Fear Mongerer Eric Holder Warns Of Phantom Backlash Against Muslims Instead of Addressing Threat of Islamic Terrorism

Via Katie Pavlich – Townhall:

Apparently, granny will still be getting the full pat down experience at the airport instead of young Muslim men returning home from volatile, Jihad ridden regions of the world like Dagestan.

Attorney General Eric Holder is warning Americans not to discriminate against Muslims in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings.

Attorney General Eric Holder declared Monday that the Justice Department is on the lookout for acts of violence or discrimination that signal a backlash to the Boston Marathon bombings earlier this month in which three people were killed and scores wounded.

“Our investigation into this matter remains ongoing – and I want to assure you that my colleagues and I are determined to hold accountable, to the fullest extent of the law, all of those who were responsible for this attack,” Holder said, according to the prepared text of a speech delivered Monday to the Anti-Defamation League. “But I also want to make clear that – just as we will pursue relentlessly anyone who would target our people or attempt to terrorize our cities – the Justice Department is firmly committed to protecting innocent people against misguided acts of retaliation.”

Holder did not mention the backgrounds of the two alleged perpetrators. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, was charged in federal court with using a weapon of mass destruction. His brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, was killed in a violent encounter with police a few days after the bombings and is described as a co-conspirator in a court filing. Both men are Muslims and of Chechen descent. Investigators have not yet alleged a motive for the attack.

Investigators at the Department of Justice may not be willing to name radical Islam as a motive, but bombing suspect number 2, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, admitted his older brother wanted to carry out the attacks in defense of Islam and was willing to die in the process. Not to mention their mother told CNN she didn’t care that he oldest son was killed but instead wants the world to hear her say, “Allahu akbar.

As a reminder, it’s Jews, not Muslims, who regularly face the overwhelming majority of hate crimes in America.

About 1 in 5 hate crimes are religiously motivated, and American Jews continue to be the victims in the majority of those incidents, according to figures released Monday by the Federal Bureau of Investigations.

The FBI has seen the number of bias crimes remain steady, with 6,628 reported in the U.S. last year. Of those, half had racial motivations, and about 20 percent dealt with religion.

A breakdown of the religious hate crimes found:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

But remember, if you see something, say something….even though it means nothing. From Michelle Malkin:

In brief remarks to the nation yesterday on the Boston Marathon bombings, President Obama said that “we all have a part to play in alerting authorities. If you see something suspicious, speak up.” In Washington, D.C., electronic signs urged commuters to be on guard. Law enforcement, big-city mayors and security experts all echoed that famous post-terrorism refrain: “If you see something, say something.”

But who really means it?

In post-9/11 America, the truth is that our politically correct guardians only want you to see, say or do something if it can’t be construed by grievance-mongers as racist, sexist, Islamophobic, homophobic, nativist or any other “-ist” or “-ic.”

Face it: We live in a self-defeating culture that pays lip service to heroic action in times of crisis, yet brutally punishes the very kind of snap judgments and instant security profiling that make such heroism possible in the first place.

Just take a look at some of the caustic reactions to citizens and watchdogs who stuck out their necks during and after the Boston Marathon bombings. A quick-thinking spectator at the race reportedly tackled a 20-year-old Saudi Arabian student visa holder he believed was acting suspiciously. The student is not considered a suspect at this point, but remains a “person of interest” in the case. The student’s home was searched Monday night in Revere, Mass., by a phalanx of law enforcement agencies.

Time magazine correspondent Michael Crowley clucked: “It’ll be a real shame if a Saudi guy was tackled and held simply for running in fright — and for being an Arab.” Music producer Sledgren took to Twitter to bemoan “prejudice America.” Indian television anchor Gargi Rawat called the civilian’s actions “sad.” Gawker editor Max Read declared: “(T)his poor Saudi kid should sue the guy who tackled him.”

For what? For taking all those “See Something, Say Something” ads seriously? Hang him!

I’m sure the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group with known ties to terrorism, is pleased with Holder’s warning.

 

Advertisements

Boston Bombers’ Mosque has History of Radicalism

Via Investor’s Business Daily:

Homeland Insecurity: The New York Times thinks the Boston bombers “self-radicalized” on the Web. But it didn’t look at their mosque, which has churned out other terrorists, too.

