by the minute. It is now being reported that Progress Kentucky, the group tied to the tape, may have stooped to their Watergate-style tactics due to lack of influence and a shortage of cash.

Progress Kentucky is described as a liberal super PAC, the stated goal of which is to oust McConnell from office in 2014. Despite this, the group is run by “just a couple of activists,” according to a former state Democratic Party official with little by way of influence and cash.

Since its creation in December, the group has only amassed roughly $1,000 in donations, of which $18 has been spent, according to a recent filing with the Federal Election Commission. McConnell, by contrast, has raised roughly $10 million toward his re-election.

“This has nothing to do with the party or even a group,” said Chris Tobe, a former state Democratic Party board member. “(They’re) just creating a national media buzz by bending or breaking the rules.”

The group is now the subject of an FBI investigation into a secretly recorded tape of McConnell aides from February. At the time, actress Ashley Judd was reportedly considering a Senate bid against McConnell, and his aides gathered to discuss a campaign strategy against her, which included talks regarding her mental health, as well as her political and religious beliefs.

In this, Progress Kentucky received attention from the liberal blog Mother Jones, which published the tapes. Though McConnell’s aides laugh at and disparage Judd’s personal life, no full recording was posted: What we hear are short clips, only seconds each. This strange, Breitbart-ian style brand of journalism seemed a far cry from the now-infamous “47 percent” exposé that put Mother Jones on the map during the 2012 elections.

Having listened to the recordings, I opined at the time that McConnell’s aides were really only guilty of “being mean,” and that any scandal from the tapes was forced and disingenuous. Smear campaigns are conducted on every side during every election, after all. Another Inquisitr writer, Bertel King, added that the secret tapes merely amounted to “the best thing that could happen to secure the senator’s re-election.”

Now, Progress Kentucky is all but in ruin. The group previously made a controversial bid against McConnell in February, with a tweet that referenced the Asian heritage of the Senator’s wife. The tweet was widely condemned by both Republicans and Democrats.

The latest controversy caused the group’s treasurer, Douglas L. Davis, to resign on Tuesday.

Though Progress Kentucky has seemingly fallen on its sword over the McConnell tapes, the two who have seemingly gotten away with murder in the “scandal” are Senator Mitch McConnell himself, whose re-election prospects look better than ever, and Mother Jones’ David Corn, who has seemingly ignored anything resembling journalistic standards to promote the story over it’s “substance.”

“We are still waiting for Sen. Mitch McConnell to comment on the substance of the story,” said a statement from the publication.

Corn himself has said that the tape was vetted by the publication’s lawyers and determined to be real. He also stressed that Mother Jones had nothing to do with the tape’s recording.

“Like many journalists, when someone gives you a story, you don’t always ask why,” Corn said. “I think it’s a fair assumption the ’47 percent’ story might have been a factor,” he concluded.

What do you think? Did the secret McConnell tapes make a difference to his re-election prospects? Did Progress Kentucky receive its just desserts, or was the recording fair game? Should Mother Jones walk back on the story, and is their credibility in question? Sound off!

Progress Kentucky Stooped To Secret McConnell Taping Due To Meager Funding, Influence is a post from: The Inquisitr

Today, Justin Bieber marks his five year anniversary of his signing to Island Def Jam Records.

The 19-year-old’s ever vigilant ‘Beliebers’ have been celebrating the seminal date April 13, 2008 all day, trending #5YearsJustinSigned for hours.

Manager Scott “Scooter” Braun also joined in the fun, tweeting:

“Love this #5YearsJustinSigned trend. #BELIEVE in underdogs!! #DreamBIG and #NeverSayNever.”

For the boy from Stratford, Ontario, who grew up poor but rich in emotional support from his single mother Patti Mallette, the journey from street busker to YouTube sensation to signed adolescent at age 14, has been nothing short of a phenomenon.

The milestones of Bieber’s ascent are well documented. In 2007, Braun clicked on one of the then 13-year-old’s YouTube clips by accident. Drawn to what he saw, Braun’s tenacious search led to a life-changing meeting between the young Canadian and Usher in Atlanta, Georgia later that year.

That meeting led to another with Island Def Jam CEO Antonio “L.A.” Reid, who said at the time that he found it uncanny that “Justin was the same exact age as Usher when he was signed.”

Love this #5YearsJustinSigned trend. #BELIEVE in underdogs!! #DreamBIG and #NeverSayNever

— Scooter Braun (@scooterbraun) April 13, 2013

From there, came a debut album My World in November 2009 and first single “One Time.” It went platinum in the US and with it Bieber became the first artist to have seven songs from a debut chart on Billboard’s Hot 100. The worldwide top ten single “Baby” followed with the release of My World 2.0, and saw Bieber become the youngest solo male act to top the Billboard 200 chart since Stevie Wonder in 1963.

Next, his first headlining My World tour from June 2010, two remix albums, the nearly $100 million grossing 3D concert movie biopic Never Say Never, a Christmas album Under the Mistletoe, which was encored by the Believe album in June 2012 and Believe Acoustic January 2013.

Keeping up? To date, Bieber has sold over 15 million albums, topped Billboard’s 200 album chart five times, in 2011 Forbes placed him at #2 on their Best-Paid Celebrities under 30, won a ton of awards — notably Artist of the Year at both the 2010 and 2012 American Music Awards and five more AMA’s, as well as six Billboard Music Awards and 10 MTV Awards — and in 2012 was honored with the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal by Canada’s Prime Minister.

Summer 2010, Bieber became the most-searched-for celebrity on the Internet, accounting for three percent of all traffic on Twitter. Meanwhile, “Baby” became the most viewed music video on YouTube and remained so until South Korean rapper Psy’s “Gangnam Style” dethroned it in 2012.

Throughout his meteoric rise, both Bieber and Braun have cultivated an almost unprecedented level of interaction with the millions of fans who made that rise possible. Although recently revised by Socialbakers, the singer’s Twitter count is currently at 37 million plus while on Facebook he has over 52 million likes.

In short; the past five years of relentless promotion, countless meet and greets — not to mention substantive charity work and a singular relationship with his fans — have forged a new kind of version 2.0 superstar; touchable yet Apollonic.

