Webmaster of anti-Islam site openly called for pogroms against Muslims

With news of recent arson attacks against multiple Islamic (and Hindu) targets in NYC, CAIR notes the following:

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the advocacy group, said CAIR recently called on the FBI to investigate threats targeting mosques posted on an anti-Islam blog called “Bare Naked Islam.”

One comment on the site read: “Throw 10 Molotov cocktails into these mosques and burn them down,” according to Hooper. By Monday, the comment appeared to have been taken down by blog operator WordPress.com.

An example of a particularly vile thread on this site from May 2011 can be found in the Google Cache. The thread is started with a post containing links to news articles describing indiscriminate mob violence against Muslim immigrants in Greece with the author voicing approval. Many of the comments openly call for such tactics against Muslims to be exported to other countries such as the US. An example:

I think we should applaud Greece and use them as an example and start throwing bombs in Mosques. I really don’t CAIR what they think they shouldn’t be here so their rights don’t matter. Treat me as you want to be treated.

This thread is notable because the webmaster behind the website openly calls for riots against Muslims around the world.

A poster named “Shawn” commented that:

It’s about time! Maybe this is the start of an ‘Anti-Islam Summer’. Now that’s something to celebrate and get behind.

The webmaster “barenakedislam” then responded:

Shawn I like that, a worldwide anti-Islam summer.

Leading anti-immigrant activist admitted that NAFTA increased illegal crossings from Mexico but supports free trade anyway

The massive growth in immigration pressures from Mexico in the 1990s was not a failure of NAFTA, but an inevitable consequence. The way we’ll know that CAFTA is promoting economic development in Central America and the Dominican Republic (the scope of the treaty) will be when we see the same increase in immigration pressures. Counterintuitive as it might seem, economic development, especially agricultural modernization, always sets people on the move, by consolidating small farms into larger, more productive operations. These excess farmers then move to cities, where they get manufacturing or service-sector jobs.

But the fact that development cuts peasants loose from the land and compels them to move to cities doesn’t tell us whose cities they’re moving to. Immigration pressure, after all, is not the same as actual immigration. The problem with NAFTA was not that it promoted trade between the United States and Mexico but that neither country did anything meaningful to make sure that the excess Mexican peasantry moved to Mexico’s cities instead of ours. And CAFTA might actually create proportionately greater immigration pressures, because most of the agreement’s impact will be to make our exports more competitive there, with some 80 percent of imports from the CAFTA countries already entering our country duty-free.
[…]
If there is one lesson to be learned from NAFTA it is that free-trade agreements must be accompanied by muscular immigration controls, especially if they are reached with countries that are nearby or already send a lot of immigrants here. If the …

Cold War alliances and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt

Robert Dreyfuss, Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (New York: Henry Holt, 2006), pp. 147-149:

In the 1970s, guided by Kamal Adham, Saudi Arabia’s chief of intelligence, Anwar Sadat brought the Muslim Brotherhood back to Egypt. The United States, accustomed to working with Saudi Arabia, was untroubled by the rise of Islamism in Egypt. In fact, Washington was so eager to bring Egypt over the US side in the Cold War that policy makers, diplomats, and intelligence officers viewed Sadat’s restoration of the Islamic right benignly or tacitly encouraged it.
[…]
Concurrent with the growth of the Islamic right in Egypt, Sadat helped engineer a dramatic expansion of America’s power in the Middle East. Under Nasser, Egypt was a nation at odds with the United States. Twenty thousand Soviet troops, technicians, and advisers backed Egypt’s armed force; a war of attrition was under way along the Egypt-Israel border; and Egypt and the United States lacked even normal diplomatic ties. But Sadat established a covert relationship with Adham, the CIA, and Henry Kissinger, the US national security adviser. In 1971, within a year of assuming control, Sadat ousted the Egyptian left from the government, and in 1972 he stunned Moscow by expelling Soviet forces. After the 1973 Ramadan War–waged in concert with Saudi Arabia and organized around Islamic themes rather than Arab nationalism–Egypt and the United States reestablished ties. […] By 1980, Egypt was America’s leading Arab ally, engaged in supporting the US jihad in Afghanistan and …

Israeli settlements and the “negotiating table” panacea

US State Department Press Briefing with Deputy Spokesman Mark C. Toner (bolding mine):

QUESTION: The Israeli Government has announced plans to actually encourage settlers to move into the West Bank and to begin – and also to begin a process that would – that could end up in legalizing what are now illegal outposts. I’m assuming that your position on both of these things hasn’t changed, so I’m wondering –

MR. TONER: You assume correctly.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. TONER: You know we’ve said multiple times –

QUESTION: What is it – can you maybe make it a little bit more clear, because it seems to be apparent that the Israelis, or at least Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government, don’t understand exactly what it is that you, as their prime benefactor and large – huge ally, want from them.