USA Today, on the other hand, did look at their mosque — the Islamic Society of Boston — and found “a curriculum that radicalizes people,” according to a local source quoted in the paper’s investigation. “Other people have been radicalized there.”

In fact, several ISB members and leaders have been convicted or suspected of terrorism, including:

• Abdurahman Alamoudi, the mosque’s founder and first president, who in 2004 was sentenced to 23 years in federal prison for plotting terrorism as al-Qaida’s top fundraiser in America.

• Aafia Siddiqui, an MIT scientist-turned-al-Qaida agent, who in 2010 was sentenced to 86 years in prison for planning a New York chemical attack.

• Tarek Mehanna, who in 2012 was sentenced to 17 years for plotting to use automatic weapons to murder shoppers in a suburban Boston mall.

• Ahmad Abousamra, an ex-mosque official’s son, who fled the country after the FBI charged him with conspiring with Mehanna to kill Americans.

• Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a mosque trustee and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader banned from the U.S. after issuing a fatwa that OK’d killing U.S. soldiers.

• Jamal Badawi, a former ISB trustee who in 2007 was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a plan to funnel $12 million to Palestinian suicide bombers.

In justifying mall attacks, the FBI said Abousamra stated “civilians were not innocent because they paid taxes to support the government and because they were kaffir (non-Muslims).”

The Tsarnaev brothers, who killed three and injured some 200 spectators, appeared to share that rationale.

In 2009, ISB invited Yasir Qadhi to speak, even though the Saudi radical advocates turning the U.S. into an Islamic state and calls Christians “filthy” polytheists whose “life holds no value in the state of jihad.”

The Tsarnaev brothers, who began radicalizing in 2009, posted YouTube videos featuring imams exhorting the death of Christians and Jews and calling for the establishment of the caliphate.

ISB leaders have defended its rotten apples, including Siddiqui and Mehanna, despite overwhelming evidence against them.

USA Today reports the mosque gets millions from the Saudis, who push an anti-Western strain of Islam. And it’s run by the Muslim American Society, which the FBI believes is the main U.S. front for the Muslim Brotherhood, which created Hamas and al-Qaida.

In its propaganda, MAS routinely claims America is at war with Islam. The younger Tsarnaev brother cited this myth as a reason for attacking innocents.

President Obama vows to finally crack down on terrorists. Perhaps he should focus on the spiritual factories radicalizing them.

Immigration Bill Would Repeal E-Verify

Via the Daily Caller:

The Senate’s complex immigration bill would instantly gut the popular E-Verify system that is widely used to exclude illegal immigrants from jobs, and then create an enforcement gap for several years before the arrival of a replacement system.

“There’s no doubt that the bill eliminates E-Verify immediately upon signing,” said Kris Kobach, secretary of state of Kansas, told The Daily Caller.

“If there’s no statutory authority for E-Verify, there’s no E-Verify,” said Kobach, a lawyer trained at Harvard, Oxford and Yale universities, and a prominent advocate for reduced immigration.

The claim is vehemently disputed by the bills’ advocates, including staffers working for Sen. Marco Rubio.

However, Rubio staffers were unable to show TheDC any text in the legislation that gives the current E-Verify system legal backing until the new system is mandated in several years.

The multi-year gap in E-Verify enforcement creates a political problem for Rubio and the other advocates of the Senate immigration bill.

The E-Verify rules are critical to Rubio and his allies as they try to pass their pending immigration revamp, partly because a large swath of the public is worried about the economic impact of immigrants, both legal and illegal.

An April 20-22 poll by Fox News of 1,009 registered voters showed that 55 percent of respondents want a reduction in the number of legal immigrants. That 55 percent includes 45 percent of non-whites and 62 percent of people without college degrees.

The new bill would sharply increase the current annual inflow of roughly 1 million immigrants and 650,000 company-sponsored, temporary workers for blue-collar and professional jobs.

The E-Verify system is voluntarily used by 350,000 employers to screen job applicants. It was created in 1997 as the “Basic Pilot Program,” and it uses the Internet to let employers compare job applicants’ claimed identities — and sometimes, their pictures — against a federal record of residents and citizens. The use of E-Verify is now mandatory in several states, including Georgia and North Carolina.

