This article is reprinted from Bookwormroom.com.

Frontpagemag.com offers three entertaining video interviews, posted by the always-interesting Jamie Glazov, that I highly recommend:

In Part I, Evan Sayet, a rare Hollywood conservative, discusses Bill Maher and the fundamental unhappiness that wallows in the heart of the Left. Like Mark Steyn, Evan Sayet exudes a rare combination of introspection and thoughtfulness while being simultaneously entertaining, if somewhat ADD at times (like moi).

In Part II, they discuss dating women of the Left, Tammy Bruce, Sarah Palin and why so many people of the Left absolutely hate her. A take-away from Part II: “The Right tries to make itself better, the Left tries to make the world accept them, no matter how bad they are”.

Part III below:

Previous Glazov Interviews:

Robert Spencer, leading scholar of Islam, Click Here.

Raheel Raza, courageous Muslim reformer, Click Here.

Nonie Darwish, author of Cruel and Usual Punishment, Click Here.

Stanley Kurtz, the author of Radical-in-Chief. Click Here.

Philippe Karsenty, the French media analyst who exposed the Mohammed Al-Dura Fraud: Click Here.

Andrew Klavan, world-renowned thriller writer: Click Here.

John Boehner will be writing his own political obituary if he capitulates again to Barack Obama and raises the debt ceiling of the US government.

Boehner says he wants to cut spending, but he will be exposed as a liar if he increases the debts currently smothering our economy. This issue is very clear, and Americans understand this crisis because so many of us have faced similar financial difficulties ourselves. We know what it means to have spent more than we can afford.

America cannot continue to feast on an orgy of credit and spending. Easy money given to the political establishment is the cause of the current crisis. George Bush spent more money than was prudent or necessary, and Barack Obama has doubled down. The debts now are greater than 14 trillion. How much debt will be enough?

The scare mongering by the media and power elites should be ignored. If we don’t extend the debt ceiling, America need not default on current debts. Quite the opposite is true. If we continue to increase our debts we are moving minute by minute closer to a future default. No debtor improves his situation by increasing borrowing.

As Senator Pat Toomey(Rep-PA) recently stated: “In fact, if Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling, the federal government will still have far more than enough money to fully service our debt. Next year, for instance, about 6.5% of all projected federal government expenditures will go to interest on our debt… why would we ever default?”

Boehner repeatedly says he wants to use the debt ceiling crisis to force a cut in spending. The best way to force votes to cut spending is to not add new debt. No passage of the debt ceiling guarantees that the Obama Administration will be forced to actually cut. Priories will come into focus when the limitless flood of money ends. Until then Washington will never change.

The use of words in Washington needs to accurately reflect reality. Spending is greater in 2011, than it was in 2010. Government spending is continuing to grow month by month even with Republicans and Democrats claiming they have cut it.

If a family or a business has a decrease in income they are forced to cut spending to bring the budget back into balance. Washington has ignored the warnings of economists and prudent leaders too long. The word compromise in Congress has actually become a code word for capitulation to the relentless special interests fleecing America.

If we don’t raise the debt ceiling we have an opportunity to engage in an honest discussion about priorities. Maybe bombing Libya isn’t justified if we understand that it will cause a suspension of Social Security payments.

This article is reprinted from Bookwormroom.com.

Frontpagemag.com offers three entertaining video interviews, posted by the always-interesting Jamie Glazov, that I highly recommend:

In Part I, Evan Sayet, a rare Hollywood conservative, discusses Bill Maher and the fundamental unhappiness that wallows in the heart of the Left. Like Mark Steyn, Evan Sayet exudes a rare combination of introspection and thoughtfulness while being simultaneously entertaining, if somewhat ADD at times (like moi).

In Part II, they discuss dating women of the Left, Tammy Bruce, Sarah Palin and why so many people of the Left absolutely hate her. A take-away from Part II: “The Right tries to make itself better, the Left tries to make the world accept them, no matter how bad they are”.

Part III below:

Previous Glazov Interviews:

Robert Spencer, leading scholar of Islam, Click Here.

Raheel Raza, courageous Muslim reformer, Click Here.

Nonie Darwish, author of Cruel and Usual Punishment, Click Here.

Stanley Kurtz, the author of Radical-in-Chief. Click Here.

Philippe Karsenty, the French media analyst who exposed the Mohammed Al-Dura Fraud: Click Here.

Andrew Klavan, world-renowned thriller writer: Click Here.

This article is reprinted from Bookwormroom.com.

Frontpagemag.com offers three entertaining video interviews, posted by the always-interesting Jamie Glazov, that I highly recommend:

In Part I, Evan Sayet, a rare Hollywood conservative, discusses Bill Maher and the fundamental unhappiness that wallows in the heart of the Left. Like Mark Steyn, Evan Sayet exudes a rare combination of introspection and thoughtfulness while being simultaneously entertaining, if somewhat ADD at times (like moi).

In Part II, they discuss dating women of the Left, Tammy Bruce, Sarah Palin and why so many people of the Left absolutely hate her. A take-away from Part II: “The Right tries to make itself better, the Left tries to make the world accept them, no matter how bad they are”.

Part III below:

Previous Glazov Interviews:

Robert Spencer, leading scholar of Islam, Click Here.

Raheel Raza, courageous Muslim reformer, Click Here.

Nonie Darwish, author of Cruel and Usual Punishment, Click Here.

Stanley Kurtz, the author of Radical-in-Chief. Click Here.

Philippe Karsenty, the French media analyst who exposed the Mohammed Al-Dura Fraud: Click Here.

Andrew Klavan, world-renowned thriller writer: Click Here.

From May 21. This was an hour-long program, and this is only a tiny fragment of it.

What a coincidence that on May Day, the day of the international workers’ struggle, a so-called “street party” would turn violent and culminate in the destruction of $100,000 worth of private property.

The local Santa Cruz ABC affiliate deemed the affair a May Day soiree gone awry. They then went on to casually report that the event was publicized by “anonymous flyers” posted around the city, although they weren’t terribly concerned with the flyers’ origins.

Here is a sampling of said flyers. They promote a “massive” street party where attendees are encouraged to “eat, drink, dance, takeover.”