The hair, too, has changed over the years. The iconic 2008-10 mop morphing gradually into a sharp pompadour recently replaced with a Skrillex shaved and bangs combo. Style-wise Bieber worked James Dean appeal in his Teen Vogue photo shoot but prefers hip hop styling left to his own devices. Overall, its swag meets beanie, with tattoos and abs aplenty thrown in after the big change.

So, has the zenith been reached or can the Bieber brand extend its own ceiling?

For just over a month, media headlines have trumpeted that Bieber’s reign as a beloved, family friendly pop star is over. Referring to these, veteran New York music manager Peter Mensch told The Sun:

“I don’t know what Bieber’s problem is. His career is over in three years anyway.”

Strong words. And yet, with one alleged exception, the overblown reaction to what — in truth — amounts to mildly rock n’ roll behavior on his Believe tour, pot indiscretions, paparazzi run-ins and what is most likely post Selena Gomez split acting out, there isn’t really any weight behind the idea that Bieber Fever has peaked.

If anything, worldwide audience reception to Bieber’s mostly sold out tour and ceaseless media comment on his every utterance or move, suggests interest in what the singer does next remains undimmed.

With yesterday’s “All Around the World” video debut, those who hadn’t yet seen the teen star in action were given a 4:15 glimpse of the burgeoning adult artist that has been crystallizing for five years.

An avowed Christian who has previously said he believes God has a “purpose” for him, if  Bieber can draw on that well and take only what’s of value from the steep learning curve of recent weeks — there’s every reason to think the road ahead is nowhere but up.

[Images via s_bukley / Shutterstock.com, Debby Wong / Shutterstock.com]

Justin Bieber Five Year Music Industry Milestone: Nowhere But Up? is a post from: The Inquisitr

The North Korea missile test was delayed, with some claiming a Windows 8 upgrade to be at fault. Might Kim Jong-Un be considering a declaration of war on Microsoft.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the North Korea missile test would have a range of over 2,000 miles and place the US island of Guam within striking distance. As previously reported by The Inquisitr, North Korea declared a state of war against South Korea weeks ago. North Korea’s official statement also promised nuclear war against the United States and some wonder whether North Korea’s nuclear weapons capabilities are being underestimated.

The announcement of increasing the North Korea nuclear weapons stockpile coincided with news of the North Korea nuclear reactor being restarted in Yongbyon. Before North Korea shut down its main nuclear processing facility at Yongbyon, it is believed the regime stockpiled enough plutonium to create between four to 10 nuclear weapons. Then we had the news that North Korea is planning a fourth nuclear weapons test.

The New Yorker is claiming the North Korea missile test was delayed by Windows 8 since previously their computers were running on Windows 95. The Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) says they are “working with Windows 8 support to resolve the issue” and the North Korea missile test has “been delayed indefinitely.” It’s said “Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un is furious about the Windows 8 problems” and may declare war on Microsoft.

So, okay, yes, yes… the North Korea missile test being delayed by Windows 8 is a clever joke along the lines of North Korea demanding to negotiate with Michael Jordan (but, after all the whole Dennis Rodman thing, you never know…). But, quite frankly, Kim Jong-Un Korea would need a good excuse like that after making all that noise about North Korea’s nuclear missiles and going to war. How else are they expected to save face after such a bluff?

In any negotiation you always try to negotiate from a position of power. Sure, North Korea is threatening a missile test but if they so much as twitch funny they’ll be blown out of the water by the United States. Heck, even China will kick them in the butt by denying escape for refugees.

If Kim Jong-Un has a list of demands to act as a starting point then I haven’t been able to find them. In previous years there always seemed to be a point to their saber rattling but now events are escalating without an end in sight.

US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress “the indications that we have are that China is itself rather frustrated with the behavior and the belligerent rhetoric of … Kim Jong Un. I don’t think … he has much of an endgame other than to somehow elicit recognition,” and to turn the nuclear threat into “negotiation and to accommodation and presumably for aid.”

But this latest bit of humor just goes to show how ridiculous the whole North Korea situation has gotten. We’re gotten to the point where such headlines are almost believable and the hacker group Anonymous makes regular headlines for attacking North Korea (see the above image).

Did the news about the North Korea missile test being delayed by Windows 8 fool you at first?

North Korea Missile Test Delayed By Windows 8, Kim Jong-Un To Declare War On Microsoft? is a post from: The Inquisitr

2013 finds Social Security running out of money at an accelerated pace. At this point, people in their late 30′s should be wondering what we should do, since estimates foresee Social Security running out of money years before they’ll reach retirement age.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, disability claims are skyrocketing, jumping up 29 percent to the point that 8.8 million Americans are receiving social security disability benefits.

In 2023, the CBO estimates spending will exceed $1.4 trillion compared to tax revenues of $1.3 trillion, a shortfall of about $100 billion. 2016 sees Social Security running out of money for the disability claims fund.

In 2010, we saw claims we would not see Social Security running out of money until 2049. In 2013, that estimate has changed to 2031. So, not only is Social Security running out of money, it’s running out of money at a greatly accelerating pace.

But it gets worse. If you combine the interest payments on the $16.8 trillion debt and spending on entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid then by 2025 these parts of the Federal budget are projected to devour all government income. All means all, with no money left over for the military or any other Federal government function. And those projections are months out of date, so this scenario might occur within 10 years.

Currently, the annual Social Security tax “cap” is $13,652.40, or 12.4 percent of a $110,100. Essentially, if you make more than $110k you’re contributing any more. Old estimates claimed that increasing the flat rate up to 12.5 percent would cause the entire Social Security program to become self-financing until 2085.

Businesses pay half of the the current 12.4 percent. So getting rid of the cap obviously shouldn’t expect businesses to match contributions since that would be horribly expensive. In response to Social Security running out of money, I would suggest a combination of the personal income cap removal while still keeping a business FICA-matching cap at $110,000. This would amount to a very large tax increase on the upper middle class and the rich, but the only other option is to greatly cut Social Security benefits.

What do you think of this plan for saving Social Security?

Social Security Running Out Of Money At Accelerated Pace, What Can We Do? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul lied to students at Howard University yesterday when he told them he was never against the Civil Rights Act. Well, actually, no he didn’t. Wait, yes – yes he did.

