Ethical Practices
Survey of Broadcasting: Assignment 2, Question 2. Discuss the legal definitions of obscenity and indecency. Consider how contemporary/local community standards are ascertained.
The definition of obscenity that currently applies to broadcasting was set forth in the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Miller v. California.
For a radio or television broadcast to be considered obscene, it must meet a three-part test:
- Contain material that depicts of describes in patently offensive way certain sexual acts as defined in state law;
- Appeal to the prurient interests of the average person applying contemporary local community standards, where prurient means tending to excite lust;
- Lack of serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value.
Indecency is content that is not obscene as set forth in the Miller v. California Supreme Court decision but still contains offensive elements. The common legal definition of broadcast indecency is as follows:
“Something broadcast is indecent if it depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in a fashion that’s patently offensive according to contemporary community standards for the broadcast media at a time of day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.”
Nudity and the use of words that describe sexual or excretionary acts are not obscene per se, however, they may be classified as indecent.
Contemporary community standards are ascertained or determined by jurors in obscenity and indecency cases prosecuted and brought before the courts.
Perversion for Profit: Part III
Perversion for Profit: Part IV
Community standards change overtime, by location and who makes up a jury in a specific case.
With the world-wide web or the internet linking people in many communities, what are contemporary community standards?
Today the prosecution of obscenity and indecency cases is considered normal.
Yet the ancient Greeks and Romans would consider the prosecution of obscenity and indecency as bizarre.
The determination of community standards appears to be both arbitrary, capricious and ever-changing.
Technology in the form of VCR, cable television and the internet have made eroded community standards and made the prosecution of obscenity cases difficult.
Jurors hearing an obscenity case will compare the evidence presented in court with what they have seen on cable television and over the internet or with videos that have watched in their homes.
The perverse unintended consequence is there are no contemporary community standards.
The Seven Words
Censored South Park F Word Scene
Background Articles and Videos
Should Obscenity be Illegal?: Lady Chatterley, Milk Nymphos, & John Stagliano
Censored! The First Amendment, Sex, and Obscenity
“How Obscene is This” Panel 2 | The New School
Obscenity and the Supreme Court
Perversion for Profit 1/2
Perversion for Profit 2/2
Perversion for Profit: Part III
Pt 1 PornHarms.com founder Patrick Trueman, Attorney at Law, at Briefing on Capitol Hill
Pt 2 PornHarms.com founder Patrick Trueman, Attorney at Law, at Briefing on Capitol Hill
Southpark Kyles mom a bitch with lyrics
I’m Gonna Kick His Ask
Obscenity
“…An obscenity is any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time, is a profanity, or is otherwise taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting, or is especially inauspicious. The term is also applied to an object that incorporates such a statement or displays such an act.
In a legal context, the term obscenity is most often used to describe expressions (words, images, actions) of an explicitly sexual nature. The word can be used to indicate a strong moral repugnance, in expressions such as “obscene profits”, “the obscenity of war”, etc. It is often replaced by the word salaciousness.
According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary, that which is obscene (i.e.: an obscenity) is quite simply defined as repulsive, or disgusting to the senses.[1]
The definition of what exactly constitutes an obscenity differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities. Many cultures have produced laws to define what is considered to be obscene, and censorship is often used to try to suppress or control materials that are obscene under these definitions: usually including, but not limited to, pornographic material. As such censorship restricts freedom of expression, crafting a legal definition of obscenity presents a civil liberties issue.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states:
| “ | Congress shall make no law (…) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. | ” |
Thus, the United States of America has constitutional protection for freedom of speech, which is not interpreted to protect every utterance, despite the lack of exception clauses (rare in a national constitution) in the text of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has found that, when used in the context of the First Amendment, the word obscenity is usually limited to content that directly refers to explicit sexual acts that are publicly accessible, though it has at times encompassed other subject matters, such as spoken and written language that can be publicly transmitted and received by the general public.
The legal term of obscenity is usually denoted to classify a distinction between socially permitted material and discussions that the public can access versus those that should be denied. There does exist a classification of those acceptable materials and discussions that the public should be allowed to engage in, and the access to that same permitted material—which in the areas of sexual materials ranges between the permitted areas of erotic art (which usually includes “classic nude forms” such as Michelangelo’s David statue) and the generally less respected commercial pornography. The legal distinction between artistic nudity, and permitted commercial pornography (which includes sexual penetration) that are deemed as “protected forms of speech” versus “obscene acts”, which are illegal acts and separate from those permitted areas, are usually separated by the predominant culture appreciation regarding such. However, no such specific objective distinction exists outside of legal decisions in federal court cases where a specific action is deemed to fit the classification of obscene and thus illegal. The difference between erotic art and (protected) commercial pornography, vs. that which is legally obscene (and thus not covered by 1st Amendment protection), appears to be subjective to the local federal districts inside the United States and the local moral standards at the time.
In fact, federal obscenity law in the U.S. is highly unusual in that not only is there no uniform national standard, but rather, there is an explicit legal precedent (the “Miller test”, below) that all but guarantees that something that is legally obscene in one jurisdiction may not be in another. In effect, the First Amendment protections of free speech vary by location within the U.S., and over time. With the advent of Internet distribution of potentially obscene material, this question of jurisdiction and community standards has created significant controversy in the legal community. (See United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996))
Even at the federal level, there does not exist a specific listing of which exact acts are to be classified as obscene outside of the legally determined court cases. Title 18, chapter 71 of the USC deals with obscenity, the workings out of the law described in this article, most notably the aforementioned Miller test.
Former Justice Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court of the United States, in attempting to classify what material constituted exactly “what is obscene”, famously wrote, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced…[b]ut I know it when I see it…”[2]
However, in the United States, the 1973 ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in Miller v. California established a three-tiered test to determine what was obscene—and thus not protected, versus what was merely erotic and thus protected by the First Amendment.
Delivering the opinion of the court, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote:
The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[3]
Justice Douglas wrote a dissenting opinion that eloquently expressed his dissatisfaction with the ruling:
The idea that the First Amendment permits government to ban publications that are ‘offensive’ to some people puts an ominous gloss on freedom of the press. That test would make it possible to ban any paper or any journal or magazine in some benighted place. The First Amendment was designed ‘to invite dispute,’ to induce ‘a condition of unrest,’ to ‘create dissatisfaction with conditions as they are,’ and even to stir ‘people to anger.’ The idea that the First Amendment permits punishment for ideas that are ‘offensive’ to the particular judge or jury sitting in judgment is astounding. No greater leveler of speech or literature has ever been designed. To give the power to the censor, as we do today, is to make a sharp and radical break with the traditions of a free society. The First Amendment was not fashioned as a vehicle for dispensing tranquilizers to the people. Its prime function was to keep debate open to ‘offensive’ as well as to ‘staid’ people. The tendency throughout history has been to subdue the individual and to exalt the power of government. The use of the standard ‘offensive’ gives authority to government that cuts the very vitals out of the First Amendment. As is intimated by the Court’s opinion, the materials before us may be garbage. But so is much of what is said in political campaigns, in the daily press, on TV, or over the radio. By reason of the First Amendment—and solely because of it—speakers and publishers have not been threatened or subdued because their thoughts and ideas may be ‘offensive’ to some. [4]
In U.S. legal texts, therefore, the question of “obscenity” presently always refers to this “Miller test obscenity”. As articulated in several sections of 18 USC Chapter 71, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional to legally limit the sale, transport for personal use or other transmission of obscenity. However, it has ruled unconstitutional the passing of law concerning personal possession of obscenity per se. Federal obscenity laws at present apply to inter-state and foreign obscenity issues such as distribution; intrastate issues are for the most part still governed by state law. “Obscene articles… are generally prohibited entry” to the United States by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.[5]
At present, there are only two legally protected areas of explicit commercial pornography. The first is “mere nudity” as upheld in “Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (1974)” whereby the film Carnal Knowledge was deemed not to be obscene under the constitutional standards announced by Miller. As declared by the judge at trial “The film shows occasional nudity, but nudity alone does not render material obscene under Miller’s standards.” This was upheld time and again in later cases including “Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville FL, 422 U.S. 205 (1975)” in which the city of Jacksonville stated that showing films containing nudity when the screen is visible from a public street or place is a punishable offense. The law was determined to be invalid as it was an infringement of First Amendment rights of the movie producer and theatre owners. The second is single male to female vaginal-only penetration that does NOT show the actual ejaculation of semen, sometimes referred to as “soft-core” pornography wherein the sexual act and its fulfillment (orgasm) are merely implied to happen rather than explicitly shown.
In June 2006, the U.S. Federal government in the district of Arizona brought a case against JM Productions of Chatsworth, California in order to classify commercial pornography that specifically shows actual semen being ejaculated as obscene. The four films that were the subject of the case are entitled “American Bukkake 13”, “Gag Factor 15”, “Gag Factor 18” and “Filthy Things 6”. The case also includes charges of distribution of obscene material (a criminal act under 18 USC § 1465 – “Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution”) against Five Star DVD for the extra-state commercial distribution of the JM Productions films in question. The case was brought to trial on October 16, 2007. At the first date of trial, the US DoJ decided not to pursue the JM obscenity case any further, leaving the matter without resolution, possibly fearing the formal establishment of films depicting ejaculation as a nationally protected material if the trial was decided in favor of JM Productions.[6] While the US DoJ decided to abandon its legal pursuit of the JM productions, U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver has forced the legal case against Five Star DVD distributors to continue, whereby the legal classification of whether “sperm showing through ejaculation” is an obscene act and thus illegal to produce or distribute will be definitely answered in order to convict Five Star of being guilty of “18 USC 1465 – Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution”.[7] The jury found that Five Star Video LC and Five Star Video Outlet LC were guilty of “18 USC 1465 – Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution” for having shipped JM Productions’ film “Gag Factor 18”.[8] However, the specific content in that film that the jury deemed to actually fulfill the legal qualification of being “obscene” has not been specifically stated at this point.