I especially like this one:

Nothing at all to worry about. Just a radical-leftist, human powder keg.

These flyers were available at a website called “May Day Santa Cruz” on Wordpress.com which has since been taken down. Presumably, these were the individuals organizing the event…if goading a volatile mob to overrun the streets and takeover the city constitutes “organizing,” anyway. And what do you know!? Their page featured the clenched fist of militant socialism! What a shock:

In the page’s “About” section the group describes itself as “a collective that recognizes the struggles of workers and commemorates the anniversary of the haymarket massacre.” The Haymarket event they refer to is apparently a typical rallying cause for anarchists and radical leftists as it involved a violent uprising of socialists in 1880s Chicago.

May Day Santa Cruz seems to have been widely promoted by California’s network of radical organizations (“Occupy California,” for instance.) With the economic downturn in the Golden State, these groups have been ratcheting up their activity, lately. We’ve been chronicling it here at NewsReal and also at DiscoverTheNetworks.com.

Reports from KGO-TV San Francisco revealed a glimpse of the debacle from within:

Witness Brian Garrison says as soon as one person threw a rock, others followed.

“Kids celebrating, partying, drinking, eating, dancing, a little throwing, a little aggression,” recalled the UCSC student.

On a day for workers’ rights, some who were there say the destruction sends a message to large corporations.

“At the minimal, it brings people to realize that we’re all in this together,” said UCSC student Vie Sanchez. “There’s some things going on that people are angry about.”

24-year-old Jimi Haynes, from Fresno, was the only person police arrested. He now faces felony vandalism charges. Authorities say he told them he learned of the rally at a local anarchist cafe.

On Sunday, a symbol of anarchy remained spray-painted on a wall near Tobe Thompson’s jewelry shop. With just minimal damage to her windows, she considers herself one of the lucky ones.

“I heard the word anarchy thrown around a lot,” she said. “That somehow the businesses were evil or businesses were the enemy, and this was justified.”

You can get your own insider perspective below. Here’s a video of some of the shameful, mindless destruction that went on that night:

Many of the stores damaged were family-owned business and it was the workers of Santa Cruz who had to clean up the chaos in the morning. What ending could be more appropriate?

Like the Fort Hood jihad massacre and virtually all such attacks and attempted attacks these days, the car bomb discovered in Times Square Saturday was initially dismissed as having nothing to do with terrorism. The New York Times reported: "A federal official said it was not considered a terrorist threat and that the New York Police Department had told the Department of Homeland Security to stand down."

Soon, however, the weight of evidence became too great for officials to sustain this wishful thinking. New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said: "I think the intent was to cause a significant ball of fire."' New York Governor David Paterson declared the incident an "act of terrorism." Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano revealed on Meet the Press that the car bomb was being treated as a "potential terrorist attack."

Napolitano offered no hint as to which terrorists might have done it: "It's too soon to tell who was responsible." New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was just as puzzled: "We have no idea who did this or why."

Yet for all this official agnosticism, there were a number of clues - and even a group claiming credit. The explosives-laden car was found on 45th Street between 7th and 8th - not far from the offices of Viacom, which owns Comedy Central. Comedy Central, of course, presents South Park, the irreverent cartoon series that recently lampooned Islam's prophet Muhammad. After the show aired, the jihadist website RevolutionMuslim.com posted this threat against the creators of South Park, Matt Stone and Trey Parker: "We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Theo Van Gogh was brutally murdered by a Muslim on an Amsterdam street in the middle of the day in November 2004 after he made a film, Submission, about the oppression of Muslim women. Younus Abullah Muhammad of RevolutionMuslim.com told journalist Aaron Klein Sunday that the car bomb was "a retaliation for what your government is doing overseas. If you want to continue killing civilians, then you're going to get many incidents that resemble what happened yesterday." Not that RevolutionMuslim.com was claiming responsibility: "We do not condone nor condemn terrorism. There is no relation between our organization and these attacks." However, "there will be a lot more terror attacks in the United States."

Younus Abullah Muhammad's denial of responsibility notwithstanding, have authorities questioned the owners of RevolutionMuslim.com about this attempt to explode a car bomb outside Viacom's offices?...

Read it all.

Like the Fort Hood jihad massacre and virtually all such attacks and attempted attacks these days, the car bomb discovered in Times Square Saturday was initially dismissed as having nothing to do with terrorism. The New York Times reported: “A federal official said it was not considered a terrorist threat and that the New York Police Department had told the Department of Homeland Security to stand down.”

Soon, however, the weight of evidence became too great for officials to sustain this wishful thinking. New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said: “I think the intent was to cause a significant ball of fire.”’ New York Governor David Paterson declared the incident an “act of terrorism.” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano revealed on Meet the Press that the car bomb was being treated as a “potential terrorist attack.”

Napolitano offered no hint as to which terrorists might have done it: “It’s too soon to tell who was responsible.” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was just as puzzled: “We have no idea who did this or why.”

Yet for all this official agnosticism, there were a number of clues – and even a group claiming credit. The explosives-laden car was found on 45th Street between 7th and 8^th – not far from the offices of Viacom, which owns Comedy Central. Comedy Central, of course, presents South Park, the irreverent cartoon series that recently lampooned Islam’s prophet Muhammad. After the show aired, the jihadist website RevolutionMuslim.com posted this threat against the creators of South Park, Matt Stone and Trey Parker: “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”

Theo Van Gogh was brutally murdered by a Muslim on an Amsterdam street in the middle of the day in November 2004 after he made a film, Submission, about the oppression of Muslim women. Younus Abullah Muhammad of RevolutionMuslim.com told journalist Aaron Klein Sunday that the car bomb was “a retaliation for what your government is doing overseas. If you want to continue killing civilians, then you’re going to get many incidents that resemble what happened yesterday.” Not that RevolutionMuslim.com was claiming responsibility: “We do not condone nor condemn terrorism. There is no relation between our organization and these attacks.” However, “there will be a lot more terror attacks in the United States.”

Younus Abullah Muhammad’s denial of responsibility notwithstanding, have authorities questioned the owners of RevolutionMuslim.com about this attempt to explode a car bomb outside Viacom’s offices?