The confusion stems from Paul’s answer to a question from a student at the historically black university.

“I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever,” Paul said.

This much is true. Paul has been careful not to state that he thinks that the Civil Rights Act should never have been passed or that it should be repealed. Unfortunately, his answer didn’t stop there.

“I do question some of the ramifications and the extensions, but I have never questioned the Civil Rights Act and never come out in opposition to the Civil Rights Act,” Paul added later on in his explanation.

This part is untrue. Paul is well known for having questioned the Civil Rights Act two years ago. His original stance on the issue was that the federal government should bar discrimination when public funds are concerned, but it should not have the authority to direct what happens in private businesses.

The 2010 interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal includes this now quazi-famous political tongue-dance:

“PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.

“INTERVIEWER: But?

“PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners — I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant — but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.”

Rand Paul did not come out against the Civil Rights Act, he simply portrayed it as the wrong approach to a social problem that needed to be, well, approached. He argued that private citizens and the free market should have solved the issue of segregation, not Washington.

“Lie” is a dirty word in politics. What is qualified as a lie? Rand Paul never said the Civil Rights Act should be repealed, so he could justifiably say to Howard University students that he isn’t against the Civil Rights Act. Yet since he has criticized what the law did and opposes the “extensions and ramifications” of the law being pushed today, critics can justifiably say that he opposes the law.

Here’s one of America’s favorite liberals doing precisely that:

The Howard University student who posed the question already knew Rand Paul’s record on the issue.

“This was on tape,” the questioner said when Paul first tried to dodge the question.

In an age where everything any politician has ever said can be googled, wikied, or YouTubed; politicans should stop trying to dodge their past answers. Paul should have owned his previous statements — Yes, I do take issue with certain parts of the Civil Rights Act — then proceeded to clarify what parts of the law he supports and what parts he doesn’t. Then today’s headline wouldn’t be that Rand Paul tried to lie his way out of a tough question about a very nuanced position.

Actually, the headlines still would have sucked. The senator said many other things during his speech that, as The Inquisitr has previously reported, equate to a distortion of history at best. Rand Paul gave the first speech by a Republican lawmaker at Howard University in decades, and all he really did was remind everyone why it’s been so long.

[Image by Gage Skidmore [CC-BY-SA-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons]

Rand Paul Lied To Howard University Students, Or Did He? is a post from: The Inquisitr

I only started to really look at Glass yesterday. The hype is definitely starting to pick up. and I think rightly so. Up until yesterday I had this gut instinctual reaction that said “I like this – a lot” but I never actually took a closer look. Then last night during my late night hang out with YouTube I came across some really interesting Zeitgeist videos which led me to Googling  Google, which led me to Glass.

I have to say something at this point in order to give full disclosure. I must admit that since last night i have become a little bit obsessed with Google. OK that’s enough disclosure.

So what really got me going wasn’t all the safety and real life documentation concepts but rather as Sergey so eloquently showed in his Ted speech (see below) we as a humanity have basically become glued to our phone screens – looking down – constantly. Its the natural position – check phone screen – check updates – look at Facebook – check emails – check whats app – play snake – oh that was Nokia days – the point is we as a species are glued to the screens of our phones, and it does not necessarily HAVE to be that way,

And that’s what has really piqued my enthusiasm here. Google Glass precludes the reality that a few years down the line basically phones are going to be completely obsolete.

Rather than positing, as my colleague has here, that things are going to go the route of flashing the screen on contact lenses and imprinting circuit board’s (powered by natural heat from skin) ‘tattooed’ onto the skin – I believe it will be more subtle with the “computer” existing in the pocket much like the smartphone is now, but relegated to the warm darkness of the pocket/pocketbook and Glass/future iterations of Glass doing the rest. My gut feeling is that it wont take long before they develop the technology that just splays the screen in front of the person when so desired without any real need for more than a standard glasses lens.

Here is the Recently Leaked Ted talk from Sergey which was delivered pretty much off the cuff and not as a planned talk.

I really like how he so easily proves the point throughout his talk by just staring at his phone. So the real question is how quickly once fully released the technology will catch up to allow you to do all the other things you rely on your smartphone for asides from shooting a quick easy image or text message, like analyzing data on a website, or sending an email that has more than two paragraphs.

And the answer is – MUCH quicker than you think. With 3 of the top Venture Capital firms now entrenching big money into the deal in order to capitalize on the early movers, its clear that an entire Eco-structure is going to develop around it.

Knowing Google, anyone lucky enough to get their hands on the developer version in the next few weeks is going to be smart enough to either start building applications or invent them for others to build.

And so the race begins to banish the smartphone from in front of our faces. My prediction – our children’s children will be laughing at our “smartphones”

Here are a few choice videos that will open your mind more to the possibilities of Google Glass.

Are you excited about Glass after a little bit of looking deeper? Or do you think everyone looking up at their Glass ‘screen’ instead of looking down at their Smartphone screen is just going to take us down a step on the evolutionary ladder – one step closer to zombie…

Google Glass – The Death of the Smartphone? [Commentary] is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Sarah Palin Tesla ‘loser’ slam is unfair Elon Musk’s electric car.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the Sarah Palin Tesla comment called the electric car company a “loser,” which angered Elon Musk to the point that he responded.

This situation recalls the fact that Obama’s $90 billion in alternative energy projects are failing, with 96 percent of the green jobs created being lost. Cronyism was also suspected because Al Gore, an investor in 14 green technology companies, benefited from $2.5 billion in government money. Steve Westly, who raised $437,000 for Obama’s first presidential campaign and created electric car maker Tesla Motors, also received $465,000.

This is the Sarah Palin Tesla “loser” comment:

“Once again, the American public lost when the Obama administration attempted to pick ‘winners and losers’ in the free market. This losing tax-subsidized [Fisker] venture joins other past losers like the Obama-subsidized Volt that gets 40 miles per battery charge, or like the Obama-subsidized Tesla that turns into a ‘brick’ when the battery completely discharges and then costs $40,000 to repair. … As we’ve seen time and time again, We the People are always stuck subsidizing the left’s ‘losers.’ ”

First off, Elon Musk has already pointed out that the Tesla Model S “bricking” issues are covered under warranty and customers will not be paying that $40,000. The reason it’s so expensive is because of the battery technology, which is acknowledged as the best available now. The Tesla uses Li-ion batteries and stores 56 kWh of electric energy and delivers up to 215 kW of electric power. Lithium ion batteries can cost $500 to $550 per kilowatt hour. That’s about $30,000 alone in batteries, so I’m assuming the remaining $10k is for other costs and labor.