Obscenity v. indecency
The differentiation between indecent and obscene material is a particularly difficult one, and a contentious First Amendment issue that has not fully been settled. Similarly, the level of offense (if any) generated by a profane word or phrase depends on region, context, and audience.
Non image-based obscenity cases in the USA
While most of the obscenity cases in the United States have revolved around images and films, there have been many cases that dealt with textual works as well.
The classification of “obscene” and thus illegal for production and distribution has been judged on printed text-only stories starting with “Dunlop v. U.S., 165 U.S. 486 (1897)” which upheld a conviction for mailing and delivery of a newspaper called the ‘Chicago Dispatch,’ containing “obscene, lewd, lascivious, and indecent materials”, which was later upheld in several cases. One of these was “A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General of Com. of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)” wherein the book “Fanny Hill”, written by John Cleland c. 1760, was judged to be obscene in a proceeding that put the book itself on trial rather than its publisher. Another was “Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115 (1973)” whereby the court most famously determined that “Obscene material in book form is not entitled to any First Amendment protection merely because it has no pictorial content.”
However, the book was labeled “erotica” in the 1965 case (206 NE 2d 403) and there a division between erotica and obscenity was made—not all items with erotic content were automatically obscene. Further, the 1965 “John Cleland’s ‘Memoirs'” case added a further qualification for the proving of “obscenity” — the work in question had to inspire or exhibit “prurient” (that is, “shameful or morbid”) interest.
In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Grove Press, Inc. v. Gerstein, cited Jacobellis v. Ohio (which was decided the same day) and overruled state court findings of obscenity against Henry Miler’s Tropic of Cancer. A copyright infringing “Medusa” edition of the novel was published in New York City in 1940 by Jacob Brussel; its title page claimed its place of publication to be Mexico. Brussel was eventually sent to jail for three years for the edition,[9] a copy of which is in the Library of Congress.
In September 2005 an FBI “Anti-Porn Squad” was formed, which has initially targeted for prosecution websites such as Red Rose Stories (www.red-rose-stories.com, now defunct), one of many sites providing text-only fantasy stories.[10] Other websites such as BeautyBound.com have closed themselves down despite not being targeted, due to these risks and legislative burdens.[citation needed]
Past standards
- Wepplo (1947): If material has a substantial tendency to deprave or corrupt its readers by inciting lascivious thoughts or arousing lustful desires. (People v. Wepplo, 78 Cal. App.2d Supp. 959, 178 P.2d 853).
- Hicklin test (1868): the effect of isolated passages upon the most susceptible persons. (British common law, cited in Regina v. Hicklin, 1868. LR 3 QB 360 – overturned when Michigan tried to outlaw all printed matter that would ‘corrupt the morals of youth’ in Butler v. State of Michigan 352 U.S. 380 (1957))
- Roth Standard (1957): “Whether to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest”. Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476 (1957) – overturned by Miller
- Roth-Jacobellis (1964): “community standards” applicable to an obscenity are national, not local standards. Material is “utterly without redeeming social importance”. Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 US 184 (1964) – famous quote: “I shall not today attempt further to define [hardcore pornography] …But I know it when I see it”.
- Roth-Jacobellis-Memoirs Test (1966): Adds that the material possesses “not a modicum of social value”. (A Book Named John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure v. Attorney General of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966))
Under FCC rules and federal law, radio stations and over-the-air television channels cannot air obscene material at any time and cannot air indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.: language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.
Many historically important works have been described as obscene or prosecuted under obscenity laws, including the works of Charles Baudelaire, Lenny Bruce, William S. Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg, James Joyce, D. H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, Samuel Beckett, and the Marquis de Sade.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIqshWvIO7M
Decency
“…Decency is the measure of an object’s worth and value.[citation needed]
The category of issues that includes matters of “sex and decency in advertising” is a constant and ubiquitous problem concerning products, services, concepts, claims and imageries eliciting reactions of distaste, disgust, offense or outrage when mentioned or presented in advertisements.[1] Issues such as decency are more difficult to define and handle because they reflect a large variety of personally subjective, culturally related and historically changing values and attitudes.[1] The types of controls and their shortcomings present dangers for freedom of commercial communication.[1] …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecency
Miller v. California
“…Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) was an important United States Supreme Court case involving what constitutes unprotected obscenity for First Amendment purposes. The decision reiterated that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment and established the Miller test for determining what constituted obscene material.
The appellant, Marvin Miller, operator of one of the West Coast’s largest mail-order businesses dealing in sexually explicit material, had conducted a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of illustrated books, labeled “adult” material (also referred to in the vernacular as pornography). He was found guilty in the Superior Court of Orange County, California (the state trial court) of having violated California Penal Code 311.2 (a), a misdemeanor, by knowingly distributing obscene material. The conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeals. As stated in the preface to Chief Justice Warren Burger’s majority opinion, the
Appellant’s conviction was specifically based on his conduct in causing five unsolicited advertising brochures to be sent through the mail in an envelope addressed to a restaurant in Newport Beach, California. The envelope was opened by the manager of the restaurant and his mother. They had not requested the brochures and complained to the police.
According to the Court’s decision, the materials in question primarily… consist[ed] of pictures and drawings very explicitly depicting men and women in groups of two or more engaging in a variety of sexual activities, with genitals often prominently displayed. Since the Court’s decision in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), the Court had struggled to define what constituted constitutionally unprotected obscene material. Under the common law rule that prevailed before Roth, articulated most famously in the 1868 English case Regina v. Hicklin, any material that tended to “deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences” was deemed “obscene” and could be banned on that basis. Thus, works by Balzac, Flaubert, James Joyce, and D. H. Lawrence were banned based on isolated passages and the effect they might have on children. Roth repudiated the Hicklin test and defined obscenity more strictly, as material whose “dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest” to the “average person, applying contemporary community standards.” Only material meeting this test could be banned as “obscene.”
Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, First Amendment “literalists,” chafed at the Roth test and argued vigorously that the First Amendment protected obscene material. In subsequent cases the Court encountered tremendous difficulty in applying the Roth test, which did not define what it meant by “community standards.” For example, in the 1964 case Jacobellis v. Ohio, involving whether Ohio could ban the showing of a French film called Les Amants (FRENCH FOR The Lovers), the Court ruled that the film was protected by the First Amendment, but could not agree as to a rationale, yielding four different opinions from the majority, with none garnering the support of more than two justices, as well as two dissenting opinions. In his concurring opinion in Jacobellis, Justice Potter Stewart, holding that Roth protected all obscenity except “hard-core pornography,” famously wrote, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”
In Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966), a plurality of the Court further redefined the Roth test by holding unprotected only that which is “patently offensive” and “utterly without redeeming social value,” but no opinion in that case could command a majority of the Court either, and the state of the law in the obscenity field remained confused.
Pornography and sexually oriented publications proliferated as a result of the Court’s holdings, the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s flowered, and pressure increasingly came to the Court to allow leeway for state and local governments to crack down on obscenity. During his ill-fated bid to become Chief Justice, Justice Abe Fortas was attacked vigorously in Congress by conservatives such as Strom Thurmond for siding with the Warren Court majority in liberalizing protection for pornography. In his 1968 presidential campaign, Richard Nixon campaigned against the Warren Court, pledging to appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Warren Burger came to the Court in 1969 believing that the Court’s obscenity jurisprudence was misguided and governments should be given more leeway to ban obscene materials. In consideration of Miller in May and June 1972, Burger pushed successfully for a looser definition of “obscenity” which would allow local prosecutions, while Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who by now also believed the Roth and Memoirs tests should be abandoned, led the charge for protecting all “obscenity” unless distributed to minors or exposed offensively to unconsenting adults. Decision of the case was contentious, and Miller was put over for reargument for October term 1972, and did not come down until June 1973, with Burger prevailing by a bare 5-4 vote.
The decision
The question before the court was whether the sale and distribution of obscene material was protected under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee. The Court ruled that it was not. It indicated that “obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment”, thereby reaffirming part of Roth.[1]
However, the Court acknowledged “the inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression,” and said that “State statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited.”[2] The Court, in an attempt to set such limits devised a set of three criteria which must be met in order for a work to be legitimately subject to state regulation:
- whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
- whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[3] specifically defined by applicable state law; and
- “whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”[4]
This obscenity test overturns the definition of obscenity set out in the Memoirs decision, which held that “all ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance . . . have the full protection of the guaranties [of the First Amendment]” and that obscenity was that which was “utterly without redeeming social importance.”[5]
The Miller decision vacated the judgment of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of California and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings consistent with the First Amendment standards established by the opinion.