Meanwhile, the Pakistani Taliban rushed to claim responsibility, releasing a video calling the botched attack a “jaw-breaking blow to Satan’s USA.” Sounding much like Younus Abdullah Muhammad, a Taliban spokesman said that the attempted car bomb was revenge for American “interference and terrorism in Muslim countries, especially in Pakistan.” American officials, however, said there was no evidence to back up this claim, and Bloomberg added: “So far, there is no evidence that any of this has anything to do with one of the recognized terrorist organizations.”

Still, even if no Muslim group had anything to do with the car bomb, it was noteworthy that only Muslim groups went on record praising it as a good thing. Recently I have received an increased number of emails and Facebook messages from Muslims telling me that I have completely misunderstood Islam and jihad, and that Islam is in fact the Religion of Peace of fable and fantasy. The only problem with all such messages, and with various windy pseudo-academic “refutations” of explanations by me and others of Islam’s doctrines of warfare against unbelievers and their subjugation under Sharia, is that however good they sound on paper, somehow the last people to be convinced seem to be Muslims themselves – Muslims like Younus Abdullah Muhammad and the Pakistani Taliban spokesman who claimed responsibility for the car bomb.

Somehow Muslims like those two – and there are untold numbers of others like them around the globe — seem to have missed the memo about Islam’s vaunted respect and tolerance for non-Muslims. And Younus Abdullah Muhammad and other Muslims like him can and do point to Qur’anic verses enjoining violence against unbelievers in order to justify bombings and all manner of murder and mayhem – for Muslims are to “fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you” (Qur’an 9:123).

Until such the ways in which jihad violence and supremacism is rooted in Islamic texts and teachings is studied openly by law enforcement and intelligence officials, we will see many more jihad attacks in the U.S. – and some will be successful. For the belief system that motivates them is being neither challenged nor even examined. While officials in this case had to revise their initial dismissal of terrorism as a factor, they have never reexamined or reevaluated their dismissal of any need to understand Islam in order to understand jihadis and how they can be stopped.

And so they are not being stopped, except when we get lucky, as we did Saturday night in Times Square. But our luck is unlikely to hold forever.

EXCLUSIVE: By all appearances, Zachary Adam Chesser was the boy next door. He played football and was on the crew team at one of the best high schools in the country. He even studied Japanese. He was hardly the sort of boy you'd expect would suggest on a radical Islamic website that the creators of the edgy cartoon series "South Park" will be targeted for death.

But Chesser also had a dark side. He was a "loner," a former classmate said, one who frequently drew pictures of Satanic figures in his notebooks and had just a few friends, most of them male.

"He was definitely sort of weird," the classmate told FoxNews.com. "He was very into violent industrial music, borderline Satanic bands and stuff like that. He had dark undertones in his interests."

Two years later, Chesser is literally a changed man. He now uses an alias and has a new set of hobbies. He now likes to be called Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, and his primary interest in this world appears to be Islamic radicalism.

Last week, Chesser, 20, posted a warning on the website RevolutionMuslim.com following the 200th episode of "South Park," which included a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad disguised in a bear suit. The young man, who just two years ago was studying foreign languages at George Mason University, wrote on the site that Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the cartoon's creators, "will probably end up" like Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 after making a film critical of Islamic society.

"It's not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome," Chesser told FoxNews.com from his home in Centreville, Va. "They're going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It's just the reality."...

True enough. The real tragedy here is that a rapidly declining number of non-Muslim Westerners seem willing to stand up to this thuggery. Instead, they appear all too willing to kowtow and give the jihadis what they want, as long as the jihadis don't hurt them -- even Bill O'Reilly was saying this the other day.

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, characterized Revolution Muslim as a loosely-organized group with such outrageous beliefs he believes it may be a "setup" to smear Islam.

"They say wild and irresponsible things periodically," Hooper told FoxNews.com. "There's a strong suspicion that they're merely a setup to make Muslims and Islam look bad. They say such wild and crazy things that you have to wonder."

Sure. They're saying that those who insult Islam should be killed, which is standard Islamic teaching. Apparently Honest Ibe has never heard of this. Does Nihad Awad know that his partner is so ignorant of Islam?

Chesser, for his part, declined to indicate exactly what led him to join the group. A faculty member for George Mason University's Muslim Student Association said he had no knowledge of Chesser, who began attending the school in fall 2008 before dropping out in his second semester.

Reached by FoxNews.com via e-mail on Thursday, Chesser said one of his goals in writing for the group is to "raise awareness of the correct understanding of key Islamic beliefs." But he also warned: "If you kill us, then we kill you."

"I seek to help the world understand that neither the Muslims in general nor the mujahideen including Al Qaeda are abject to peace, but that this peace come with the following conditions: a complete withdrawal of non-Muslim forces from Muslim lands, an ending of the propping up of the apartheid regime of Israel, and a ceasing of the propping up of the brutal dictators we currently have who refuse to rule by divine law," Chesser's e-mail read....

Sounds like Obama's plan. The only catch is that even if the West did all those things, the jihad imperative to impose Sharia would still remain.

He describes what occurred:

The assault continued until the moment I became aware of the expression on my daughter’s face. Sarah had been     silent throughout my tirade, which I hardly noticed as I barreled ahead. But all of a sudden her features came into my     view with an excruciating clarity. I saw that her eyes had grown red and liquid, and her face was convulsed as though     an immense weight was pressing inexorably down on her. Her expression in that instant was one of such mute and irremediable suffering that the distress of it has never left me.

Suddenly, Horowitz, the newly minted “conservative,” realized he still had the reflexes of an ideologue and saw what it was doing to himself and the people he loved: “As the conversation shifted to other voices, I hid in my silence and thought: ‘Who is this angry person? What sort of individual could do this to his child?’”

There is a lesson here. Too many people, on both the Left and Right, allow political and philosophical difference to get in the way of their relationships, even to the point of destruction. This is not to say our fundamental beliefs don’t matter: Of course they do, especially for those of us who believe in eternal life. There are times, as the younger Horowitz himself painfully learned, where people close to us are so reckless, abusive, and extreme that there is no alternative but to leave them, at least until they reform. But that is not what we are talking about here. Most relatives or friends who have a falling out are basically good people who simply see the world differently.