Calling the Fisker Karma a “loser” is probably a fair comment, but not so for Tesla. Fisker is on the verge of bankruptcy after receiving $200 million fro the government, while Tesla is exceeding sales targets and says it made its first profit in the first quarter of 2013. Fisker’s bankrupt battery maker, A123 System, used $129 million of its $249 million federal grant before biting the dust, and contributed greatly to Fisker’s woes.

The Sarah Palin Tesla comment is especially unfair to lump the two companies together since the $465 million low interest government loan to Tesla is now being repaid.  Tesla expects to reimburse taxpayers in 2017, five years ahead of schedule. After all, Motor Trend’s Car of the Year in 2012 was the Tesla Model S.

Tesla is also a R&D company, and innovations in battery technology will continue to yield profit. Most experts agree Tesla will continue continue to profit now that it’s leasing its technologies to most major manufacturers.

Elon Musk is also associated with the SpaceX company, which has yielded new systems that can transport goods to the International Space Station. Lastly, Tesla is a US company that employs Americans, whereas many other green companies receiving government money are not even US based.

Do you agree the Sarah Palin Tesla “loser” comment is being unfair to Elon Musk’s electric car company?

Sarah Palin Tesla ‘Loser’ Slam Unfair To Elon Musk’s Electric Car is a post from: The Inquisitr

The 97-month car loan is a bad financial idea unless you enjoy being in debt.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the 97-month car loan is becoming popular because the Federal Reserve has slashed interest rates and investors and banks are looking at getting a higher return on their investment. This comes at a time when student loan interest rates are doubling.

If you have ever been car shopping you will probably have noticed the car salesman will begin negotiating price not by asking how much you want to pay in total for the vehicle, but how much you can afford on a monthly basis. Experienced car buyers will mentally think, “It’s a trap!”, and shift the conversation toward the actual overall expense involved.

When you’re buying a vehicle it’s not just the sticker price and the option of a 97-month car loan giving you low monthly payments (as they like to advertise). You have to consider taxes, dealer fees, and especially the interest you will pay in the long run. While the “low monthly payments” sound nice, it’s possible in the long run you’ll be paying much more than expected.

A 97-month car loan is essentially a financial commitment for a little over eight years (why they don’t make it 96 months in order to keep it an even eight years, I have no idea). A longer term loan presents higher risk for the bank so they typically compensate by raising the interest rate, which also fluctuates based upon the credit score of the individual.

According to BankRate.com a 97-month car loan is atypical, with the 60-month car loans for new cars averaging a 4.12 percent interest rate. As an example, let’s say you buy a new car for $20,000 with a 97-month car loan that has a five percent interest rate. This may not be realistic. Subprime borrowers, or those with bad credit history, may pay as much as 20 percent in interest.

Like mortgages, a 97-month car loan would amortized, which means the bulk of interest payments are shifted to the beginning of the loan period. Because of this, another consideration is that borrowers take a longer period of time to reach the point where their debt on the car is less than the value of the car they own (as in, the equity). This would make it very difficult to sell or trade the car.

In any case, the interest rate applies on a yearly basis. Assuming you go through the entire 97-month car loan, you’re essentially paying $1,000 a year in interest for that $20,000 car. After eight years the total cost of the vehicle will be $28,000. A subprime borrower with a 20 percent interest rate would pay $52,000, more than double the sticker price.

A 97-month car loan doesn’t sound nearly as attractive anymore, now does it?

97-Month Car Loan A Bad Financial Idea, Unless You Like Debt is a post from: The Inquisitr

Justin Bieber’s new Skrillex inspired haircut debuted on April 6 in Dortmund, Germany.

Like always with Bieber, and his hair, it’s become a polarizing thing.

The 19-year-old’s decision to tame the James Dean pompadour he’s been airing on his Believe tour has inspired reams of pro and anti debate among Bieber’s fans and media commentators alike.

While, lets face it, it doesn’t really matter what opinion anyone holds about a haircut, it’s been interesting — and more than a tad disappointing — to witness the flood of backward assumptions some have made about what really amounts to shaved sides and a fringe.

Taking a snapshot, Perez Hilton dubs Bieber’s haircut “hairiffic” and “unrelated to puberty,” seemingly unaware that Canada’s biggest export has been rocking a taut bod, scandalizing behavior and reduced octaves for some time now.

The UK’s Mirror deemed the teen star’s haircut “dodgy.” Fair enough. But, the tab then goes on to shoot low with this zinger: ”The puny pop star appears to have styled his new hairstyle on the amazing and slightly controversial website dedicated to lesbians who look like Justin Bieber.”

Where to begin? The “puny” then “lesbian” association is clearly meant to play on the tedious ‘he’s gay, confused, or getting there’ rumor that seems to follow any male pop culture star who isn’t built like The Rock — on steroids.

Inevitably, The Sun headlines with “Justin Bieb-Her gets girly new hairdo just like Miley and Rihanna.” It’s not only a poor example of journalism (even for a tabloid), it also evidences a decades-old need by mainstream media to rigidly enforce its perceptions of what is “male” and what is “female.” Ditto here.

Aside from being a staggeringly arrogant perspective on something as personal and innocuous as a hairstyle, it also reveals shocking music history amnesia.

Hair In Music History 101:

1: Rihanna, Miley Cyrus, and Skrillex didn’t start the androgynous side-sweep, they just added a shaved dimension — and for that matter shaved hair (on the head) is a traditionally male concept so why it’s now labeled as effeminate is a mystery.

2: Speaking of androgyny as Crushable does in its salty comment on Bieber, each of these rock heroes — David Bowie, Bryan Ferry (Roxy Music), to Jarvis Cocker (Pulp) and Brett Anderson (Suede) — showcased the short back, side-sweep in their time and did it while making timeless music.