Effects of the decision
Miller provided states greater freedom in prosecuting alleged purveyors of “obscene” material because, for the first time since Roth, a majority of the Court agreed on a definition of “obscenity.” Hundreds of “obscenity” prosecutions went forward after Miller, and the Supreme Court began denying review of these state actions after years of reviewing many “obscenity” convictions (over 60 appeared on the Court’s docket for the 1971-72 term, pre-Miller). A companion case to Miller, Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, provided states with greater leeway to shut down adult movie houses. Controversy arose over Miller’s “community standards” analysis, with critics charging that Miller encouraged “forum shopping” to prosecute national producers of what some believe to be “obscenity” in locales where community standards differ substantially from the rest of the nation. For example, under the “community standards” prong of the Miller test, what might be considered “obscene” in Massachusetts might not be considered “obscene” in Utah, or the opposite might be true; in any event, prosecutors tend to bring charges in locales where they believe that they will prevail.
The “community standards” portion of the decision is of particular relevance with the rise of the Internet, as materials believed by some to be “obscene” can be accessed from anywhere in the nation, including places where there is a greater concern about “obscenity” than other areas of the nation.
In the years since Miller, many localities have cracked down on adult theatres and bookstores, as well as nude dancing, through restrictive zoning ordinances and public nudity laws. These types of actions have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Additionally, in 1982’s New York v. Ferber, the Court declared child pornography is unprotected by the First Amendment, upholding the state of New York’s ban on that material. In the recent Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition case, however, the Court held that sexually explicit material that appears to depict minors might be constitutionally protected.
In American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland, plaintiffs American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, joined by various publishers, retailers, and web site operators, sued Ohio’s Attorney General and Ohio county prosecutors in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged that Ohio Revised Code §2907.01(E) and (J), which prohibited the dissemination or display of “materials harmful to juveniles,” unconstitutionally violated both the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Plaintiffs specifically challenged the statute’s definition of “harmful to juveniles,” as well as the provisions governing internet dissemination of those materials. The court held the statute unconstitutional because the statute’s definition of “material harmful to minors” did not comply with Miller. Defendants appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit. …”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIqshWvIO7M
Community Standards
“…Community standards are local norms bounding acceptable conduct. Sometimes these standards can be itemized in a list that states the community’s values and sets guidelines for participation in the community. Alternatively, informal standards may be imprecisely described as “I’ll know it when I see it.”
Often, such standards are invoked in legal situations to resolve disputes, especially around pornography. Critics argue that puritanical moralists have used community standards to wrongly punish minorities such as homosexuals or those in interracial marriages.
Colleges and universities enforce their standards through conduct offices in their Student Affairs divisions. …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_standards
Obscenity vs. Freedom of Expression: The John Stagliano Trial
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )News Journal: Number 35, December 1, 2010: The Audacity of Grope: A TSA Exposé–Progressive Pervert Petulent Prevaricating President–Must View Video!
Campaign for Liberty launches a public relations campaign against President Obama’s TSA government interventionism:
“…Got questions about the TSA? This video’s got answers. Jam-packed with all the information you need to get up to speed on the 2010 holiday airport security uproar. Get the inside scoop on full body scanners, radiation health risks, pat-downs, screw-ups, underwear bombers, cavity searches, special interests, government officials, the Constitution (specifically, the 4th Amendment), scanner storage capability, and hear from some of the most engaged minds in the debate; including Congressman Ron Paul…”
Campaign for Liberty Mission Statement
“Our mission is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.”
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/about.php
http://www.youtube.com/user/campaignforliberty
One point that the above video failed to address is the spread of disease as a direct result of the TSA not changing their blue gloves after each pat down.
Instead the TSA screeners use the same pair of blue gloves most of the day.
Imagine going to a doctor or dentist who wore the same blue gloves while examining many patients during the day.
An unintended consequence of the government grope will be the spread of the various influenza (flu) viruses.
The time has come to stop this security theater nonsense and start profiling passengers and targeting individuals that are more likely to be terrorist bombers.
Flawless Airline Security on Israeli Planes
TSA: Enemy of the American People?
Ron Paul: TSA Has Gone too Far
Enough is enough.
Terminate the TSA peepers and pat downs.
President Obama responds:
President Obama explains the new TSA Airport Security Screenings
News Journal: Number 23, October 4, 2010: The Progressive Radical Socialists Method of Cutting Carbon Emissions–Kill Those Who Disagree With You–No Pressure–Your Choice–The Big Lie–Video
10:10 mini-movie – No Pressure
No Pressure–Your Choice–The Big Lie
The global warming alarmists are fanatics that really think these public service announcements or propaganda are acceptable and humorous.
While I have a sense of humor, I found the 10:10 video ad campaign tasteless, intentionally designed to scared children and adults, and a poor attempt to shut people up that disagree with the global warming alarmists.
Corporate sponsors including SONY, are quickly distancing themselves from the videos and 10:10 campaign as complaints poured in.
Rising global carbon dioxide emissions have indeed increased from 280 parts per million to over 390 parts per million over the last three hundred years.
So what?
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas, required for life on the earth, and is not a pollutant or a primary driver of climate change.
Unstoppable Solar Cycles
CO2 is a trace gas
Global Warming – Carbon Dioxide
Did the rise in CO2 cause the modern increase in temperature?
Is a warm climate good?
Bureaucratic Beginnings
The Transfer of Wealth from Developed to Developing Countries
Charles Krauthammer on the EPA regulating carbon dioxide
CO2 Regulation: The Essence of Immorality
Background Articles and Videos
Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria (High Quality Version)
Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (1 of 5)
Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (2 of 5)
Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (3 of 5)
Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (4 of 5)
Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (5 of 5)
The Reset Button
U.S. Gift to Russia Lost in Translation
CO2 Rising (series), Professor Tyler Volk: 1. Where in the world is the CO2 increasing?
CO2 Rising (series), Professor Tyler Volk: 2. Does my exhaled CO2 go into a leaf I can hold?
10:10
“…10:10 is a global warming mitigation campaign calling for a 10% reduction in carbon emissions in 2010. The project aims to demonstrate public support, apply pressure to policymakers to commit to national cuts, and inspire success at the United Nations climate change negotiations.[citation needed]
As of June 2010, 75,000 individuals, businesses, schools and organisations have joined the campaign and pledged to reduce their emissions by 10% in a year.[citation needed]
The campaign was founded as a British campaign in September 2009 by Franny Armstrong, director of The Age of Stupid, with the aim of capturing the public imagination using individual action in a way similar to the Make Poverty History campaign.[1] In mid-2010 the campaign went global, with campaigns launching in around 12 countries.
In October 2010, the group made headlines when a mini-movie produced for their campaign, entitled No Pressure, caused widespread outrage due to its gruesome content.[2][3] Subsequently, several of 10:10’s major corporate sponsors disassociated themselves from the group and withdrew support.[4] …”
“…No Pressure
On Friday 1 October 2010, 10:10 released a short film in which schoolchildren and office workers are summarily and gruesomely executed for not pledging a 10% reduction in their carbon emissions to participating employers and educators.[43] Although originally planned to be shown in cinema and television advertisements, 10:10 removed the film from their website and YouTube later on the same day following negative publicity[44] and apologised for “miss[ing] the mark”.[43]
10:10:10
10:10 and 350.org were jointly coordinating “a day of positive action on climate change”, on Sunday 10 October, 2010 (10.10.10). The day had been planned to include a wide range of events in a reported 180 countries, including sumo wrestlers in Japan, over 10,000 schoolchildren planting trees in Croatia and Russia, a telethon on national TV in the Netherlands and the president of the Maldives installing solar panels on his roof.[43][45] However in the wake of the No Pressure controversy, 350.org disassociated themselves from 10:10, strongly condemning the film. 10:10 are no longer involved in the 10:10:10 day of action.[46][47] …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10:10
Sony pulls support for 10:10 initiative over contentious promo
“…In an official release on its corporate website, Sony said that it strongly “condemned the release by 10:10, the climate change campaign group, of a video entitled ’No Pressure’ that Sony considers to be ill-conceived and tasteless”.
The move is a blow to the initiative, just five days before its centrepiece day of action on 10 October, dubbed ’10:10:10′. The campaign aim is to cut global carbon emissions by 10% each year from 2010.
The electronics firm said it believed the video risked “undermining the work of the many thousands of members of the public, schools and universities, local authorities and many businesses, of which Sony is one, who support the long-term aims of the 10:10 movement and are actively working towards the reduction of carbon emissions.”
The company insisted that the promo was released entirely without its knowledge or involvement, and violated the “thoughtful and collaborative philosophy” that it had consistently supported.
Although Sony said that it recognised that 10:10 had acted quickly to remove the video from its website and had issued a public apology, the company said it had “no other option” other than to condemn the video in “the strongest possible terms” and was “disassociating itself from 10:10 at this time.”
The film appeared on the 10:10 website, but was pulled down “within hours” of its appearance, according to the organisation. …”
http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1033027/Sony-pulls-support-1010-initiative-contentious-promo/
Age of stupid – greens blow up school kids in ad to sell climate change
Chris Arnold
“…The recent 10:10 climate change campaign (founded by Age of Stupid director Franny Armstrong) has scored an own goal with a disastrous video ‘No Pressure’ created by Richard Curtis (of Blackadder fame) that features exploding school kids.
The humour is puerile and may well appeal to a drunken 19 year old student but as a piece of communications it has got it very wrong. So wrong they have had to withdraw the video following thousands of complaints.