Despite the apparent multi-year gap in enforcement, Rubio has emphatically promoted the bill by highlighting its verification requirements.

“One of the things we’ve known for a long time is that the magnet that draws illegal immigrants to the United States is employment,” he said in an April 25 TownHall.com interview.

“This law mandates a universal E-Verify system. It is not an option, it is a mandate. They must do it,” he said.

“This bill requires the full implementation of a universal E-Verify system,” Rubio said on Mark Levin’s radio show April 17. Without a bill, he said, “you won’t have E-Verify.”

In several emails to TheDC, Rubio’s spokesman repeatedly denounced Kobach’s analysis. But the spokesman declined to supply bill language that shows how E-Verify is enforced once it is canceled, and before a replacement is developed by contractors, deployed by agencies and approved by the courts. A PDF of the entire bill is available here.

“The existing system will continue and will be enhanced along the way,” Alex Conant said in an April 23 email to TheDC.

However, despite repeated requests , Conant did not identify a paragraph in the bill showing how enforcement of E-Verify would continue uninterrupted once the program is canceled immediately after the bill becomes law.

“We create a transition from a temporary program to the permanent program,” he said next.

“That whole section of the bill is about creating a permanent E-Verify system,” he said in his next email.

Page “503 & 504 make clear that the transition & construction will not give people an opportunity in the system to stop using the system. This is clear to the business groups, the unions, and everybody else that has reviewed the legislation,” he said in an April 24 response.

USDA Refuses to Check Immigration Status of Food Stamp Applicants

Via the Washington Examiner:

With food stamp spending in the United States skyrocketing since the beginning of the recession, the Department of Agriculture is paying to promote food stamp usage to illegal immigrants for the sake of their American children, according to documents obtained by a government watchdog.

“The promotion of the food stamp program, now known as “SNAP” (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance,” Judicial Watch announced today.  “Emphasized in bold and underlined, the statement reads, ‘You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.’”

The USDA said the program is designed to help American children. “[The USDA Food and Nutrition Service] understands that mixed status households may be particularly vulnerable,” FNS’ Yibo Wood wrote to Mexican embassy officials in a January 2012 email.   “Many of these households contain a non-citizen parent and a citizen child.”

The food stamp program may be cut when Congress moves to pass a farm bill this year. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., and Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., introduced a bill last week to cut $30 billion from the $760 billion the program is expected to spend over the next ten years.

“Since President Obama came into office, SNAP participation has increased at 10 times the rate of job creation, the annual spending on SNAP has doubled, and one in seven Americans now participates in SNAP,” Thune said in a statement on the bill.  “This explosive growth in both the SNAP enrollment and federal cost of the program is alarming and requires lawmakers to take cost-effective legislative control measures.”

“We save taxpayers $30 billion and make sure that families in need still receive a helping hand,” Stutzman added. “This is a common-sense start for Congress’ Farm Bill discussions as we look for ways to tackle Washington’s nearly $17 trillion debt.”

Obamacare Encourages Businesses to Employ Immigrants Over US Citizens

Via Investor’s Business Daily:

Under the immigration reform bill, some employers would have an incentive of up to $3,000 per year to hire a newly legalized immigrant over a U.S. citizen.

In avoiding one controversy — the cost of providing millions of newly legalized immigrants with ObamaCare subsidies — the Senate “Gang of Eight” may have risked walking into another.

The bipartisan legislation released Wednesday dictates that those granted provisional legal immigrant status would be treated the same as those “not lawfully present” are treated under the 2010 health law.

That means they would neither be eligible for ObamaCare tax credits nor required to pay an individual tax penalty for failing to obtain qualifying health coverage. It also means some employers would face no penalty for failing to provide such workers affordable health coverage.

For employers who don’t offer insurance, fines are based on full-time equivalent staffing levels, so distinctions between citizens and visa holders don’t matter.

The Cost Of Citizenship

But employers who do offer insurance also can face fines. If the coverage costs a worker more than 9.5% of pay, it is deemed unaffordable and the worker becomes eligible for ObamaCare’s exchange subsidies.