3: In fact, Jared Leto, The Waterboys, The Libertines, T-Rex, Pink Floyd, The Beatles (mop), Nirvana, Jack White, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Extreme, Axl Rose and many more have at one time or another had cascading locks, yet no-one offensively questions their sexuality or gender.

So, the issue must be Bieber’s build. However, in his recent Teen Vogue photo shoot and plentiful shirtless sightings along his Believe tour, the singer’s body has looked anything but feminine. Any chunkier and he’d look like a dumb gym bunny.

So what’s the issue? Ah, height!

At 5ft 6,” Bieber has been judged not tall enough to own Y chromosomes. Tell that to Jackie Chan (5ft 8.5″),  Chuck Norris (also 5 ft 8.5″), Sylvester Stallone (5ft 9″), Robert Downey Jr. (5ft 8.5″) and Bruce Lee ( 5ft 7.5 “). All of the above prove absolutely that you don’t need excess inches to pack a punch.

In conclusion; with just a short note to the himself floppy haired Drake Bell that calling a guy a “girl” is something best left to preschoolers. Yes, we can all have fun talking about Bieber’s hair. But lets keep it real and lets keep it intelligent.

To the millions of girls, boys, and men and women out there who dare to mix up their personal style — and hair — with freedom, there should be no place in 2013 for ignorant gender guessing stereotyping, and that includes those aimed at Justin Bieber.

Justin Bieber’s New Haircut Sparks Tired Gender Guessing Gags is a post from: The Inquisitr

COMMENTARY | Senator Mitch McConnell is seeking an FBI investigation into leaked audiotapes recorded during an apparent re-election strategy discussion, which were published earlier Tuesday by the liberal blog Mother Jones.

No doubt on the lookout for the next “47 percent” exposé, Mother Jones published an audio recording of a Mitch McConnell re-election strategy session, which seemed primarily focused on researching the Senate Minority Leader’s potential competition. The tape seems to be from a while back, as it primarily concerns Ashley Judd (Judd announced she would not be running at the end of March).

Judd’s Senate-run-that-wasn’t has been a source of speculation in recent weeks, with some theorizing that she was actually pushed out by Democrats. Still, from the tapes published by Mother Jones, it seems clear that McConnell’s team was getting ready for her. And by “getting ready for her,” we mean “digging up dirt.”

Now, we can talk all day about whether or not “smear campaigns” and the like are appropriate or ethical, but it’s a separate conversation. The fact of the matter is, they’re used every election by both sides of the largely partisan political system. Idioms like “Obama is a socialist” and “the GOP wants to push grandma off the cliff” become so familiar, you could write a jingle to them. It sucks, it’s immature, but it happens.

McConnell’s talks are just that – you’re watching sausage being made. You’re seeing one of untold hundreds of conversations just like it happening all over the country. When you read about McConnell’s team looking up embarrassing quotes, mental health history, and the like of Ashley Judd, remember that even though it may shock you, every campaign on every side of the aisle has strategy sessions just like this.

Of course that’s a bigger problem, but not one we can address here. The issue at hand isn’t that politicians are all mean-spirited and cold-hearted during election season, it’s quite frankly that: Who cares? From where I’m sitting, Mother Jones turned itself into Breitbart pupil James O’Keefe to make a largely meaningless point. It’s the proverbial mountain out of the mole hill.

The McConnell campaign is in danger of falling into the trap laid for them by demanding an FBI investigation into the exposé and wagging their fingers at “Democratic sabotage,” but a wiser move would be to rhetorically play the media by just asking “where did they get the tape?” It does matter.

Wiser still, they could, and should, just ignore it, because this doesn’t reek of scandal. It’s always disturbing to catch a glance behind the curtain of American politics, but we’re kidding ourselves if we think it’s only a problem on one side.

Mother Jones’ David Corn is playing coy about the tape’s origin, simply remarking ”This story speaks for itself.”

The false implication is that the story says something worth listening to.

But judge for yourself. You can listen to the audio tapes of the exposé here. No tape exists in full, you’re only treated to clips a few seconds or minutes a piece at most. Chances are, if you are in a position to vote for or against McConnell, your mind is made up. If you’re an Independent, it probably means you’re smart enough to look at the issues and not the mudslinging.

[Image via: Wikimedia Commons]

Mitch McConnell’s Mother Jones Exposé: Not Exactly ’47 Percent’ Part Two is a post from: The Inquisitr

Rick Warren’s son’s autopsy shows us that guns should not be anywhere near the mentally unstable.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Rick Warren’s son committed suicide this past Friday.

Matthew Warren, 27, struggled with mental illness for many years, battling depression and suicidal thoughts despite being remember for his playful spirit.

Rick Warren feels overwhelmed by the supportive response to his son’s suicide, telling his Twitter followers, “Kay and I are overwhelmed by your love, prayers, and kind words. You are all encouraging our brokenhearts.”

The coroner for Orange County released Rick Warren’s son’s autopsy report, saying the cause and manner of death was a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Police in Orange County are still trying to determine who owned the gun used by Matthew Warren.

Rick Warren previously wrote about his son’s condition, saying, “Only those closest knew that he struggled from birth with mental illness, dark holes of depression, and even suicidal thoughts. In spite of America’s best doctors, meds, counselors and prayers for healing, the torture of mental illness never subsided.”

Recent mass shootings like the Newtown school massacre by Adam Lanza and the Aurora movie shooting by James Holmes have recently combined the issues of gun control and the mentally ill. By now we all know that Adam Lanza was diagnosed with  sensory integration disorder (SID) as a young boy, and Asperger’s was reported shortly after the shooting (Adam Lanza’s Asperger’s is not linked to violence). We recently found out that James Holmes was taking prescription meds to combat depression, panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, and panic attacks.

Making sure that a mentally ill person cannot purchase a gun is largely an agreed upon issue among both gun rights and anti-gun advocates. But at this point we don’t know where the gun that Matthew Warren used came from, or whether the family of Rick Warren owned it at all. It’s possible that the family did not know Matthew had access to the gun.

Assuming the Warren family did own the gun, I would hope they took precautions to keep any guns out of the hands of their son since they knew the battle with suicidal thoughts he was fighting. But in this scenario the precautions failed.