The video (they call it an ad) features a series of patronising people – a teacher and a boss – asking everyone to sign up to 10:10 (you sign up to reduce your carbon emission by 10%). The script quotes “we cut our carbon emissions by 10%, thus keeping the planet safe for everyone,” which is factually rubbish, it’ll take a lot more than 10%. The teacher then asks the kids to volunteer to do something. All but two, Phillip and Tracy, raise their hands. The two who don’t get killed in a sick and disgusting way. She blows them up leaving the other kids covered in burnt flesh and blood.
There are two other scenes featuring X-Files’ Gillian Anderson (she too gets blown up), together with Spurs players – including Peter Crouch, Ledley King and David Ginola.
The message is, “No Pressure celebrates everybody who is actively tackling climate change… by blowing up those who aren’t.”
It will go down as the ultimate in poor and stupid judgment (a lesson to those who try and make their own ads). The green blog, An Englishman’s Castle, called it “an eco-terrorism film”.
This is not only embarrassing for 10:10 but for their supporters, O2, Sony, Eada, National Magazines (Esquire, Cosmoplitan, Bazaar, Company), The Guardian and many other brands and organisations, not to mention many celebs. One critic has published the email address of Sony’s CEO, encouraging people to write direct.
Can’t say I’d want to be part of an organisation that advocates blowing up kids. It comes across as ‘eco-fascism’, a tag that has been put against extremist green groups. …”
“…The 10:10 campaign was founded by Franny Armstrong, director of the climate change film The Age of Stupid. In the film an archivist in the devastated world of 2055, asks the question: “Why didn’t we stop climate change when we still had the chance?” He looks back on footage of real people around the world in the years leading up to 2015 before runaway climate change took place. London is now flooded, Sydney is burning, Las Vegas has been swallowed up by desert, the Amazon rain forest has burnt up, snow has vanished from the Alps and nuclear war has laid waste to India (not sure that’s anything to do with climate change but the politics of war). It’s doom and gloom with no positive message.
The idea for 10:10 came to Franny while walking through Regent’s Park on her way to a debate with UK Climate & Energy Secretary Ed Miliband (now Labour leader and probably keeping as far away from this as possible). With her connections she managed to amass lots of celebrities and get lots of PR.
Now’s she is getting all the wrong PR.
…”
350.org
“…350.org is an international environmental organization,[1][2][3] headed by author Bill McKibben,[4] with the goal of building a global grassroots movement to raise awareness of man-made climate change, to confront climate change denial, and to cut emissions of one of the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide,[5] [6] in order to slow the rate of global warming, the cause of current climate change. 350.org takes its name from the research of NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who posited in a 2007 paper that 350 parts-per-million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere is a safe [7] upper limit to avoid a climate tipping point.[8][9][10][11][12] The current record level is 392.04 ppm of CO2, an almost 40-percent increase from the pre-industrial revolution level of 278 ppm.[13][14][15] In 1988 the Earth’s atmosphere surpassed the 350 ppm mark,[16] while global CO2 emissions per capita rose.[17][18]
The group reports that they organised the world’s “most widespread day of political action” on Saturday October 24, 2009, reporting 5,245 actions in 181 countries.[19][20][21]
“…The organization was founded by author Bill McKibben,[22] an American environmentalist and writer who frequently writes about global warming, alternative energy, and the need for more localised economies. McKibben promotes the organisation, for instance by writing articles about it for many major newspapers and media, such the Los Angeles Times[23] and The Guardian.[24]
The organising effort drew its name from climate scientist James Hansen’s contention in winter 2008 that any atmospheric concentration of CO2 above 350 parts per million was unsafe. James Hansen opined that “if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that.”[25]
McKibben’s first started to organize against global warming with a walk across Vermont, his home state. His “Step It Up” campaign in 2007 involved 1,400 demonstrations at famous sites across the United States. McKibben credits these activities with making Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama change their energy policies during the presidential campaign. Later, the meltdown of the polar caps pushed him into starting 350.org, based on Hansen’s 2007 book Climate Code Red.[26]
Rajendra Pachauri, the U.N.’s “top climate scientist” and leader of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has come out in favor of reducing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to 350ppm.[27][28][29] McKibben called news of Pachauri’s embrace of the 350ppm target “amazing”.[30] Some media have indicated that Pachauri’s endorsement of the 350ppm target was a victory for 350.org’s activism.[31][32][33]
The organisation had a lift in prominence after founder McKibben appeared on The Colbert Report television show on Monday August 17, 2009.[34][35][36]
The organisation disseminates its message through social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.[37][38] …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/350.org
Franny Armstrong
“…Franny Armstrong (born 3 February 1972)[1][2] is a British documentary film director working for her own company, Spanner Films, and a former drummer with indie pop group The Band of Holy Joy. She is primarily known for three films: The Age of Stupid, about climate change, McLibel, about the infamous McDonald’s court case and Drowned Out, following the fight against the Narmada Dam Project. Her most recent project is the UK-wide campaign 10:10, which aims to cut 10% of the UK’s emissions during 2010, has received an unwelcome reception from the audience because of propaganda of violence against global warming skeptics. In November 2009, Armstrong was rescued by London mayor Boris Johnson from an assault by a gang of girls in north London.[3]
“…Armstrong’s first documentary, McLibel (1997, 2005), told the story of the McDonald’s libel trial, the longest-running court action in English history. Filmed over ten years with no commission, no budget and a voluntary crew – including Ken Loach, who directed the courtroom reconstructions – it shot to notoriety when lawyers prevented its broadcast, first at BBC1 and then at Channel 4 in 1997. Eight years later – after the ‘McLibel Two’ had defeated the British government at the European Court of Human Rights – it was finally broadcast on BBC2 at 10.30pm on a Sunday, to an estimated 1 million viewers. It was well received by critics, with Time Out crediting Armstrong with “gusto and wit” in telling a story that “will satisfy both head and heart”.[5] It was then broadcast on TV in 15 countries – including Australia, Canada and the USA – and released on DVD worldwide. McLibel was released in cinemas and DVD stores in the USA in summer 2005 and this was followed in the UK in 2006. McLibel was nominated for numerous awards, including the Grierson Documentary Award and the British Independent Film Awards. It was recently picked for the British Film Institute’s prestigious series, “Ten Documentaries which Changed the World”.
Armstrong’s second feature documentary, Drowned Out (2002), follows an Indian family who chose to stay at home and drown rather than make way for the Narmada Dam. It also sold around the world, was nominated for Best Documentary at the British Independent Film Awards 2004 and was released theatrically in America and DVD worldwide in 2006.
Without backing from the UK TV industry, Armstrong’s films have been seen by more than 56 million people[citation needed]. She has been working full-time on The Age of Stupid (formerly known as Crude) since December 2004. It’s a film that warns of the catastrophic effects of climate change using a mix of factual documentary and post-apocalyptic fictional styles. It was released in the UK on March 13 2009 and had its green-carpet global premiere on September 21 2009. During the Copenhagen climate change conference in December 2009 it was broadcast on BBC4 in the UK and on TV in seven other countries.
In October 2010, a short film, written by Richard Curtis and Armstrong, entitled No Pressure was released by the 10:10 campaign in Britain to spread awareness of climate change. The video was subsequently taken down from the organization’s website due to very negative reception and offence taken.[6] However, it is still available in several places, including YouTube. It depicted a series of scenes in which people were asked if they were going to participate in 10:10. Those who indicated they weren’t planning on participating were told “no pressure” and then blown up in a gory explosion at the press of a red button. [7] In response to questions about the message of the film, she replied, “We ‘killed’ five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change,”[8] …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franny_Armstrong
Spanner Films
Franny Armstrong
“…In September 2009 Franny founded the 10:10 climate campaign which aims to cut the UK’s carbon emissions by 10% during 2010 and which has amassed huge cross-societal support including Adidas, Microsoft, Spurs FC, the Royal Mail, 75,000 people, 1,500 schools, a third of local councils, the entire UK Government and the Prime Minister. 10:10 launched internationally in March 2010 and, as of July 2010, has autonomous campaigns up and running in 41 countries, where some of the key sign-ups include the French Tennis Open, the city of Oslo and L’oreal. 10:10 estimates that organisations doing 10:10 have so far cut 500,000 tonnes of C02. Franny is a Londoner born and bred. …”
http://www.spannerfilms.net/people/franny_armstrong
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
William A. Sprigg, PhD., an IPCC climate scientist, On “Climategate”–Videos
Professor Fred Singer–On Climate Change–Videos
Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and Fred Singer On The Climate and Global Warming Alarmists and Junk Science Computer Models –Videos
Al Gore Global Warming Hot Head Says The Artic Ice Cap Will Disappear In 5-10-15 Years–Volcanoe Gate–Eruptions Melt Ice and Increase Carbon Dioxide!–Videos
Climategate–The Political Scam, Investment Fraud, and Science Scandal of The Century Exposed–The Progressive Radical Socialist’s Big Lie And Con That Man Is The Cause Of Global Warming Was In Fact Nothing More Than Politicians, Investment Bankers, and Government Scientists Creating Climate Crisis!–
Glenn Beck, John Bolton, and Lord Christopher Monckton On Copenhagen 2009 Treaty, Climate Change and World Government–Videos
Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos
“We Can Reverse Climate Change”–President Barack Obama–Liar or Fool–Or Both–You Be The Judge!
John Holdren–Science Czar–Videos
John Holdren: Global Warming: What Do We Know and Should Do–Videos
The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!