These employers would have to pay the government up to $3,000 per full-time worker who receives ObamaCare subsidies.

Some employers have said they would seek to limit ObamaCare fines by shifting some workers to part-time, which the law defines as fewer than 30 hours.

The immigration bill, as written, would provide another path for avoiding fines by hiring of legalized immigrants as full-time employees, since they wouldn’t be eligible for ObamaCare for a decade or more.

Millions of immigrants given provisional legal status would be eligible for permanent residence after 10 years under the bill.

A playing field tilted toward legalized immigrants is surely not what the bipartisan group of Senators intended, and it may be possible to craft a legislative fix. But it may not be simple, either politically or administratively.

Double Or Nothing

Congress could weaken the ObamaCare employer mandate, which might not please Democrats. As an alternative, they could make it even more punitive, a tough pill to swallow for Republicans who would like to scrap the mandate altogether.

One possibility, for example, would be to further penalize companies based on the number of full-time provisional immigrants on their payroll without qualifying coverage.

ObamaCare’s design has been unusual among means-tested programs in that benefits — and penalties — apply to all legal residents who earn up to 400% of the poverty level and don’t have employer coverage. Other programs aren’t accessible for five years after gaining legal status.

ObamaCare’s exception for the undocumented only made sense because their status was in flux, politically, and it has been illegal for employers to knowingly hire them. But with no legal barrier to employment, favored status under ObamaCare’s employer mandate looks problematic.

 

Obama May Send 20,000 Troops to Jordan

Via Military.com:

The Pentagon will send some 200 U.S. soldiers to Jordan to control spillover violence from the Syrian civil war, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the Senate.

But the troops, near Jordan’s border with Syria, could be the forerunner of 20,000 or more U.S. troops deployed if the Obama administration decides to intervene in the 2-year-old civil war, senior U.S. officials told the Los Angeles Times.

The 200 or so troops from the 1st Armored Division at Fort Bliss, Texas, will work alongside Jordanian forces to “improve readiness and prepare for a number of scenarios,” Hagel told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Those scenarios could include securing chemical weapons arsenals or to prevent the war from spilling into neighboring countries, he said.

But the Pentagon has drawn up plans to possibly expand the force to 20,000 or more, the officials told the Times.

These forces could include special operations teams to find and secure Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles, U.S. air defense units to protect Jordan’s airspace and conventional military units capable of moving into Syria if necessary, the Times said.

Defense Department officials consider the move as preparing the United States for possible direct military involvement in Syria, the Times said.

The Pentagon had no immediate comment on the report.

“Military intervention is always an option, but it should be an option of last resort,” Hagel told the committee.

He warned a major deployment could “embroil the U.S. in a significant, lengthy and uncertain military commitment.”

Hagel told the panel the new forces will initially help deliver humanitarian supplies and help the Jordanian military cope with the flood of Syrian refugees.

The will replace an ad hoc group of U.S. troops “pulled from various units and places” who have been in Jordan since last year, he said. That group included U.S. Army Special Forces, also known as Green Berets.

Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked Hagel and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, who testified with him, if Obama had asked the Pentagon to recommend how to apply “any additional military pressure” on the Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad.

“We’ve had national security staff meetings at which we’ve been asked to brief the options, but we haven’t been asked for a recommendation,” Dempsey said.

“We’ve not been asked,” Hagel said. “As I said, I’ve not been asked by the president.”

Hagel is to be in Jordan next week as part of a Middle East trip that will also take him to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, the Pentagon said Wednesday.

 

Radical Homosexual Activist Admits Agenda is To Destroy Marriage

Via the Illinois Family Institute:

Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t  lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen.  On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda.  She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.

Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506)

For quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to point out that the true agenda behind the homosexual demands organizations is not marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of marriage and uprooting traditional values from society.  (This will ultimately include efforts to silence and punish some churches that openly adhere to their religious teachings about marriage and sexual morality.)