Whatever the case may be with Rick Warren’s family, it’s obvious there is a case to be made that guns need to be under proper lock and key in the presence of the mentally ill. I don’t support the slippery slope of denying gun rights to those with any connection to others suffering from mental illness. Nor do I support the majority of gun control laws being proposed, or actions like the Facebook photo raid which attempted to seize guns due to picture of a son posing with a gun. But a reasonable middle ground might be laws regulating the safe storage of guns.

Should we now be discussing Rick Warren’s son’s autopsy as part of the debate over gun control and the second amendment?

Rick Warren’s Son’s Autopsy Shows Guns And Mental Illness Shouldn’t Mix is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Joel Osteen hoax is probably wished to be by some critics of the Prosperity Gospel.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the Joel Osteen hoax began on a fake church website called joelostenministries.com, which looks almost identical to the original Joel Osteen Ministries website at JoelOsteen.com. As of this writing, the Joel Osteen hoax website is down.

CNN also reported the Joel Osteen hoax as real and the rest of the media fell inline, reporting the hoax one by one. The hoaxsters also posted a fake YouTube video and bogus Twitter page —twitter.com/PastorJoelOsten.

The Joel Osteen hoax was confirmed by Lakewood Church officials, saying Joel Osteen is not resigning. The church has not determined whether they’ll seek legal action, but apparently Joel Osteen is saying he’ll turn the other cheek to the hoax:

“You know, I’m really not angry. I don’t feel like a victim. I feel too blessed, that life is too short to let things like this get you down.”

But there’s some critics of the Joel Osteen hoax who are probably wishing it to be true. Joel Osteen is has been criticized for years for teaching the “name it, claim it” or “health-and-wealth” or “prosperity gospel.” These are nicknames for an idea that some call a heresy. Basically, God is there for you and your happiness. He has some rules and principles for getting what you want out of life and if you follow them, you can have what you want. Just “declare it” and prosperity will come to you. In short, if you’re rich must be following God, but if you’re not…

Critics of Joel Osteen and the Prosperity Gospel point to Bible verses like these:

“For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike.” (Matthew 5:45)

“There is a vanity which occurs on earth, that there are just men to whom it happens according to the work of the wicked; again, there are wicked men to whom it happens according to the work of the righteous.” (Ecclesiastes 8:14)

“I have seen everything in my days of vanity: There is a just man who perishes in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who prolongs life in his wickedness.” (Ecclesiastes 7:15)

Joel Osteen has also spoken to Larry King, saying he “doesn’t know” if non-Christians will go to Heaven or not. Joel Osteen has also been criticized for not taking a solid stance on gay marriage, telling Oprah that homosexuality is a sin while at the same time claiming he cannot choose to be straight.

The Joel Osteen hoax was much-discussed on Twitter:

i’d be as spiritual as Joel Osteen too if I was worth 40 million dollars.

— Matthew Gray (@HurricaneMatteo) April 9, 2013

… Though technically, Joel Osteen stopped being a Christian pastor the moment he embraced the “prosperity gospel.” #Jesus was a #socialist.

— Jason Tippitt (@TippittJason) April 9, 2013

God will make you rich if you give him money :Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen and the Prosperity Gospel marriedwithdebt.com/2012/06/creflo… via @marriedwithdebt

— Alex Mololo(@alex_mololo) February 1, 2013

Did you wish the Joel Osteen hoax was true?

Joel Osteen Hoax Wished To Be True By Some Critics Of Prosperity Gospel is a post from: The Inquisitr

The next generation of consoles isn’t looking so good.

Letdowns are already surfacing about every next generation console we are currently aware of. Some aren’t graphically as impressive as we thought they should be, some won’t allow technical bonuses that we enjoyed from the current generation, and some have already faced bad reviews before they were even released.

Let’s start with the PlayStation 4. Yes, it is still several months before the system is even released, but Sony already gave us their specs on the next generation console. It is planning to run on Unreal Engine 4 graphics, but internet critics have already pointed out that it doesn’t measure up to PCs running the same engine. This indicates that PlayStation 4 may already be behind the curve. It’s probably the fault of being run on an x86 architecture, which is actually inferior to the x64 architecture the latest high-end PCs are running on. Oh, and it seems the PlayStation 4 will suffer from more problems the Xbox 720 also appears to be facing, but I’ll get into that later.

The Wii U suffers even worse, not even getting the Unreal Engine 4 because it isn’t powerful enough. Combine this with the current track record of sales and games available, and the profit margins for new gaming units, and Nintendo could be looking into following Sega as a game developer, ditching consoles completely. I hate to see that happen, as Nintendo has always been the innovator for new technology when it comes to consoles.

Now we come to the Xbox 720. Considering the secrecy Microsoft is attempting to maintain around their next Xbox, what we think we know could already be enough to doom the console. The recent drama surrounding a certain Microsoft employee’s tweets revealed that the Xbox 720 will most likely require an internet connection just to function. That’s all fine and dandy, but I’d rather not have to choose between playing a game and surfing the internet if my internet connection is slow. Xbox Live already has a history of kicking gamers off if the connection isn’t fast enough. Imagine your game just cutting out on you if the router starts needing a power reset, or there is an unexpected outage, and you’ll understand where I’m coming from. Who wants to just sit there staring at an error screen when the power is still working fine?

Combine this with the Xbox 720 not being backwards-compatible with older games, and not even letting me play used games, and I see a deal-breaker. I only buy used games. It’s just less expensive that way. And it’s the deal-breaker that the PlayStation 4 is also facing. I don’t want to start my entire collection over because a “new and better” console was released and I don’t have room for both.  And remember what I said about the x86 architecture?  Good, because I don’t like repeating myself.

Finally, the Ouya comes to light. The Android-powered console that got its start on Kickstarter has already had inferior consoles and controllers sent out to people who paid to see it made. The controllers were flat and felt cheap, the Bluetooth controller connection is randomly laggy, and the hardware it runs on just can’t compete with the bigger consoles. If I want to play Android games, I’ll play them on my Android phone. It works better overall.

In the end, I don’t think the future of next generation consoles looks bright at all.

What do you think about the next generation of consoles?

American Mcgee on #PlayStation 4: ‘Meh’: Alice designer American McGee is not impressed by the #PlayStation 4…. bit.ly/11FFKTR

— Playstation News (@PlayStati0nNews) March 26, 2013

Next Generation Consoles: The Future Looks Grim is a post from: The Inquisitr

At just 21, Beyoncé was already terrifyingly successful. At 31, she’s magnificent.