Facing Fundamental Facts
Gore Grilled & Gingrich Gouged–American People Oppose Massive Carbon Cap and Trade Tax Increase–Videos
National Center for Policy Analysis–A Global Warming Primer
Global Warming is The Greatest Hoax, Scam and Disinformation Campaign in History
Global Warming Videos
Global Warming Books
Global Warming Sites
The Heidelberg Appeal: Beware of False Gods and Prophets
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )News Journal: Number 14, September 17, 2010: Political Correctness, The Mosque At Ground Zero, and Stealth Jihad–Videos
“God is our purpose, the Prophet our leader, the Quran our constitution, jihad our way and dying for God our supreme objective.”
~Muslim Brotherhood motto
“It is man’s capacity for justice that makes democracy possible, but it is his tendenecy to injustice that makes it necessary.”
~Reinhold Niebuhr, The Children of Light and the children of Darkness, page 17.
“Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.”
~Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail
The Islamic Infiltration, Part 1: Inside Our Government, Armed With Our Secrets (PJTV)
The Islamic Infiltration, Part 2: From Influence to Insurrection (PJTV)
Bill Whittle: Ground Zero Mosque Reality Check
No Mosque at Ground Zero
Kill the Ground Zero Mosque TV Ad
If you ever worked on a newspaper staff, the Associated Press Stylebook is considered “the journalist’s bible” by editors, reporters and commentators. The Associated Press 2010 Stylebook and Briefing on Media, 45 ed. “provides fundamental guidelines on spelling, grammar, punctuation and usage, with special sections on social media, reporting business and sports.”
Recently I wrote an article where both the headline and the story used the phrase “ground zero mosque” to describe the proposed 13 story mosque and community center to be built less than six hundred feet from the World Trade Center site in New York City. Both were edited out of the story.
Tom Kent, Deputy Managing Editor for Standards and Production for the Associated Press sent out a memo on not using the phrase “ground zero mosque” when referring to the proposed Islamic community center and mosque to be built near the World Trade Center site:
“…Here is some guidance on covering the NYC mosque story, with assists from Chad Roedemeier in the NYC bureau and Terry Hunt in Washington:
1. We should continue to avoid the phrase “ground zero mosque” or “mosque at ground zero” on all platforms. (We’ve very rarely used this wording, except in slugs, though we sometimes see other news sources using the term.) The site of the proposed Islamic center and mosque is not at ground zero, but two blocks away in a busy commercial area. We should continue to say it’s “near” ground zero, or two blocks away. …”
http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_081910b.html
Apparently the “ground zero mosque” shorthand description must be offending some so-called “moderate Muslims”. The problem is that many of the “moderate Muslims” are actually stealth jihadists who have the same agenda as the militant jihadists of September 11, 2001.
On September 1, 2010 the Council on American-Islam Relations launched a National PSA Campaign with several public service announcements (PSAs) that are available for viewing on YouTube and running on television stations. The PSAs have first responders to the al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorist hijackers attack of September 11, 2001 that are Muslims recounting what happened that day. The PSAs are posted by CAIR on YouTube (CAIR ‘9/11 Happened to Us All’ PSA, Firefighter (30-Second) and (CAIR ‘9/11 Happened to Us All’ PSA, Medical Responder (30-Second)).
CAIR ‘9/11 Happened to Us All’ PSA, Firefighter (60-Second)
CAIR ‘9/11 Happened to Us All’ PSA, Medical Responder (30-Second)
A third CAIR PSA, ‘We Have More in Common than We Think’, has “interfaith leaders” of the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic faiths stating in part “if we do not have our rights,” “at the heart of American freedom”, “ you do not your rights.” All three PSA are very effective because most American are tolerant of people practicing their religious faith and oppose the establishment by the government of any one religion as being superior to other religions.
CAIR ‘We Have More in Common than We Think’ PSA, Interfaith (30-Second)
Who exactly is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)? The CAIRtv channel on YouTube says they are “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy group with 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada.”
Steven Emerson, a widely recognized independent investigative expert on Islamic terrorism describes in detail the background of CAIR in his book, American Jihad, The Terrorists Living Among Us, and concludes with this revealing passage on pages 202 and 203:
“Steve Pomerantz, former chief of the Counterterrorism Section of the FBI and former assistant director of the FBI, says: “CAIR has defended individuals involved in terrorist violence, including Hamas leader Musa abu Marzook….The modus operandi has been to falsely tar as ‘anti-Muslim’ the U.S. government, counter-terrorist officials, writers, journalists and others who have investigated or exposed the threat of Middle-East based terrorism…Unfortunately, CAIR is but one of the new generation of new groups in the United States that hide under a veneer of ‘civil right’ or ‘academic’ status but in fact are tethered to a platform that supports terrorism.”
“Seif Ashmawy, former publisher of Voice of Peace, wrote: “It is a known fact that both AMC [American Muslim Council] and CAIR have defended, apologized for and rationalized the actions of extremist groups and leaders such as convicted World Trade Center conspirator Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, Egyptian extremists, Hassan al-Turabi, the Sudanese National Islamic Front, and extremist parliamentarians from the Jordian Islamic Action Front and others who called for the overthrow of the Egyptian government….As a proud American Muslim…I bow to no one on my defense of Muslim civil rights, but CAIR..champion[s] extremists whose views do not represent Islam.”…”
Robert Spencer who was criticized by CAIR at their press conference said in his book the Stealth Jihad on page 102:
“CAIR has clearly emerged as the leading advocacy group for Muslims in the United States. When government officials and journalists need a Muslim perspective, they are likely to turn to CAIR, which they assume is a prime example of a moderate, patriotic American Muslim organization”
This assumption is not true as Steven Emerson points out in his book American Jihad on pages 201 and 202:
“…After September 11, 2001, and up until the U.S. Government froze the assets of the Holy Land foundation in December, CAIR’s Web site included a feature, “What you can do for the victims of the WTC and Pentagon attacks,” with a link to the Web site of HLF(“Donate through the Holy Land Foundation”). …”
Robert Spencer concluded on page 105 of his Stealth Jihad book that:
“…Perhaps the biggest blow to CAIR’s moderate facade came on June 4, 2007, when the Justice Department named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation jihad terror funding case. Identifying CAIR as a present and past member of “the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations,” Federal prosecutors stated that CAIR was a participant in a criminal conspiracy on behalf of the jihad terror group Hamas which allegedly received funding from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLFRD”), a now defunct charity that was supported by CAIR….”
CAIRs Tie to Terrorism
When such inconvenient facts are brought up by investigative reporters and journalists, they are quickly labeled as “Islamophobes”. Robert Spencer describes in detail CAIR tactics in Chapter Three, Silencing The Critics, of his book, Stealth Jihad, on pages 51 and 52:
“…Groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim-American Society (MAS) have learned from the past mistakes of many U.S.-based Islamic leaders that aggressive public pronouncements and threats uttered against Islam’s perceived enemies bring unwelcome attention and undermine their pretensions of being mainstream civil rights organizations. So they have adopted a different strategy to silence critics of jihadism and Islamic supremacism: they label them as “bigots”, “hatemongers”, and “Islamophobe.”
“In the U.S., playing the race card can in some ways be even more effective than death threats. If a U.S.-based Islamic group announced a death fatwa against an American writer, that organization would be denounced in the media as “extremist” and possibly trigger a police investigation. But if the group cries “racism” against the same writer, liberal as well as conservative media figures hop to shun and denounce the accused “racist,” for bigotry and racism are the cardinal sins of the U.S. public square.”
An excellent example of CAIR ’s tactics of attempting to silence and smear its critics can be found on the CAIRtv channel on YouTube. The video clip, Video: CAIR Launches National PSA Campaign, is the press conference preceding the preview of the CAIR PSA campaign at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on September 1, 2010. Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of CAIR, stated in part:
“The controversy over Park 51 in lower Manhattan is a fabricated controversy. It is designed to pit Americans against each other and divide our society. Although a local but vocal minority has launched this campaign against Muslims. This group is mainly headed by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. They know very well the American Muslim community is part of the society. But they harbor anti-Muslim feelings and they want to stoke anti-Muslim sentiment in the society by exploiting 9/11 and legitimate fears that some Americans have. They turn this fear into fear mongering; and free speech became hate speech. It led to hate crimes and as you have seen nation-wide, we have seen Muslims are being attacked just because they are Muslim. Places of worship have been vandalized including future construction sites like the Islamic center in Tennessee. …”
Video: CAIR Launches National PSA Campaign
Robert Spencer in Chapter Five, THE FACE OF ISLAMIC MODERATION? CAIR, MPAC AND OTHER “MODERATE” MUSLIM GROUPS of his book Stealth Jihad, describes in detail the history and associations of CAIR and Nihad Awad and their stealth jihad on page 102.
“…Though pursing a radical agenda, these organizations realized that extremists pronouncements and activities would be counter-productive, resulting in negative media attention and even criminal investigations. So they’ve adopted a new modus operandi—the stealth jihad. Instead of publicly proclaiming the inevitable arrival of sharia in the United States, they attempt to Islamize the United States quietly, through a long-term strategy aimed at undermining national security, forcing ever greater accommodation of Islamic practices, and minimizing any criticism whatsoever of Islam or of virtually any Muslim individual. …”
Robert Spencer on CAIR’s ‘Stealth Jihad’
Robert Spencer on Islamic-Jihadism (1/4)
Robert Spencer on Islamic-Jihadism (2/4)
Robert Spencer on Islamic-Jihadism (3/4)
Robert Spencer on Islamic-Jihadism (4/4)
Radical jihadists, both militant (violent) and stealth (non-violent), want to accomplish the following in the United States:
- Replace the United States Constitution and American law with Sharia or Islamic law.