Often, after one too many arguments, they retreat to their ideological corners, giving each other the silent treatment. When they finally realize how foolish they’ve been, they have to scramble to make amends — if there is time. Sometimes there isn’t, and they never do.

Gratefully, Horowitz’s relationship with his daughter didn’t reach that stage. It was, however, tragically cut short. In early 2008, at the age of just 44, Sarah Horowitz unexpectedly died. Her father has now written a memoir, A Cracking of the Heart, describing the lasting impact she had on those around her, not least of all himself.

The book marks a striking departure for Horowitz. Best known as the leader of FrontPageMag.com — and its high-temperature brand of conservatism — A Cracking of the Heart is a world away from those polemics. Profoundly moving and beautifully written, it is the kind of book that, once read, might actually help the reader heal a broken relationship, or at least prompt an examination of conscience. Even many at odds with Horowitz’s politics, as was his daughter, will find it rewarding.

Sarah was what is today known as a “special needs” child, but to those who knew her, Sarah was just special. She was born with a genetic disorder called Turner Syndrome, whose physical symptoms are severe: “A wide and webbed neck,” writes her father, “low-set and curled ears, low hairline, small stature, swollen hands and feet, drooping eyelids, dry eyes, cataracts, obesity, diabetes, infertility, arthritis . . . hearing loss . . . heart defects, and high blood pressure.”

Despite all this, Sarah led an amazingly productive life. She was a talented writer who obtained a Master’s degree in Fine Arts and pursued another in education; she became a childcare worker and all-around volunteer; she traveled to El Salvador, India, and Uganda on humanitarian missions, even going to Israel to climb the legendary fortress of Masada — successfully, despite her physical limitations.

Sarah’s life was eventful because she never regarded herself as disabled. She chose to forgo corrective surgery for her condition and declined disability benefits when she could have received them. She gave generously to the poor but repeatedly declined money from others, even when she could have used it. Facing challenges that would have disheartened most, Sarah not only survived but flourished, albeit in her own, unique way.

As he tells his daughter’s story, often through her unpublished writings, Horowitz reveals his own relationship with Sarah, revisiting the issues on which they clashed and converged.

The first concerned empathy. When he finished writing Radical Son, Horowitz sent a copy to his daughter, asking for comment. She generously replied, but scolded him for being one-sided, recommending he be “less dismissive of political opponents and more appreciative of their human complexity.” To Sarah, empathy — the ability to see and understand someone else’s situation, even when we may not approve of their ideas and acts — was essential to building a humane society.

Her father saw this as mere sentimentality, until his daughter opened his eyes. “If you see someone in the fullness of their humanity,” she wrote him, “you see how they are acting out their own confusion and suffering. This does not justify hurtful or evil acts. It doesn’t even always inspire forgiveness. But if you see someone this way, you respond more in sadness than in anger. And that is simply a more excellent state of being.” She persuaded her father to moderate his views on crime and punishment, and take a new look at the underclass: “When I see a homeless person destitute on the street, ” he writes, “I think of Sarah, and my heart opens. If there is a criminal shut behind bars, I force myself to remember her compassion, and a sadness shades my anger. If there is a child languishing in need, I think of my daughter . . . .”

Sarah learned from her father, too. Chastened by his experience with Marxism, she remained wary of ideology, and actually wrote a story lamenting “the Left’s silence” about Communist atrocities. She was a liberal, but not a party-liner: She opposed the death penalty because it damages a nation’s soul, not because she believed the condemned were necessarily innocent. Toward the end of her life, Sarah became more spiritual, reconnecting with her Jewish heritage and the people of Israel. This, too, strengthened her integrity. As one of her friends told her father:

She was for peace and justice but knew when things were not right in the positions and behaviors of the Left. A lot of     that had to do with what she learned from you . . . about philosophies that were all-encompassing and positions that     didn’t make sense. The older we got it became clearer and clearer that the Left was not our friend a lot of the time,     particularly on Israel.

What united father and daughter most was their passion for justice. “Many of our discussions revolved around the Jewish concept of a tikkun olam, which means a ‘repair of the world,’” writes Horowitz. Though he pursued that goal from the Right, and Sarah from the Left, the issues that divided them actually became points of contact: “She was curious about my history, and I was eager to hear her opinions and answer her questions. Pursuing these ends, we were able to open lines of communication that our tangled family narratives had previously blocked.”

The day before she died, Sarah gave an interview to an online journal about death and dying. She spoke about the recent loss of her aunt, the pain she experienced, and the wise counsel of her rabbi: “Pay attention to the ways in which your relationship continues.”

That, in essence, is what Horowitz tries to do here, as he expresses his own grief. Replaying times he may have slighted his daughter, he pointedly questions himself. A “cracking of the heart” refers to that moment, reflecting the holiest days of the Jewish calendar, when he began a personal process of atonement, which continues to this day:

The reflections of a mourner are a relentless accounting, and there is no bottom line. What words of hers did I fail to     understand when she was still there to explain them to me? What did I miss that her eyes were telling me when she     fell into her silences? Losing her is too hard, and there is no way to end it.

Horowitz is hard on himself in this book, undoubtedly too hard, expressing the anguish of a father who wishes he could have done more, and given more, to a selfless daughter. But he should take heart. If it is true that the apple does not fall far from the tree, then Sarah’s inspiring life was not an accident, and her father deserves much credit for raising such a wonderful child.

By telling her story, combined with his own, Horowitz reminds us how love can always conquer politics; and how a love that unites can take us, as Sarah might say, to a “more excellent” place.

William Doino Jr. is based in Connecticut and writes on religion, politics, and history.

A new twist on Muhammad the Bear has elicited the video above, which is currently available at YouTube, though that could change. Interestingly, there have been at least two prior depections of Muhammad on South Park -- one in 2001 (shown here, on the right), and another in 2006 that didn't make it to air, but can be found online. But a bear suit... that means war! Who knows, maybe it's because the Pedobear jokes all but write themselves.

Oodles of hateful rhetoric on a variety of topics and against a variety of people -- Theo Van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, Kurt Westergaard, Lars Vilks, and Geert Wilders -- can be found in the remainder of the video.