In a year that marks the 50th anniversary of Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique, the much debated question of whether the Houston native has the right to call herself a feminist continues to rage.

The statistics aren’t the issue.

Even after earning two Grammy’s with the former band Destiny’s Child, shifting millions of records, five Grammy’s from her 2003 solo debut Dangerously In Love, selling out world tours, establishing a production company, and silencing those who saw her lead position in DC3 as nepotism by her then manager father as opposed to a blazing talent that has led some to name her Michael Jackson’s heir — the issue many have with Beyoncé has always been this:

Her right to define herself on her own terms.

In 2008, “the hottest chick in the game” announced in Marie Claire: ”I’m over being a pop star. I don’t wanna be a hot girl. I wanna be iconic.”

And she did. In the four year interim, she punched out another sell-out tour, married hip hop titan Jay-Z, gave birth to her first child Blue Ivy, dazzled in an actions-speak-louder Super Bowl reply to an overblown Lip-Sync Gate, co-directed a documentary, and inked a spanking new sponsorship deal with Pepsi.

Now, a version 2013 Beyoncé is at a place where she feels comfortable openly defining herself as a feminist. To be accurate, the singer told BritishVogue she was a “modern day feminist,” and therein lies the key to understanding where Queen Bey (or King, as she is also called) is coming from.

“I am a modern-day feminist. I do believe in equality,” she declares. “Why do you have to choose what type of woman you are? Why do you have to label yourself anything? I’m just a woman and I love being a woman. I do believe in equality and that we have a way to go and it’s something that’s pushed aside and something that we have been conditioned to accept.”

That simple reading of feminism as the belief that a woman is equal might seem trite given the complex overlays it’s had put upon it over time, but it is no less essential.

The flawed but dangerously prevalent idea, that proper feminism makes a lot of noise, imagines public toplessness furthers the feminist cause and believes that a sexy woman in make-up and visible pants has somehow let the side down still walks among us.

Much has been written about why female performers in pants are considered to have negated their right to call themselves as feminists. But while Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Rihanna et al frequently wear pants on stage, more often than not it’s Beyoncé who gets burned at the stake for seeing no conflict in wearing just pants over her lady parts and being an advocate of equality.

Her February GQ cover and shoot inside featured a blonde, nubile Beyonce in a series of pants images and accompanying “equality” quotes from the singer. It sparked acres of dissent from many quarters, notably The Guardian’s Hadley Freeman who wrote that the feminist “deal” these days is:

“apparently … famous women can sing about ‘independence’ and ‘girl power,’ as long as they’re wearing next to nothing.”

Freeman’s criticism, albeit pithy and well argued misses the point, as does my fellow IQ writers’ observation that shots of Beyoncé in her undies undermines her consistently empowering words and actions because they fall “in line with that male definition of sexiness.”

Here’s why. Female bodies in their many forms, usually if well maintained, will inflame male — or female — desire. That’s just biology. But it isn’t a reason why a female shouldn’t have the freedom to celebrate and publicly present her body any way she chooses.

Whether it’s wearing a hijab, or pretty much nothing if you’re a female athlete these days, donning a genital skimming tutu, a habit, or a Thierry Mugler take on Barbarella as Beyoncé did on her 2009 “I am … Sasha Fierce” tour — the point remains.

A woman’s right to choose whatever the heck she wants to wear (or doesn’t), on any given day is as intricately bound with her right to carry (or not) a child to term, her right not to have her genitals mutilated, and her right to equal pay, education and the acknowledgment of her person.

Realities that an American women currently earn 77 cents to every dollar that  that a male makes, why countless women died, were damaged or traumatized in back street abortions, or why rape victims — although less now — are asked by the defense what they were wearing, stems from a fundamental belief that a woman’s body is not her own.

The idea that a sexually liberated woman cannot also be an empowered one is perilously close to mindsets that blame women for rape, excuses straying men and allows workplace harassment. At their heart is the belief that the beauty of a woman cannot be celebrated and enjoyed by the one who owns it and is — in effect — saying that a woman cannot claim her own authority.

For most young girls the first point of self-actualization is choosing what they wear. Before lofty concepts of female power and equality are taught as subjects and things to be learned, it’s the early understanding that your body is nothing to be ashamed of that bears fruit in healthy, secure, well-adjusted young adults that see their sexuality as theirs to honor and control.

Whether you accept that Beyoncé with her countless awards, healthy marriage, business acumen, self-management, self-discipline — and who, as a young girl turned the popular pundit joke that blamed her for the exit of two ex-Destiny’s Child members into a hit song, and has now set up an female empowerment program with Salma Hayek and Gucci — is a feminist, is neither here or there.

Beyoncé is living her dream and her definition of feminism, not someone else’s. She may have made mistakes in her many years at the top — attempting to pull unflattering photos being one of them — but she has far more victories than missteps to be proud of.

One of them is the self-acceptance she bequeaths to females of all races, ages and bootylicious shapes simply by being who they are. Feminism shouldn’t be and isn’t a mono-definition concept. One day, maybe sooner than we think, it will be something that every female can access and express their own version of.

That’s progress. That’s power.

[Image via arvzdix / Shutterstock.com]

In Defense Of Beyoncé And Her Feminist Pants is a post from: The Inquisitr

In the same week that Tunisian activist “Amina” was threatened with stoning for showing her bare chest on Facebook, what are we to make of the latest claims from one Beyoncé Knowles that she is a feminist? To quote Queen Bey herself:

“I am a modern-day feminist. I do believe in equality. Why do you have to choose what type of woman you are? Why do you have to label yourself anything? I’m just a woman and I love being a woman. I do believe in equality and that we have a way to go and it’s something that’s pushed aside and something that we have been conditioned to accept.”

There’s a lot of things to admire in that statement: A sincere belief in equality, calling out gender labels for the completely tiresome bulls*** they are, a love and self-respect for your gender. But my problem is with the first five words. Beyoncé Knowles is many things. A decent Super Bowl performer? Yes. A brilliant businesswoman? No doubt. The owner of an enviable set of pipes? Obviously. But a feminist? No matter how loudly she says it – and boy, she likes saying it – I remain unconvinced.