- Replace our democratic representative republic with an Islamic state or theocracy.
- Replace our President with a religious leader or caliphate.
- Establish Islam as the country’s religion that is superior to and dominates all other religions of the United States and where infidels or non-believers in Islam such as Christians and Jews would pay a tax, the jizya, with “willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).
Sharia Law and Islamic Democracy – Daniel Pipes
Time For A New ‘Team B’ to Understand Jihad
The militant and stealth jihadists differ mainly over the methods used to accomplish their goals.
In Steven Emerson’s and the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s book, Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the US on page 346 the roots of both militant and stealth jihad can be found in the Muslim Brotherhood.
Richard Clark is the former National Coordinator for Security and Infrastructure Protection under Presidents Clinton and Bush. In testifying before the Senate Committee on Banking in October 2003 he stated:
“… While the overseas operations of Islamist terrorist organizations are generally segregated and distinct, the opposite holds in the United States. The issue of terrorist financing in the United States is a fundamental example of the shared infrastructure levered by HAMAS, Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda, all of which enjoy a significant degree of cooperation and coordination within our borders. The common link here is the extremist Muslim Brotherhood–all of these organizations are descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.”
The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 was Hasan Al-Banna, an Egyptain school teacher and Islamist political reformer. Hasan Al-Banna unconstrained vision of Islam is revealing in its breadth and scope:
“Islam is a comprehensive system which deals with all spheres of life. It is a country and homeland or a government and a nation. It is conduct and power or mercy and justice. It is a culture and a law or knowledge and jurisprudence. It is material and wealth or gain and prosperity. It is Jihad and a call or army and a cause. And finally, it is true belief and correct worship.”
The Message of the Teachings, Hasan Al-Banna http://www.almoltaqa.ps/english/showthread.php?t=16037
Today the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest and most influential Islamic international political organization.
In Robert Spencer’s book the Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs on page 16 the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States are explained by Mohamed Akram of the Muslim Brotherhood:
“[ Muslim Brotherhood]…must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all religions.”
The Associated Press apparently is one of those unwitting hands of the stealth jihadists. The question that should be answered by the Associated Press is did any individual or organization either directly or indirectly bring pressure on AP to ban the use of ground zero mosque in their stories. If so, who communicated with them on the subject? What exactly was said?
Why should these questions need to be answered?
The AP memo continued with the following “guidance”:
“…2. here is a succinct summary of President Obama’s position:
Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build an Islamic center in New York as a matter of religious freedom, though he’s also said he won’t take a position on whether they should actually build it. …”
The Associated Press apparently wants to get the Obama party line or spin out to all its AP subscribers. The vast majority of Americans agree with Charles Krauthammer, Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, political commentator and physician, as to what President Obama should have done, namely appealed to Muslims not to build the ground zero mosque.
Krauthammer: Obama Should Have Appealed to Muslims Not to Build Ground Zero Mosque
In a August 31, 2010 Quinnipiac University poll of 1,497 New York residents surveyed, 71% said the mosque should be voluntarily relocated and 71% want Andrew Cuomo, the Attorney General of New York State to investigate the finances of the group funding the ground zero mosque. A poll of likely voters by Rasmussen Reports found similar opposition to the ground zero mosque:
“…A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 85% of U.S. voters say they are now following news stories about the mosque planned near Ground Zero. That’s a 34-point jump from a month ago when only 51% said they were following the story.
The new finding includes 58% who are following the story very closely, up from 22% in mid-July.
Now 62% oppose the building of a mosque near where the World Trade Center stood in Lower Manhattan, compared to 54% in the previous survey. Twenty-five percent (25%) favor allowing the mosque to go ahead, and 13% more are not sure.”
The Associated Press’ memo never addressed the question as to where exactly is ground zero. Immediately after September 11, 2001 a much larger area than just the World Trade Center site was referred to as ground zero. Ground zero included everything below Chambers Street in New York City, which is five blocks north of Vesey Street, the northern border of the World Trade Center site. The ground zero mosque site on Park Place is just two blocks north of Vesey Street.
Far more important and potentially more damaging to the safety and security of the American people and the United States is the banning of such “religious” terms as Islamic extremism, jihad, Islam and Sharia from the National Security Strategy Document by President Obama’s advisors that was reported by the Associated Press on April 7, 2010 in a story entitled, “Obama bans terms Jihad, Islam.”
bill whittle PJTV Obama censors threat
This is dangerous because by banning such words or phrases you are refusing to call ideas or actions by their proper name, names that even our avowed Islamic extremist enemies use in describing their intentions, plans and actions. This goes beyond political correctness into political censorship and reminds one of George Orwell’s novel 1984. What individuals and organizations have been pressuring the President and his advisors to ban these terms from National Security documents? Are these organizations stealth jihadists with links to the Muslim Brotherhood or other jihadist’s organizations?
If you doubt political correctness and censorship cannot kill people, remember Major Nidal Malik Hasan, that killed 12 soldiers and one civilian and wounded30 more at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009 while shouting the Muslim expression “Allahu Akbar.” Political correctness in the Army discouraged many officers from reporting and making a formal complaint about Major Hasan’s repeated statements about his hating America, its non-Muslim majority and the military. If the Major had been a white supremacist he would have been discharged by Army, but a Muslim supremacist was given a pass and 13 people died. Political correctness and censorship kills.
Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech – Steven Emerson (1 of 2)
Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech – Steven Emerson (2 of 2)
Steve Emerson: Was Major Hasan A Ticking Timebomb? (11.9.09)
Lt. Col. Ralph Peters: USA Sick with Political Correctness (11.9.09)
Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s Jihad warning signs ignored by politically correct military – Fort Hood
Remember September 11, 2010 by reflecting upon the words in The 9/11 Commission Report, page 13:
“…We learned about an enemy who is sophisticated, patient, disciplined and lethal. The enemy rallies broad support in the Arab and Muslim world by demanding redress of political grievances, but its hostility towards us and our values is limitless. Its purpose is to rid the world of religious and political pluralism, the plebiscite and equal rights for woman. It makes no distinction between military and civilian targets. Collateral damage is not in its lexicon. …”
The goals and agenda of the militant and stealth jihadists are the same; they only differ as to tactics. The ground zero mosque should never be built for it is an insulting affront to the families and friends of those who died on 9/11 and only encourages the militant and stealth jihadists.
The American people can remember the people who died on September 11, 2001 by reading The 9/11 Commission Report (available online at http://9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf ) and Robert Spencer’s book The Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs or watch his “Stealth Jihad and Islamization of the West” videos on YouTube. However, be prepared to be called an Islamophobe by the stealth jihadists among us.
“This is the American moment in world history, the one for which we shall forever be judged. Just as in politics the responsibility of the fate of freedom in the world has devolved upon our regime, so the fate of philosophy in the world has devolved upon our universities, and the two are related as they have never been before. The gravity of our given task is great, and it is very much in doubt how the future will judge our stewardship.”
~Alan Bloom, The Closong of the American Mind, page 382.
Background Articles and Videos
The Middle East with Daniel Pipes
Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech – Andrew McCarthy (1 of 2)
Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech – Andrew McCarthy (2 of 2)
Muslim Brotherhood ‘Conspiracy’ to Subvert America
CAIR Revealed
Hot Air Video: The speech that CAIR didn’t want you to hear
Jihad Watch: The “Islam is Peace” Campaign
Charles Krauthammer Exposes Obama Hypocrisy on No Rush to Judgment
Should Mosque, Islamic Center Be Built Near Ground Zero?
The Next Moves of Radical Islam – Robert Spencer
Newt Gingrich: No Ground Zero Mosque
Newt Gingrich: Jihadist = Person who seeks to impose Sharia
Newt Gingrich: Freedom Will Prevail
Mosque Debate Part 1
Mosque Debate Part 2
Mosque Debate Part 3
Mosque Debate Part 4
Muslim Brotherhood in America – Orlando Mosque Finances Hamas Fundraiser
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
“…The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is America’s largest Muslim civil liberties advocacy organization that deals with civil advocacy and promotes human rights. It is headquartered on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., with regional offices nationwide and in Canada.[1]
Through media relations, lobbying, and education, CAIR presents what it views as an Islamic perspective on issues of importance to the American public, and seeks to empower the American Muslim community and encourage its social and political activism. Annual banquets, through which CAIR raises the majority of its funds, are attended by American politicians, statesmen, interfaith leaders, activists and media personalities.[1]
The organization was dealt a significant blow to its reputation in the United States after it was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case.[2] The FBI no longer works with CAIR outside of criminal investigations due to its status as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case.[3][4][5] …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations
Muslim Mafia
“…Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America is a 2009 book by U.S. State Department-trained Arabic linguist and former U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations special agent Paul David Gaubatz, and investigative journalist and Hoover Institute fellow Paul Sperry. According to the Charlotte Observer, it “portrays the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a subversive organization allied with international terrorists.”[1]
The book prompted endorsements from a number of conservative writers and requests by several conservative members of the United States Congress for investigations into CAIR’s possible terrorist links and undue influence. It also prompted denouncements from CAIR, media outlets and other members of Congress. The manner in which its source documents were obtained led CAIR to sue one of the authors. …”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEb-USpe6jM&feature=related
Reinhold Niebuhr
“…Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr (pronounced /ˈraɪnhoʊld ˈniːbʊər/; June 21, 1892 – June 1, 1971) was an American theologian and commentator on public affairs. Niebuhr was the archetypal American intellectual of the Cold War era. Starting as a leftist minister in the 1920s indebted to theological liberalism, he shifted to the new Neo-Orthodox theology in the 1930s, explaining how the sin of pride created evil in the world. He attacked utopianism as useless for dealing with reality, writing in The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness (1944):
- “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.”