"Security Brief: Radical Islamic Web site takes on 'South Park'," from CNN, April 19:

The radical Islamic Web site Revolutionmuslim.com is going after the creators of the TV cartoon series "South Park" after an episode last week included an image of the Prophet Mohammed in disguise.

Revolutionmuslim.com, based in New York, was the subject of a CNN investigation last year for its radical rhetoric supporting "jihad" against the West and praising al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Its organizers insist they act within the law and seek to protect Islam.

On Sunday, Revolutionmuslim.com posted an entry that included a warning to South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone that they risk violent retribution - after the 200th episode last week included a satirical discussion about whether an image of the prophet could be shown. In the end, he is portrayed disguised in a bear suit.

The posting on Revolutionmuslim.com says: "We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Theo van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by an Islamic extremist in 2004 after making a short documentary on violence against women in some Islamic societies. The posting on Revolutionmuslim.com features a graphic photograph of Van Gogh with his throat cut and a dagger in his chest.

The entry on Revolutionmuslim.com goes on to advise readers:

"You can contact them [the makers of South Park], or pay Comedy Central or their own company a visit at these addresses ..." before listing Comedy Central's New York address, and the Los Angeles, California, address of Parker and Sloane's production company.

Contacted by CNN, the author of the post, Abu Talhah al Amrikee, said that providing the addresses was not intended as a threat to the creators of South Park but to give people the opportunity to protest.

Over still photographs of Parker, Stone, van Gogh and others, the Web site runs audio of a sermon by the radical U.S.-born preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, who is now in hiding in Yemen. The sermon, recorded some time ago, talks about assassinating those who have "defamed" the Prophet Mohammed - citing one religious authority as saying "Harming Allah and his messenger is a reason to encourage Muslims to kill whoever does that." U.S. officials say al-Awlaki is on a list of al Qaeda leaders targeted for capture or assassination.

The clip ends with a warning on a graphic directed at Parker and Stone, saying "The Dust Will Never Settle Down."

Al Amrikee said the purpose of including the al-Awlaki sermon in his posting was to remind Muslims that insulting the prophet is a severe offense for which the punishment in Islam is death. He said RevolutionMuslim may hold protests about the show.

Calls to Comedy Central were not returned.

“Access to this site has been denied in accordance with Navy policy to safeguard the security posture and/or to maintain the operational integrity of the NMCI.” 

This was the message encountered on Friday by Navy corpsmen when trying to access FoxNews.com via the Navy’s internet system. Other news sites during this time, including the New York Times, were also inaccessible through the Navy Marine Corps Internet (NMCI.) MSNBC and CNN, however, did not present the same problem.  

The Fox outage was not uniformly present throughout NMCI. Marines at the pentagon reported no disruption on Friday and no one is really sure why the site was temporarily prohibited. 

Fox News reports,

Lt. Justin Cole, a Navy spokesman, initially told FoxNews.com Friday morning that “there’s got to be some type of issue with NMCI.” But later he said he had been informed that it was not an NMCI issue…

The outage could have occurred automatically or manually, Cole said. But if it was manual, he said he was not sure who would have made that decision.

Access to Fox has since been restored to NMCI users, although the cause for the restriction is still unclear. Maj. Carl Redding, a Marine spokesman at the Pentagon suggested it was the “nature of the network” to unpredictably block even legitimate sites for technical and security reasons.

Former New York Mayor Ed Koch expressed disappointment in President Obama on Thursday for his treatment of Israel after it announced it would continue construction in East Jerusalem - the section of the holy city claimed by the Palestinians.

"I have been a supporter of President Obama and went to Florida for him, urged Jews all over the country to vote for him saying that he would be just as good as John McCain on the security of Israel. I don't think it's true anymore," Koch told Fox News' Neil Cavuto....

Was it ever true? No. Find out the truth of Obama's record and associations regarding Jews and Israel in The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War On America.

Koch said he believes Obama "orchestrated" what happened in Israel.

"What they did is they wanted to make Israel into a pariah," he said. "It's outrageous in my judgment. "

Koch said he's shocked that Congress, which largely supports Israel hasn't "stood up and said to the president, 'you're wrong on this, Mr. President.'" [...]

"I believe that the Obama administration is willing to throw Israel under the bus in order to please Muslim nations," Koch said. "We'll know when I'm right or wrong."

Oh, we know you're right already.

The aftermath of my column

For the past two days, I have been embroiled in an enormous campus controversy concerning a column I wrote criticizing the concept of “date rape” and decrying the victim-based ideology of the sexual left. Printed in the university’s paper, the American University Eagle, the column went up on its website on Sunday night.

Readers of NewsReal Blog can probably anticipate what’s coming next. Papers were vandalized, people have been intimidated — par-for-the-course. I knew what I was getting into. Although from a pro-feminist perspective, Amanda Hess of the Washington City Paper has the run-down of who said what.

Sometime yesterday, Jezebel.com, a leading feminist blog, decided to chip in its two cents. What did the site’s commenters say when they found a picture of me — that wasn’t actually of me?

In the responses to Jezebel.com’s reaction to my article, a picture of me was posted by a commenter, who proceeded to criticize me for looking like a “bag of douche.” Commenter “lillymaidofastolat” declared that I look “like a rape-y, creepy guy.” Some of them bashed my facial hair patterns.

The problem? The picture wasn’t of me. Oops!

Let’s turn the tables here: let’s assume that a group of conservatives dug up a picture of a feminist and proceeded to criticize her hairstyle, say that she looks like a slutty whore, and criticize her for looking like a bitch. Far be it from me to say that most feminists are not bitches — but wouldn’t this be proof-positive of misogyny, in the eyes of these womyn?

Although the picture has now been deleted, proof of its presence — and the ugly comments left beneath it — remains.

The feminists also bombarded me with the following niceties: I am “going to make some unlucky woman very, very, very bored in bed,” I was clearly “rejected for my looks” and speaking from my “hormone-addled” lust for girls. Other comments referred to me as a frustrated frat boy trying to justify his longing to date-rape women.

Um, yeah. More problems: I’m gay. I’m also a teetotaler.