MR. TONER: Well, Matt, we’ve said this many times from this podium and from elsewhere that we view any move that would jeopardize getting these two parties back to the negotiating table, and indeed, we’ve obviously seen them back – face-to-face negotiations over the past couple of weeks – that we find those unconstructive and unhelpful.

QUESTION: And that would include what they have announced today?

MR. TONER: Yes, that would include that.

QUESTION: All right. So what is the consequence, then, for Israel for them continuing to defy – not only defy but really to do – not just to say no, we don’t agree with that, but then to actually actively …

WikiLeaks cable: Gingrich wanted a global environmental treaty organization in 2005

Apparently Newt Gingrich has been fear-mongering about UN Agenda 21 these days:

It’s a United Nations proposal to create a series of centralized planning provisions, where all of a sudden your local city government can’t do something because of some agreement they signed with some private group who are all committed basically to taking control of your private property and turning it into a publically controlled property. Everywhere I go in the country today, people, particularly the tea parties, are very worried about Agenda 21. It’s part of a general problem of United Nations and other international bureaucracies that are seeking to maintain an extra-constitutional control over us, and I reject that model totally. The United State is a sovereign country. The United Nations does not authorize anything for the United States, and the United Nations does not have any control of the United States, and we want to make sure that remains our core value as we go forward.

However, years ago, Gingrich apparently thought that a new “international bureaucracy” being created for environmental matters was a fine idea.

US Embassy in Paris, 14 Jun 2005, “French discuss UN reform issues with Newt Gingrich”:

[French diplomat Jean-Maurice] Ripert said that France also favored a universal UN environmental organization to address issues currently dealt with by 500 conventions and autonomous secretariats all over the world. He envisioned an environmental body similar to WIPO [World Intellectual Property Organization], having a small secretariat. Gingrich said that this was a good idea and …

How come we never heard about Rev. Wright enough from the MSM?

By now, the sermons, lectures, and commentaries of Jeremiah Wright quoted, reproduced, and discussed by other sources, ranging from broadcast and cable television and radio, to print and, of course, weblogs and the Internet-based audio- and video-hosting platforms such as YouTube, have been so numerous that sheer scale alone makes it impossible to define where his allegedly “controversial” and “offensive” statements begin, and where they end. But the relative intensity of coverage tells part of the story. According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, for the first 125 days of 2008 (January 1–May 4), the Wright-Obama relationship was the most frequently reported news item, receiving roughly 3.8-times more attention than did the second most frequently reported item, how the “superdelegates” were aligning in the primary process; it was covered 4.9-times as heavily as John McCain’s ties to lobbyists.13 Wright and his views also towered over the meager attention given to the views of Hagee, Parsley, and Robertson, and to their relationships with McCain. Media Matters for America reports that between February 27 and April 30—the 27th having been the date on which Hagee endorsed McCain in San Antonio while McCain was campaigning with Parsley in Ohio—the New York Times and Washington Post “published more than 12 times as many articles” mentioning Wright and Obama as they did mentioning Hagee and McCain. In terms of editorials and op-eds, the ratio was even greater—more than 15 to 1.14

Similar patterns were true across the board. For the ninety-six-day period from …

Our AIPAC-owned Congress

H. R. 2893: To prohibit Foreign Military Financing program assistance to countries that vote in the United Nations General Assembly in favor of recognizing a Palestinian state in the absence of a negotiated border agreement between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

H. RES. 297: To withhold United States contributions to the United Nations until the United Nations formally retracts the final report of the “United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.”

H. R. 2589: To prohibit certain activities in support of the Arab League boycott of Israel, and for other purposes.

H. RES. 297: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Secretary of State should withhold United States contributions to the regularly assessed biennial budget of the United Nations for purposes of the General Assembly of the United Nations if the General Assembly adopts a resolution in favor of recognizing a state of Palestine outside of or prior to a final status agreement negotiated between, and acceptable to, the State of Israel and the Palestinians.

H. R. 1609: To amend the War Powers Resolution to limit the use of funds for introduction of the Armed Forces into hostilities, and for other purposes.

(a) No funds available for the United States Armed Forces may be obligated or expended for introduction of the Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, in the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization or obligation