His realism deepened after 1945 and led him to support American efforts to confront Soviet communism around the world. A powerful speaker and lucid author, he was the most influential minister of the 1940s and 1950s in public affairs. Niebuhr battled with the religious liberals over what he called their naïve views of sin and the optimism of the Social Gospel, and battled with the religious conservatives over what he viewed as their naïve view of Scripture and their narrow definition of “true religion.” He was a leader of liberal intellectuals and supported many liberal causes,
His long-term impact involves relating the Christian faith to “realism” in foreign affairs, rather than idealism, and his contribution to modern “just war” thinking. Niebuhr’s perspective had a great impact on many liberals, who came to support a “realist” foreign policy.[1] His influence has been acknowledged by such recent leaders of American foreign policy as Jimmy Carter, Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as John McCain[2]. …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Niebuhr
Allan Bloom
“..Allan David Bloom (September 14, 1930 – October 7, 1992) was an American philosopher, classicist, and academic. He studied under David Grene, Leo Strauss, Richard McKeon and Alexandre Kojève. He subsequently taught at Cornell University, the University of Toronto, Yale University, École Normale Supérieure of Paris, and the University of Chicago. Bloom championed the idea of ‘Great Books’ education. Bloom became famous for his criticism of contemporary American higher education, with his views being expressed in his bestselling 1987 book, The Closing of the American Mind.[1] Although Bloom was characterized as a conservative in the popular media, Bloom explicitly stated that this was a misunderstanding, and made it clear that he was not to be affiliated with any conservative movements.[2] Saul Bellow, Bloom’s friend and teaching partner at the University of Chicago, wrote a novel based on his colleague entitled Ravelstein. …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Bloom
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America–Videos
CAIR Launches National PSA Campaign–Videos
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West–Videos
Andrew McCarthy–The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotaged America–Videos
Andrew C. McCarthy–America’s War on Terror…or is It?–Videos
Stealth Jihad–Terror From Within–Videos
Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos
Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos
Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos
Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos
Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos
An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man
Just Because You Can Build A Mosque At Ground Zero Does Not Mean You Should: The Two Faces of President Obama–Let Me Be Clear–I Am An Agent Provocateur!
Discussion #1: Raymond T. Pronk
Please state your name and why you are taking this course! Also, some information about yourself, such as interesting hobbies, year in school, etc…
Hello. I am Raymond Pronk and have lived in Fort Worth from 1978 to 1983 and in Dallas from 1983 to the present.
My interests include reading, writing, making videos and blogging.
I took this course to learn more about advertising since it is the primary revenue source for both commercial radio and television broadcasting and a major source of revenue for internet web sites.
My goal is to have my own talk radio show on current events, business, economics and politics.
I have already completed two associate degrees from Richland College in business application programming and web design.
I have earned several other degrees including a Bachelor of Science in Economics from New York University, a Master of Arts in Economics from the University of California, Berkeley, a Master of Business Administration from Wright State University and a Master of Professional Accounting from the University of Texas at Arlington.
I am currently searching for a new career position with a leading radio/television talk show or with a leading ad agency as a researcher/writer.
‘The purpose of learning is growth, and our minds, unlike our bodies, can continue growing as we continue to live.’
~Mortimer Adler
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Discussion #4: Jumping To Conclusions About Shirley Sherrod
Ag Secretary Offers to Hire Back Ousted Worker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAsJS_E8EKE&hl=en_US&fs=1
Robert Gibbs on Shirley Sherrod: Mistakes Were Made
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA18AEXQkNQ&hl=en_US&fs=1
Shirley Sherrod explains racial remarks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KosReihC8Ts
USDA Reconsiders Employee’s Job Over Race Remark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV0u2RwwoIM&hl=en_US&fs=1
Shirley Sherrod Defended by White farmers Wife; Eloise & Rodger Spooner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEGp2ni6B1I&hl=en_US&fs=1
White farmers at the center of Shirley Sherrod controversy: ‘No way in the world’ she is a racist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUcH0ABKDII&hl=en_US&fs=1
shirley sherrod reveals her past racism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrNWw7TGkjo&hl=en_US&fs=1
Andrew Breitbart Defends Shirley Sherrod Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kMfCAoVPx0&hl=en_US&fs=1
Krauthammer on Shirley Sherrod
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZeTVQE45ko&hl=en_US&fs=1
John King-Andrew Breitbart Shirley Sherrod Interview, Part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU2igzWD5Ms&hl=en_US&fs=1
John King-Andrew Breitbart Shirley Sherrod Interview, Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVs_dyguHBY&hl=en_US&fs=1
Politics of Race: NAACP vs. Tea Party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkOc8ZKYUeQ&hl=en_US&fs=1
NAACP Says Tea Party is Racist…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY4dyCiP9b4&hl=en_US&fs=1
Black USDA Official Caught Making Racist Remarks About White Farmers !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahot8jCeaGU&hl=en_US&fs=1
Glenn Beck-07/20/10-A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTAm4tBN1mU&hl=en_US&fs=1
Glenn Beck-07/20/10-B
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W9UokKAzAM&hl=en_US&fs=1
Glenn Beck-07/20/10-C
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obUd4BWpMeQ&hl=en_US&fs=1
Glenn Beck-07/20/10-D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5yJEPTWG_M&hl=en_US&fs=1
When an employee is accused of racisim, it is always good policy to first check that the complete context and all of the facts of the situation are detailed in a written report and the written report be fully coordinated with all appropriate departments including human resources and legal.
The person accused of racism should always be given an opportunity to explain their side of the situation.
Had this be done, none of the bad publicity from this case would have taken place for clearly Sherrod should not have been asked to resign.
Once the mistake had been made of asking for her resignation, the Secretary of Agriculture, finally did the right thing and made a public apology and an offer to rehire her.
The Secretary of Agriculture and The President Of The United States were poorly served by the staff members who initiated this firing or forced resignation.
Panicing and jumping to conclusions only leads to more problems.
One should not respond to blog posts, videos on YouTube or television commentary without first being sure of the facts in the case.
Panicing and jumping to conclusions only leads to more problems.
Glenn Beck was right, context is very important.
Andrew Breitbart should have waited until he got the complete tape from his source.
I suspect he was being set up when his source only gave him part of the video.
Brietbart should have suspected this and held the video until his source provided him with the complete video.
Apparently the NAACP had the complete video.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )News Journal: Number 06, August 3, 2010–Cordova Community Center With Mosque Approved For Ground Zero–Videos
Opponents plan lawsuit on Mosque near ground zero
Ground Zero Islamic Center Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJRMsxEgyK0&feature=fvst
9/11 Mosque Fury
‘Ground Zero’ mosque approved
Ground Zero Mosque Sparks Fight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV4owcjKJuc&feature=related
Tim Brown Takes on CAIR & the Ground Zero Mosque
Mosque At Ground Zero Approved by Comunity Board despite massive protests
Mosque at 9/11 site – Must be stopped
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPKf4BOgG8A&feature=related
No mosque at Ground Zero
Mosque Built at Ground Zero…
Ground Zero Mosque in NYC
“Government being, among other purposes, instituted to protect the consciences of men from oppression, it certainly is the duty of Rulers, not only to abstain from it themselves, but according to their stations, to prevent it in others.
~ George Washington, letter to the Religious Society called the Quakers, September 28,1789,
quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom, also in Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, The Harper Book of American Quotations (1988)
Just because you can do something, does not mean you should do it.
There are over2,000mosques in the United States and over 200 in New York City and New York State.
The United States of America is a very religious tolerant nation with a strong tradition of separating state from religion.
The United States is the exception.
In many countries around the world, there is no separation of state and religion nor is there toleration of other religions.
In Saudi Arabia only the Islam religion can be practiced and no other religion ares tolerated:
Religious Freedom Saudi Arabia? – CBN.com
Islamic Saudi Textbooks Teach Students to Hate
Saudi Arabia does not permit the building of churches in their country.
The building of a 15 story, $100 million Islamic community center, only three blocks from ground zero, is perfectly legal but completely insensitive to the family and friends of those who died on September 11, 2001.
Early plans call for a 15-story building Islamic community center that would have an art studio, auditorium, basketball court, cullinary school, library, meditation rooms, swimming pool, mosque and a memorial dedicated to the victims of the 9/11 attacks.
The community center should not be built so close to ground zero.
Relocate the community center to another location several miles away from ground zero.
Background Articles and Videos
Controversial ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ Gets Green Light From NYC Landmarks Commission
By AARON KATERSKY and SARAH NETTER
“…The controversial Islamic center proposed to be built near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks won a major victory today when a New York City board voted unanimously to allow the demolition of a building to make way for construction.
Approval to build a Muslim community center a half block from WTC sparks debate.The city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission’s vote rejected the landmarking of a 19th century building with its Italian Renaissance Palazzo style that most recently served as a Burlington Coat Factory. That designation would have prevented its demolition and foiled plans to build a 13-story Islamic community center that includes a prayer room.