Don’t feminists usually call this “heteronormativity” — the assumption of a person’s heterosexuality?

Seldom do we get such spectacular proof of feminist insularity. They are so busy fighting their stock characters that they cannot even be bothered to spend three minutes on Google to research my background. So eager are they to destroy the straw man of a boozy frat boy who (not-so-) secretly wants to rape them — that they don’t even stop to ask me, my editors, or my publishers about who I am. I’m an opponent of radical feminism and I used the word “rape” — to the vanguard, ladies!

Over the next 72 hours, I will update here at NRB with my continued experiences in dealing with cultural Marxism and censorship-by-intimidation on campus. Depressingly, this incident is just the beginning.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

“What’s in a name? That which we call a socialist
By any other name would smell as putrid.”

The above mangling of Romeo & Juliet was called to mind by a new CNSNews.com interview with Sean Hannity, in anticipation of the release of his new book, Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama’s Radical Agenda, next week.  The conservative star makes no bones about calling President Barack Obama a socialist:

CNSNews.com: You believe that Barack Obama is a socialist?

Hannity: I believe that Barack Obama is the most radical president America has ever had–by far. Yes.

CNSNews.com: And he’s trying on every front that he can to increase government control of our free enterprise system?

Hannity: Yes. I think he meets the dictionary definition–if you look at taking over banks, financial institutions, insurance companies, dictating pay, the health care industry–that is by definition what socialism is. Yes.

CNSNews.com: And he’s not going to be sorry seven, eight years–

Hannity: Look, Al Sharpton said he was a socialist the other night. I’m just quoting Al Sharpton.  First time I agree with Al Sharpton. He’s right. Obama is a socialist.

Sharpton aside, leftists and “polite company conservatives” will naturally howl at such blunt talk—after all, Obama himself professes to believe in no more than “a light touch” of government in the free market, and many self-described socialists take umbrage at the notion that Obama is bringing their ideals to life (outright Communists, on the other hand…).  But it’s hard to look at some of Obama’s greatest hits—drastic expansion of government control over personal healthcare decisions (which, remember, Obama thinks should go even further) and government control over automotive companies—and not see similarities to that “dictionary definition” Hannity is talking about:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

On the other hand, David Swindle made a good point on March 1 about all this consternation over what semantics to label Obama with: that it’s largely academic and of limited practical value.  Socialist, statist, leftist, collectivist, progressive, modern liberal…whatever terminology we want to use, the fact remains that the activists and intellectuals that comprise today’s Democratic Party, mainstream media, lower & higher education, cultural elites, and popular culture all (with slight variations on the particulars) agree on several basic principles:

-          Government’s judgment is more trustworthy than the individual’s judgment or market forces

-          The federal government can run roughshod over state prerogatives whenever it sees fit

-          Individual liberty matters little when weighed against economic or social inequality

-          Constitutional rules are made to be broken, by any means necessary (judicial activism, legislative trickery, or outright disregard), in the pursuit of one’s policy goals

From his domestic agenda to his rogues’ gallery of far-left associates, Barack Obama fits that definition to a T.  Call it what you like, but the important thing is to know what ideas we’re up against—and Hannity’s latest blockbuster sounds like a good place to start.

_____

Hailing from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Calvin Freiburger is a political science major at Hillsdale College.  He also blogs at the Hillsdale Forum and his personal website, Calvin Freiburger Online.

Actor Sean Penn loves Venezuela’s communist dictator Hugo Chavez so much he wants journalists who dare to call Chavez a dictator put in prison, FoxNews.com reports.

Appearing on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” on Friday, the Oscar-winning actor said

Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it, and this is mainstream media, who should — truly, there should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.

Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said that apart from an immediate incitement of violence, Penn may say virtually anything he wants in the “political arena.”

“What he is saying is protected, as wacky and weird as it is,” said Napolitano. “But the substance of what he’s saying would be absolutely contrary to the First Amendment, which fully protects all political opinions. So if a journalist says Dick Cheney should go to jail, the journalist is privileged to say that.”

“Mr. Penn is calling for a communist-like regime in which journalists who criticize the government are sent to jail because of that criticism,” Napolitano said. “That is utterly un-American and hasn’t happened here since the Civil War.”

Penn also previously called the Chavez-crafted constitution of Venezuela, which gives the president the power to rule by decree, “a very beautiful document.”

It is unclear what Penn thinks of Chavez’s crackdown on the media –including the movie industry– in Venezuela. After local filmmakers protested Chavez’s plan to give taxpayers’ funds to the American actor Danny Glover to produce movies, Venezuela outlawed two local film guilds, Variety reported.

Cue the sad noise when Mario dies by mushroom: federal agents have charged three Miami businessmen with conspiring to smuggle videogame consoles to a shopping center in Paraguay that funds political terrorist group Hezbollah.

Khaled T. Safadi, Ulises Talavera, and Emilio Gonzalez-Neira were arrested Thursday following a nearly three-year investigation of their Miami-based export and freight-forwarding businesses. ICE agents working with the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force say the three falsified invoices and export paperwork and used a network of fake addresses to mask the true destination of thousands of Sony cameras and Playstations: the Galeria Page Mall in Cuidad del Este.

The U.S. Treasury has identified Galeria Page as the headquarters for Lebanon-based Hezbollah in the tri-border region of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay; they say the manager pays a regular quota to Hezbollah based on the center's sales.

Federal prosecutors say wire transfer payments to the Miami shippers from their contact at Galeria Page, Paraguayan national Samer Mehdi, were routed through various other business to conceal their origin. Mehdi has also been charged but remains at large.

A source said the alleged smuggling ring made "hundreds of millions" of dollars for Hezbollah....

The final day of CPAC 2010 (Saturday 2-20) did not disappoint.  An array of conservative heavy-hitters, panel discussions and film offerings kept things interesting and conference attendees engaged.  The exchange of ideas and the inherently intellectual exercise that is conservatism was fully in evidence.