While few have been as vocal as this lesbian activist was in this interview, we do have numerical examples proving her point.  When given the opportunity to marry, after laws have been struck down relatively small percentages of homosexuals actually bother to marry compared to their heterosexual counterparts.  This raises question about the true need to unravel marriage for the “fair” extension its benefits.  Only 12 percent of homosexuals in the Netherlands marry compared to 86 percent of their heterosexual peers.  Less than 20 percent of same-sex couples already living together in California married when given the chance in 2008.  In contrast, 91 percent of heterosexual couples in California who are living together are married.

Clearly this is about cultural change and tearing down the traditional family ethic, since it seems that most homosexuals living together neither need nor desire to marry, though they do desire to radically change marriage.

Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, and we live in a society which roundly applauds them doing so like never before in our history, but they do not have the right to rewrite marriage for all of society.

Saudi Boston Bombing ‘Person of Interest’ to be Deported; Multiple Family Members in Gitmo, on Terror Watch List

Via the Global Dispatch:

Confirmation that Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi, the Saudi national and initial “person of interest,” is indeed being deported this week now is spreading across the Internet. More details are emerging this weekend as Arabic sources and Saudi papers themselves are confirming “rumors” swirling in the US. (more at bottom)

Moreover, the Saudi papers are detailing the visit by the Obamas, especially Michelle to the hospital and this man. The “rumors” of the President meeting with Saudi officials in the hospital just prior to his “approved deportation” is a bragging right in their press.More notable is the assertions that Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi is free an clear of terrorist ties, when in fact over 10 names from his clan are already linked to Al-Qaeda.

Many from Al-Harbi’s clan are entrenched in terrorism and are members of Al-Qaeda as identified by the Islamic governements.

Out of a list of 85 terrorists listed by the Saudi government shows several of Al-Harbi clan to have been active fighters in Al-Qaeda:

#15 Badr Saud Uwaid Al-Awufi Al-Harbi
#73 Muhammad Atiq Uwaid Al-Awufi Al-Harbi
#26 Khalid Salim Uwaid Al-Lahibi Al-Harbi
#29 Raed Abdullah Salem Al-Thahiri Al-Harbi
#43 Abdullah Abdul Rahman Muhammad Al-Harbi (leader)
#60 Fayez Ghuneim Humeid Al-Hijri Al-Harbi

Source: http://aalhameed1.net/vb/showthread.php?t=1565

Then you have Al-Harbi clan members in Gitmo:

Salim Salman Awadallah Al-Sai’di Al-Harbi
Majid Abdullah Hussein Al-Harbi
Muhammad Abdullah Saqr Al-Alawi Al-Harbi
Ghanem Abdul Rahman Ghanem Al-Harbi
Muhammad Atiq Uwaid Al-Awfi Al-Harbi

Source: http://www.muslm.net/vb/showthread.php?169019-أسماء-(90)-سعودياً-لا-زالوا-محتجزين-في-جوانتانامو

There are specific Saudi clans that are rife with members of Al-Qaeda, which has fueled critics questions the hundred thousand student visas are issued to these and how ICE officials seem clueless to make the connection with the clans when it comes to terrorism.

The BBC reported Khaled Alharbi was married to the daughter of al-Qaida’s number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri. He reportedly appeared with bin Laden in a video praising the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Another top al-Qaida operative is Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi, a Saudi national identified by the State Department as “a key member of an al-Qaida network operating in Iran.”

The State Department has offered a multimillion-dollar reward for the capture of Abdel Alharbi, saying he is an Iran-based al-Qaida facilitator who serves as the deputy to Muhsin al-Fadhl, who runs al-Qaida’s Iran network.

At a site called Sabq, Alharbi’s father talks about how a member of the Aldawsari clan – Ali Aldawsari – visited his son in the hospital. Remember what we wrote about Khalid Aldawsari here:

Take Khalid Aldawsari, a Saudi national. He is a student and an Al-Qaeda terrorist who planned to use weapons of mass destruction in the U.S., to include an attempted assassination of president Bush.Aldawsari was not a lone wolf; he was backed by an entire system. The wealthy and powerful Aldawsari clan, which includes the powerful Sheik Saud Bin Mut’ab who hosted a support group for the terrorist defending him publicly while funding his legal team.