The vote was the last municipal approval needed to start development on the site. Developer Shanif al-Gamal declined to give a date for construction to start, but said they still have $100 million to raise. …”
John Esposito, Islamophobia, and the Ground Zero Mosque
By Stephen Schwartz
“…Esposito asks, “Why should Muslims who are building a center be any more suspect than Jews who build a synagogue or center or Christians who build a church or conference center?” Answer: Neither Jewish nor Christian houses of worship are overwhelmingly financed from outside U.S. borders, and neither the Jewish nor Christian faith communities in America are overwhelmingly dominated by radicals. But too many of the major mosques in America are financed by Saudi Arabia’s ultra-radical, fundamentalist, and supremacist Wahhabi sect, while the “Wahhabi lobby” of extremist groups — the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) at the forefront — crush American Muslims, suppressing any dissent from radical ideology. For these reasons, as I wrote in the Canadian National Post in April 2010, American Islam is intellectually impoverished. Esposito, as an academic chieftain in Middle East studies, has contributed to this sad condition.
- Insensitivity toward non-Muslims. American Muslims — especially their leaders and the large body of Islamophile academics led by Esposito — have a great deal of work to do to convince a significant share of non-Muslims that Islam can function alongside other faiths in the panorama of American religious communities. Traditional Islamic guidance calls on Muslims living in societies with a non-Muslim majority to avoid giving offense to their neighbors. The Koran states (29:46), “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Could anything appear more offensive and less considerate of American non-Muslims than erecting a large Islamic building close to Ground Zero?
- Disregard for the security of American Muslims. Islam teaches that a Muslim’s first interest is to obtain security for his or her family and fellow Muslims. Al-Gamal and Rauf have argued that the intent of the Ground Zero project is to further understanding of Islam and to help heal the collective wound inflicted on 9/11. But rather than a patient, calm effort to advance conciliation, the Ground Zero mosque project appears to be a heedless venture that will inexorably increase suspicion of Muslims. What could do more to undermine the security of American Muslims than an insult, intended or not, to the memory of the dead of 9/11?
- Radical and otherwise suspect associations maintained by Rauf. It has become widely known that Rauf is a leading figure in the so-called Perdana Global Peace Organisation, which is headed by one of the Islamic world’s most offensive Jew-haters, former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir bin Mohamad. Perdana was instrumental in organizing the Turkey-based attempt to run the Israeli naval embargo of Hamas-run Gaza at the end of May. The group’s roster of “Role Players & Contributors” begins with Mahathir, listing Rauf as second below him. Incredibly, the same list includes Michel Chossudovsky, a Canadian leftist professor known for his ardent defense of Slobodan Milosevic, the late Serbian demagogue. What could be more Islamophobic than to join in a public enterprise with such an individual?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/john_esposito_islamophobia_and.html
Group to Fight Ground Zero Mosque Ruling
“…Plans for an Islamic community center and mosque near ground zero moved forward as a city panel opened the way for developers to tear down a building that was struck by airplane debris on Sept. 11.
Even as the project’s backers celebrated the decision, a conservative advocacy group founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson announced it would challenge the panel’s vote in state court Wednesday.
Brett Joshpe, an attorney for the American Center for Law and Justice, said the group would file a petition alleging that the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission “acted arbitrarily and abused its discretion.”
The panel voted unanimously on Tuesday to deny landmark status to a building two blocks from the World Trade Center site that developers want to tear down and convert into an Islamic community center and mosque. The panel said the 152-year-old lower Manhattan building isn’t distinctive enough to be considered a landmark. …”
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/US-Ground-Zero-Mosque/2010/08/04/id/366528?s=al&promo_code=A6C2-1
Controversy over Mosque at Ground Zero- Fox and Friends [AIFD]- Fox News Channel, May 26, 2010
SAUDI ARABIA – UNDER THE VEIL
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Unit 5, Part 1–Ethics in Advertising
Unit 5 ASSIGNMENT & FINAL- ADVERTISING
- Attached Files
Advertising case summaries.pdf (52.018 KB)- Fallacies 10 common.doc (20 KB)
Advertising students:
Fortunately I investigated both Presidential candidates on their positions on many issues and by September noticed a fairly consistent pattern of deception and lying on the part of candidate Barack Obama.
This pattern only continues and has gotten much worse.
Many of those who voted for Barack Obama are now experiencing what in sales is called buyer’s remorse.
The sheer hypocrisy and deception are so palpable that even his supporters on the left are commenting upon it.
Once you lie or deceive a customer, it is very difficult, if not impossible for them to ever trust you again and buy your products and services.
More and more Americans are waking up to the fact that voting for Obama was a one big awfull mistake America.
No amount of political campaign advertisements will be able to overcome this basic lack of trust.
The American people do not like to be lied to and mislead.
Even the best advertising campaign cannot re-elect or sell damaged goods.
The following videos document the broken promises of Barack Obama on transparency and the influence of special interest and their Washington lobbyists in his administration:
Obama Already Breaking Promises On No Lobbyists In Administration
Major Garrett reports on the Obama Administrations transparency and lobbyist regulations
Cavuto Blasts Obama’s Transparency Claims: “People Have Had It With Phonies!”
Jack Cafferty Rips Obama on Failed Openness Pledge: ‘Just Another Lie Told for Political Expediency’
Obama Speech Followed By Lobbyist Visit?
Barack Obama on Lobbyists and His Campaign
THE GREAT DECEIVER
Many politicians are underestimating the impact that web sites such as YouTube are having with the voters.
Any politician’s position on an issue can be easily checked by using Google and YouTube to read and to view what a candidate stated position on an issue is.
A comparison of what was said during a political campaign can be compared with their actions once elected and in office.
Background Information
Former lobbyists in senior Obama administration positions
By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
February 2, 2010
“…Although Barack Obama promised lobbyists would not serve in his White House, and issued executive orders restricting former lobbyists, more than 40 ex-lobbyists now populate top jobs in the Obama administration, including three Cabinet secretaries, the Director of Central Intelligence, and many senior White House officials.
Below is our working list of ex-lobbyists in the Obama administration:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
//
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Former-lobbyists-in-senior-Obama-administration-positions-83362902.html#ixzz0vlR3rVDt
Secondly, find 5 samples of ads that correlate with one of the top 10 fallacies in advertising (attached sheet):
The 10 most frequently used fallacies are
1. Ad hominem (meaning “against the person”)—attacks the person and not the issue
2. Appeal to emotions—manipulates people’s emotions in order to get their attention away from an important issue
3. Bandwagon—creates the impression that everybody is doing it and so should you
4. False dilemma—limits the possible choices to avoid consideration of another choice
5. Appeal to the people—uses the views of the majority as a persuasive device
6. Scare tactic—creates fear in people as evidence to support a claim
7. False cause—wrongly assumes a cause and effect relationship
8. Hasty generalization (or jumping to conclusions)—draws a conclusion about a population based on a small sample
9. Red herring—presents an irrelevant topic to divert attention away from the original issue
10. Traditional wisdom—uses the logic that the way things used to be is better than they are now, ignoring any problems of the past
An example of a false cause fallacy of assuming a cause and effect relationship between robots dropping an auto part and everybody obsessed with quality including the robot:
GM Robot Super Bowl Commercial
An example of an appeal to emotions in order to get your attention away from an important issue that you are watching too much television on both a television set and computer:
Hulu Alec Baldwin Commercial
An example of a false dilemma fallacy that limits choices between a silly breakfast and a serious breakfast:
Denny’s – Serious Breakfast
An example of a hasty generalization that if you use E*TRADE you will have a diversified investment portfolio.
NEW E*TRADE Baby – Girlfriend
An example of ad hominem fallacy political attack ad of Jon Corzine targeted against Chris Christie who is overweight. Chris Christie won the election and is now Governor of New Jersey.
Jon Corzine – If
An example of a bandwagon fallacy ad of every day should feel this good provided you eat Quaker oats high fiber hot cereal breakfast.
1992 TV Commercial: Wilford Brimley Quaker Oats
An classic example of a scare tactic to create fear that you better use one company’s computer then another company’s computer.
1984 Apple Commercial
Background Information
Huckabee Weighs In On Corzine’s “Fat Attack” On Christie
Corzine: ‘Probably A Good Idea’ To Not Say Christie ‘Threw His Weight Around
1992 TV Commercial: Wilford Brimley Quaker Oats
News Journal: Number 04, July 24, 2010–Extend The Bush Tax Cuts
Goodbye To Bush Tax Cuts?
Liberal Tax Revolt Brewing
Can GOP Extend Bush Tax Cuts?
Extend Bush Tax Cuts for Everyone?
Bye-Bye to Bush Tax Cuts?
How Expiration of Bush Tax Cuts Affects Typical Families
Bayh Agrees With Eric Cantor On Extending Bush Tax Cuts
After Bush Tax Cuts- Rich Pay More Taxes
If the Bush tax cuts are permitted to expire, the American people will face the largest tax increase or hike in 2011 during one of the worst economic recessions in United States history.
The result will be even more unemployment and an even longer recession.
The largest creators of new jobs in the United States are small to medium size companies.
The owners of these business pay their taxes as individuals.
The so-called rich are mostly the owners of small to large companies.
Tax the rich means also taxing the major source of new jobs.
Background Information
Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Bigger Gov’t Is Not Stimulus
« Previous Entries
Pronk Papers 