Things got off to a rousing start with a short but passionate speech by Andrew Breitbart, best-known for his websites BigHollywood.com, BigGovernment.com and most recently Bigjournalism.com. Breitbart’s message was simple and direct: The so-called “mainstream media” can no longer distort and suppress the truth with impunity.  There is now a rapidly expanding new media extant which is not afraid to tell the truth and to expose the lies of the Left.  This is all-out war – and we are coming after you when you tell lies to the American people and attempt to destroy honorable individuals who dare to expose the non-politically-correct truth.  Be scared ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC.  Be afraid New York Times.  You no longer control the narrative and we WILL hit back and hit back hard when you engage in personal destruction and obfuscation.

Next I attended a screening of one of Citizens United’s newest films: Atomic Jihad: Ahmadinejad’s Coming War for Islamic Revival.  About 90 minutes in length, this documentary provides important insights into why Iran’s Islamist regime is pursuing nuclear weapons technology, and how the Obama administration’s policies are enabling it.  The film includes a detailed overview of Islam’s history from 622 to the present, including its many territorial conquests and setbacks.  It explores why Muslims consider Israel to be an intolerable blight upon Arab territory which must be destroyed.  As with all of Citizens United’s productions I have seen, Atomic Jihad is very well-produced and conveys vital information in a compelling and accessible manner.  You can read more about Citizens United and all their films here.

At noon, Ann Coulter packed the house and delivered a speech consisting primarily of one-liners, followed by a short Q&A session.  Some of her best lines:

“Well, what a difference a year makes!  This time last year according to the media the Republicans were finished, dead, moribund – it was the beginning of the Democrats’ thousand-year Reich….The fact that a Republican is now in former Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat must have him rolling in his grave – probably spilling his drink.”

“I might be in favor of national healthcare if it would require all Democrats to get their heads examined.”

“(Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings) has even written the introduction to a book titled Queering Elementary Education…and yes, as some of you may have guessed, it’s a pop-up book.”

“Bill Clinton was recently rushed to the hospital with chest pains.When the doctors asked what his symptoms were,  he said he felt like 2 interns were sitting on his chest.  He’s fine now, he just had to have a stent surgically inserted into his boxers once they got the interns out. While he was in the hospital he had some minor surgery, while he was there he had Sidney Blumenthal’s lips surgically removed from his buttocks.”

“CNN called the opponents of big government tea-baggers, which is the gayest term I’ve ever heard on CNN other than Anderson Cooper.”

“Ironically since Obama was elected, for the first time in my life, I’m sometimes not proud of my country!”

“You’ve been a great crowd, especially since you’re all paid shills for the insurance companies.  Anyway, thanks for being here, Keith Olbermann is a girl, God Bless America, and remember – Keith Olbermann is a girl.”

Later in the afternoon I attended a panel discusion: Saving Freedom from Enemies of Sovereignty.  It featured Michael Farris of Patrick Henry College, Wendy Wright from Concerned Women for America, Steven Groves of The Heritage Foundation, Jeff Gaynor from Americans for Soevreignty, and Frank Gaffney, Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy.  The discussion focused on the ways in which the Left uses United Nations committees and resolutions to devise trans-nationalist laws which violate the traditional concept of national sovereignty.  All the panelists were articulate and offered unique perspectives on this issue.

The final highlight of the day was of course Glenn Beck’s closing speech.  In an address lasting about an hour, Beck captivated the packed hall with his trademark mixture of humor, history lesson and passionate articulation of conservative principles.  He referred to progressivism as a disease existing in both parties.  He called it a cancer in the system which must be removed.

Beck reminded the audience that he has been predicting the coming of an economic holocaust for about 4 years now.  He believes that the worst is still ahead for us, but also that we will triumph over the coming adversity.  He also spoke of his personal struggle with alcoholism and the lessons it taught him – lessons, he said – that are similar to the ones America must re-learn.  Finally, in an emotional and passionate appeal to first principles and doing the difficult but honorable things necessary to restore American greatness, Beck invoked Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America” theme, ending with tears in his eyes.  The speech was a fitting conclusion to this three-day celebration of America’s founding principles.  You can view it in its entirety here.

An immigration judge in Dallas on Friday ordered an outspoken Islamic leader deported after the U.S. government alleged he had ties to terrorist groups in the Middle East.

Nabil Sadoun, a Dallas resident and former board member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, was deported to his native Jordan after he failed to appear at his immigration hearing. He entered the U.S. in August 1993.

Sadoun's attorney, Kimberly Kinser, said he was already in Jordan and was unable to return to Texas because the government had taken his permanent resident card, or green card.

She denied he was tied to any terrorist groups....

In court, the judge made vague references to the government's voluminous motion to deport him, including alleged involvement with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. The judge concluded Sadoun lied on government forms when he denied he was a member.

The judge also indicated there was evidence Sadoun contributed to the Richardson-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which was the largest Islamic charity in the United States. Prosecutors convicted the group of funneling money to terrorist groups and several of its leaders were sent to prison. In the case, CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator....

Ibrahim Hooper, a CAIR spokesman, said Sadoun left the organization several months ago.

Asked the reason for his departure, Hooper said, "Board members come on, (and) they leave."...

A non-answer from that skillful beekeeper of media bees, Honest Ibe Hooper.

One of Jay Leno’s funniest bits on the Tonight Show is when he goes trolling in Hollywood for people who know nothing about America.  They don’t know what country we fought to be independent from, what century the Civil War was in, etc.

MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews is a frequent Leno guest; but Thursday night, he proved he’s been in the wrong part of the show. He should be featured in “Jay Walking.”

Matthews and Salon.com’s Joan Walsh teamed up against Tea Party activist Colin Hanna of Let Freedom Ring.  With condescension dripping from their tone, these two supposedly intelligent members of the media tried to lecture Hanna on the Constitution, but proved themselves as dumb as any “Jay-walker.”

As Walsh nodded in approval, Matthews accused the Tea Partiers of wanting to bring back slavery, and didn’t know the Bill of Rights was part of the original Constitutional discussion, or that the Republican Party wasn’t formed until just before the Civil War.  For good measure, he also threw in the closing shot that “patriot” was an “exclusive” term that offends him.

And Hanna took these “smart kids” to school and beat them up for their lunch money.

Here is Chris’s tryout for “Jay-walking” and his contribution to future blonde jokes.