Okaz, the same prominent Saudi newspaper, that published photos of Abdul Rahman Ali Issa Al-Salimi Al-Harbi in the hospital after the Boston marathon bombings, is now reporting that the Saudi national was also visited by the first lady of the United States, Michelle Obama during his hospital stay.

CBS News in Boston reported that the first lady visited Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital on Thursday, April 18th:

The First Lady went to Boston Children’s Hospital, where she visited the medical and surgical intensive care unit.

Afterwards, she went next door to Brigham and Women’s Hospital to meet more victims and their families for more than an hour.

The visits were off limits to the media and came on short notice for security reasons.

(Emphasis added -BBJ Dispatch)

There were multiple reports that Alharbi was hospitalized at Brigham and Women’s so that would seem corroborate the Okaz report.

Okaz stated further that the first lady also visited the other injured Saudi at the hospital, a female doctor named Nura Khalid Saleh al-Ajaji:

“Michelle Obama visited the two injured Saudis Abdulrahman Ali Essa Al-Salimi Al-Harbi and Nura Khalid Saleh Al-Ajjaji to check on their medical conditions.”

Adding credibility to this report seems to be multiple tweets made by the inner circle of the Al-harbi family:

Al-Harbi_Twitwheel

Black Comedian Happy Whites Killed, Maimed in Boston Bombing

Via the Rockland Times:

African-American comedian Paul Mooney hurled racial insults at his audience Saturday at Levity Live in West Nyack, outrageously stating that white people in Boston deserved to be bombed, and as long as no blacks were injured in the attack, he was okay with it.

It’s not clear the context preceding Mooney’s remarks, but what he said reportedly caused about 20 persons to leave the performance and demand refunds, management confirmed with media Sunday.

Alleged comedian Paul Mooney thought applauding the murder and maiming of caucasian Bostonians, including an 8-year-old boy, would be suitable material for his audience at Levity Live in West NyackAs a result of his statements, Levity Live cancelled his Sunday performance and he will not be invited back to the club “anytime soon,” management further confirmed.

According to reports printed in Newsday and other outlets, one Twitter user in attendance explained Mooney said: “White people in Boston deserved what they got” and “as long as no blacks got hurt it was OK.”

The 71-year-old Mooney, a former writer for Richard Pryor and other top comics, has had a long history of making controversial and politically incorrect racial remarks.

The Rockland County Times has found video of earlier acts in which Mooney mused about the killing of whites in terrorist events. He has opined in the past that the 9.11.01 terror attacks caused a shift in the balance of power in society and on the world stage which he finds favorable.

Regarding the 9.11.01 attacks, Mooney smiled wide in one performance, and said, “Oh baby, it’s a whole new world. I love this new world. These Arabs, they upset these white folks. They went after their economy. The world is a different place.” He conceded that New York City “did not deserve that” and that if he could have talked to the terrorists beforehand he would have persuaded them to attack Disneyland in California, instead.

Not all of his jokes are about the white man’s chickens supposedly coming home to roost, but race is always a special focus of Mooney’s act. In one recent joke Mooney authored, typical of his brand of “humor,” he says, “[Tiger Wood’s wife] beat the black out that boy. That’s why he ran into that tree. All that was left was the Asian.”

The incident in West Nyack has reminded many Rocklanders of the Michael Richards controversy, when the white comedian of “Seinfeld” fame assailed a black audience member with the “n-word” and caused a national stir.

The club apologized on Monday for Mooney’s comments. They released a statement which said, in part, “The management of Levity Live would like to offer its sincere apologies to its patrons and the city of Boston for Mooney’s insensitivity and distasteful material.”

The comedy club provided refunds to all customers who left the show Saturday and for the Sunday cancellation.

Leaked Immigration Bill Details Show Amnesty Precedes Border Security

Via the Washington Post:

Millions of immigrants living illegally in the United States could earn a chance at citizenship under a sweeping Senate proposal to be released Tuesday that would represent the most ambitious overhaul of the nation’s immigration system in three decades.

The highly anticipated proposal from an eight-member bipartisan group also aims to stem the flow of undocumented immigrants into the country by creating tens of thousands of new visas for foreign workers in low-skilled jobs, according to a 17-page summary of the bill obtained by The Washington Post.

[…]

CONTINUE READING >>>