I suspect I’m in the minority here, that many would feel comfortable describing Knowles as a feminist. I imagine their argument would run something like this: Here is a woman who is financially independent. She consistently pushes her belief in equality. She’s sung her share of songs about being “independent” and “strong.”

So why, from where I’m standing, does Beyoncé seem such a fraud? I mean, look, here’s another fist-shaking Knowles quote from just a few weeks back:

“[Men] define what’s sexy. And men define what’s feminine. It’s ridiculous.”

And she’s right, of course. The only problem? These stirring words were placed in the February 2013 issue of GQ. You know, right next to photos of Beyoncé writhing about in her undercrackers for the titillation of men. Falling in line with that male definition of sexiness. Woo, empowerment!

Most of us accept women are cast into certain roles by wider society and its various ideological tentacles: the sex siren, the mother (and the “glowing” mother-to-be), the spinster, and so forth. It’s positive if women are able to move beyond or even reclaim these labels, but by doing things like posing near-naked in mens’ mags, Beyoncé is neatly slotting herself into one of those cubbyholes neatly carved out for her by our penis-driven world.

Being “sexual” is fine and dandy. Sexuality can be fun, dark, even powerful. But Beyoncé does not seem powerful when posing in GQ. She is laid bare for the delight of GQ‘s one-handed readership, and she knows it. She might argue, “Why do you have to choose what type of woman you are?” Yet by seductively posing for a men’s magazine, she’s already pigeonholed herself. She’s chosen a type. Slow claps all round.

Or consider the time when unflattering photos of Beyoncé at the Super Bowl were “leaked”. Did womankind’s new leader defiantly turn around, snub her nose, and say, “I’m a human being, we all look butt in photos occasionally, and I intend to rise above this pathetic focus on my looks and concentrate on my art”?

Er, no. Instead, she got her publicist to try and zap the images from existence. As well as painting Knowles as a massive narcissist, it smacks of somebody who’s aware – too aware? – of how big a role body image plays in music industry success. Beyoncé was only too keen to ensure those photos that were out there matched the industry’s idealised notion of beauty. Any evidence that she may not conform to this notion of beauty 100% of the time MUST BE DESTROYED.

While a panicky Knowles orders her foot soldiers to erase evidence that (duh) everybody looks like crap in some photos, other self-described feminists like Amina and the women who form FEMEN are out on the streets. They’re being arrested. They’re getting in faces. They’re being threatened with death. And, most pertinently of all where Knowles is concerned, they’re not conforming to a male-engineered fantasy of female beauty.

But maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps the mistake is mine. After all, Beyoncé did describe herself as a “modern-day” feminist, a detail I have mischievously ignored until now. Because, hey, maybe posing in your lingerie while spouting about strength and equality is the modern-day feminism Knowles describes at the top of this article.

And if so, it’s just depressing as hell.

Beyoncé A Feminist? Don’t Make Me Laugh is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Obama pay cut has been called “insulting” and “feeble” by two prominent liberal media supporters.

President Barack Obama’s voluntary five percent cut in annual salary — money that he is returning to the US Treasury — amounts to $20,000. It comes in the wake of all the sky-is-falling rhetoric as a result of the automatic sequester-driven budget cuts — which only amount to a tiny two percent of the rate of growth in federal spending. The sequester does not address the systemic runaway spending in Washington including massive amounts of waste and fraud in the huge government bureaucratic machinery and also the dependency created by both corporate and individual welfare.

The cancellation of public White House tours was a form of political collateral damage supposedly attributable to the sequester. Releasing from custody hundreds of illegal aliens was another.

As Inquisitr writer Patrick Frye has separately observed, “The Obama sequester overreaction with scare tactics intended to sway public opinion is merely political theater that can only be classified as fear mongering.”

Meanwhile, unlike most Americans, Obama lives rent free and doesn’t have to pay for food or gasoline. And the president continues to party with celebrities and other one-percenters at the White House like its 2009. As The Inquisitr previously reported, taxpayers spent $1.4 billion in 2011 on staffing, housing, flying, and entertaining President Obama and his family according to some estimates.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, generally an Obama supporter as are most of the journalists at that newspaper, drew a distinction between the furloughs ordinary federal workers might face and the president’s highly publicized pay cut:

“The president makes $400,000 a year. In addition, he is provided living quarters on Pennsylvania Avenue, several limos, a very nice (Rose) garden, an (Oval) office and some very nice bedrooms, one named for a former occupant, the late President Lincoln. The president also gets a $50,000 expense account and an additional $100,000 for travel …

” … But wait: This president is independently rich. He is rich by dint of his own talent and industry, but rich is rich –- and you probably ain’t. Obama has made a small fortune in book royalties, and last year the president and Michelle Obama reported an adjusted gross income of $789,674 … So the $20,000 Obama is kicking back to the Treasury is a pittance that will not be missed … But his taking a wee haircut on his salary is just a PR stunt from the White House that’s more insulting than it is empathetic.”

Dana Milbank, Cohen’s Post ideological colleague, also addressed the overly symbolic nature of the Obama pay cut especially given that  Obama will become “filthy rich” in his post-presidential years from speaking engagements, books, and other activities: “The [pay cut] gesture, matched by several Cabinet members, was meant to be roughly the same percentage by which domestic agencies are being cut. But the amount –  $20,000 of his $400,000 salary — is so little for a man made wealthy by his political fame that it comes across as patronizing … For a man worth millions and soon to be worth tens of millions of dollars, $20,000 is not much of a sacrifice.”

” .. During World Wars I and II, there were ‘dollar-a-year men’ who left lucrative private-sector careers to serve their country in Washington. If Obama really wants to share in the furloughed workers’ ‘sacrifice,’ he should follow that honorable example and give back all but a dollar of his $400,000 salary. When he leaves office, he’ll be able to earn it back with a couple days’ work.”

Given civil service protections and benefits, federal employees are generally in much better financial shape than many workers in the private sector who may no longer have jobs at all. That being said, do you think Barack Obama understands how difficult it is for the average American family to make ends meet in this economy?

Obama Pay Cut Criticized By Liberal Supporters is a post from: The Inquisitr