MATTHEWS: If the original document, the Constitution, was so perfect, why did we need 10 amendments right up front Colin? Why do we need the 2nd Amendment for the gun guys, right up front, if it was a perfect document. We started amending pretty early, didn’t we?

HANNA: Actually we started the amendments, Chris, if you, well before the actual document was made.

MATTHEWS: Well to get them approved because the Republican Party insisted on the amendments.

HANNA: No, no, no. Many of those things that became the rights are laid out in the amendments, the first 10, the Bill of Rights were, in fact, derivations of other documents that actually predated the Constitution.

MATTHEWS: Oh sure, sure. The colonial documents. Well not colonial but the, the, the state charge. But look-  [DF—WHAT?]

HANNA: Right. But look here’s, here’s, here’s the point. Here’s the point…

MATTHEWS: But here’s the point. Don’t we have, if you get into this first principle thing we can’t even have an Air Force. There’s no Air Force in the Constitution. Is there?

Hm.  For 8 years, Chris has been insisting that wiretapping foreign terrorists in “un-Constitutional.  Pretty sure cell phones aren’t in the Constitution either…

First, the Republican Party was formed in 1854 as an anti-slavery party, Lincoln, Chris—you may have heard of him—was its first President.  While he’s just as revered, HE WAS NOT A FOUNDER.  When Lincoln used the phrase “Four score and seven years ago,” (that means 87, Chris) he was talking about the Founding.  You know, the Gettysburg Address?  Ring any bells?

(And don’t even try to say you meant Thomas Jefferson’s party, the Democratic-Republican Party which was called “Republicans” by their contemporaries.  It wasn’t formed until 1800.)

Second, Hanna schooled you pretty well on the Bill of Rights, but one other point.  The only controversy over the first 10 Amendments—which were passed in the first Congress after the Constitution was ratified in 1787, was whether the original document already implied that everything them was already covered.  They were NOT considered a “change” to the document.

Third, you ninny, the military IS covered in the Constitution, which sets up a Commander-in-Chief and designates war powers.  Kind of like including cable news as part of “the press” when it comes to the First Amendment?  Get it?

Oh, and as far as Amendments go, “going back to the Constitution” would include the Amendments, including the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th, genius.

Now, tell me why I should think that Chris Matthews is any more knowledgeable than anyone in this Jay Walking segment.

Not to be outdone in historical ignorance, Joan Walsh got into the act:

JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: Well yeah Chris. I mean what, one of the things I really resent. Mr. Hanna said it’s an inclusive movement but it certainly doesn’t include people like me and that’s their prerogative-

HANNA: No it’s your prerogative.

WALSH: But more than that it demonizes liberals, it demonizes Democrats. Thank you it’s mutual here. But it demonizes liberals, it demonizes Democrats as though we’re hostile to the Founders, we’re hostile to the Constitution. And I think those of us on the Democratic side really look back on a wonderful set of Founders a wonderful set of founding documents but say back in the day women could not vote, African-Americans were mostly property. Asians and Latinos were excluded and so we’ve needed some updating. We needed Social Security and Medicare because the life expectancy of people back then was about 35 or 40. So we’ve needed some updating. We’re proud of the updating we’ve done, but we are, we still hue to the original values and to the original principles. And so I never liked being told that we’re not patriots or we’re not respecting the Constitution. I don’t see that at all.

Perhaps Joan can enlighten us as to when the Social Security and Medicare Amendments to the Constitution were passed, or point out the references to Asians and Latinos excluding them from citizenship…?

Hanna was undaunted by the rants and answered calmly and rationally.

HANNA: What, the mistake Joan was making was that she was talking about how some of the policies of the 18th century didn’t follow the principle of liberty for example. That’s entirely true. There were all kinds of policy errors that we made, certainly the tolerance of slavery, all of those things are things that can and should be corrected. No one is arguing for them as any kind of standard of perfection. But the fundamental principles of the founding. The principles of individual liberty, of ordered liberty, of, of, of limited government, those are principles that today when we look at them they appear to be very conservative. But in point of fact, that was the center of the spectrum at that time and that’s what’s being re-established right now, Chris, with this Mount Vernon Statement that was signed today.

WALSH: …I’m glad to hear Colin say he is against slavery and I believe most people are. I really do believe that.

Gee, thanks, Joan.

There is more, much more, along these lines, and you can check it out if you like.

Chris took his final shot, with the old leftie cliche about the word “patriotism.”

MATTHEWS: …Back in the beginnings of our country – and you’re a student, we all are, of our history [DF-- I think you disproved that, Chris]– there was a real honest debate between how strong a central government we have and how much should it be distributed among small farmers. The sort of Jeffersonians against the Hamiltonians. But Jefferson didn’t accuse Hamilton of being unpatriotic. He didn’t say “You’re not one of us.” He said, “You have a different view.” The trouble with your crowd is if you take a strong big government view, if you think we ought to have a little bit more socialism like health care, which is a point of view, you guys say we’re not American. And I’ve got say wait a minute, you can have people on the left who are just as American as people on the right. You’ve got people on the right who want to secede from the Union! Don’t tell me somebody wants to secede from the Union is more patriotic than somebody who would like to see a national health care system like Tony Weiner. I’m sorry, just because you disagree doesn’t mean the other guy ain’t one of us! And that’s what-. I hear this word “patriot,” and I don’t like it. I think it excludes people who aren’t with your point of view. That’s all I’m saying. And what does a patriot mean these days? This isn’t a re-enactment play!

HANNA: I would fundamentally disagree with you because-

MATTHEWS: Why do you use the word patriot?

HANNA: Because you’re using entirely negative terms and I don’t think that this is a movement, either the conservative movement or the tea party movement which is using the negative terms in anything like the way you are. They are using positive terms and if you feel excluded by the positive terms-

MATTHEWS: Yeah I do.

HANNA: Frankly Chris, that’s your problem-

MATTHEWS: It is my problem!

HANNA: It’s not, it’s not our, it’s not our problem, because we’re stating it positively.

Chris, you are a patriot– just like you’re a student of American history.

It’s interesting that as Barack Obama’s agenda tanks with the American people that the new MSNBC tactic– by both Matthews and Olbermann– is to trash the American Founding. Is this self-revealing, or what?