Perception Management of Radical Islam

“We're in a new world. We're in a world in which the possibility of terrorism, married up with technology, could make us very, very sorry that we didn't act.” — Condoleezza Rice, Former U.S. Secretary of State

The term “Perception Management” (PM) has firmly entered the public lexicon. The Department of Defense even defines PM in one of its manuals, so the military folks obviously take it very seriously.

Perception management is a type of strategy that is aimed at guiding the motives, emotions, and conclusions of another party by means of using different approaches to alter that party’s perception of past events and the projections of future events. This particular type of strategy has been used in military operations in attempts to gain advantages over enemies, and has also found use in the business world among competitors. The goal is to alter the perception of the opposing party in a way that provides the manager with an advantage that can be used successfully to score a victory or otherwise defeat that opposing party.

There is some difference of opinion regarding whether the task of perception management must remain firmly rooted in the use of verifiable information that is presented in a manner that is likely to trigger the desired outcome, or if the strategy allows for the selective use of certain facts while ignoring others or even leaving room for the inclusion of data that is questionable. For those that focus on the use of verifiable data only, the task is to assess all the available information, then determine the best way to present those facts in a way that is likely to cause recipients to react in a certain manner. Sometimes referred to as spinning, here the focus is not on attempting to mislead per se, but instead to call more attention to certain bits of information while downplaying the importance of others. When successful, this approach has the benefit of having provided all the information, although in a format that definitely slanted the point of view in a specific direction.

At other times, the process of perception management includes the selective use of available data. In this scenario, certain facts are presented completely and concisely, while others are either presented only in part of are left out altogether. Doing so makes it easier to create a particular perception that can be sold to consumers, the citizens of a given country, or to a rival of some sort, assuming the opposing party is not privy to and does not discover the omissions.

In essence PM is not spin doctoring because perception managers don’t spin facts. They create facts and then sell them to the world as truth. Using these methods, a major untruth can be established so quickly and overwhelmingly across the world that no digging after the fact can make a dent in public consciousness that it actually isn’t true at all. And that’s what makes it so dangerous.

Examples of PM might be considered as: The sinking of the Battleship Maine, which got us into the Spanish-American War; the sinking of the Lusitania, which caused public opinion to enter World War I, the shooting at Fort Hood by a Radical Islamic terrorist shouting “Allāhu Akbar” was “work place violence”; and that Islam is a religion of peace and only a few nut jobs carry out terrorist activities.

Here is a quick test

Savages go on a shooting spree at the offices of a satirical magazine. While they're murdering journalists, the killers shout:

1. Hail Mary full of grace…
2. John 14:6
3. Shema Yisrael
4. Allahu akbar

A captive is beheaded by:

1. The Salvation Army
2. The Book of the Month Club
3. The National Geographic
4. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)

In Europe, demonstrators carry signs calling for "Death to the Jews" and proclaiming "Hitler was right!" are:

1. Octogenarian Nazis
2. Members of the Church of Scientology
3. Representatives of Jimmy Dean Pork Sausages
4. Moslems

Someone who plants a shrapnel-packed bomb near the finish line of a marathon is likely to belong to:

1. an Ashram
2. a Reform synagogue
3. a Masonic Lodge
4. a Mosque

You’ll probably get death threats if you:

1. Produce something called “Piss Christ”
2. Make a movie that presents Moses as a psycho
3. Call Tea Party members terrorists
4. Do or say anything which shows Mohammed in an unflattering light

The response to the latest Religion of Peace atrocity – the attack on a humor magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris that left 17 dead, 21 wounded — was craven, inane and utterly predictable. This count does not include the three Radical Islamic Killers.

The facts so far known and verified by the French authorities pin the attack on three French citizens – all Muslims. According to a report by Fox News the terrorist attack was sponsored by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) from its base in Yemen:

“Shortly after the massacre in Paris, a series of tweets went out from a known Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula Twitter account. They show images of the Paris massacre with photos of al-Awlaki and Samir Khan (editor of Inspire magazine, who was killed along with al-Awlaki).

An intelligence source told Fox News that the tweets suggest foreknowledge of the Paris attack.

On Friday, U.S. government sources confirmed to Fox News that 34-year-old Said Kouachi, who, along with his brother Cherif, was responsible for the attack in Paris, travelled to Yemen in 2011 and trained with or fought along side AQAP, and one of his goals was to meet with the Al Qaeda branch's leadership. A U.S. intelligence assessment described to The Associated Press shows that Kouachi was trained in preparation to return home and carry out an attack.

Soon after the Al Qaeda member claimed responsibility for the Paris attack on Friday, The Associated Press reported that the branch's senior cleric Sheikh Harith al-Nadhari issued a recording on the group's Twitter feed commenting on the "blessed raid on Paris." He denounced the "filthy" French and called them "the heads of infidelity who insult the prophets." He praised the "hero mujahedeen" who he said "taught them a lesson and the limits of freedom of speech."

In a recent report by Fox News Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen has released a video claiming responsibility for last week's deadly attack by two gunmen on the offices of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris:

“Nasr al-Ansi, a top commander of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP as the branch is known, appeared in an 11-minute Internet video posted Wednesday, saying that the massacre was in "vengeance for the prophet."

Al-Ansi also said in the video that France belongs to the "party of Satan" and warned of more "tragedies and terror." He says Yemen's Al Qaeda branch "chose the target, laid out the plan and financed the operation," though he produced no evidence to support the claim.

The attack by two brothers, Said and Cherif Kouachi killed 12 people, including eight staffers at the magazine, which had reportedly drawn their ire for repeatedly depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. Muslim orthodoxy holds that any depiction of Muhammad is blasphemous.

An eyewitness heard the gunmen say in French, "We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad!" as they fled the newspaper office, while another witness claimed the gunmen addressed him before fleeing, saying, "Tell them this was Al Qaeda in Yemen."

It did not take long for major media in the West to begin to alter the facts and the truth.

The White House and State Department refuse to use the words “Islamic” or “Radical Islamic” when talking about the latest or any other act of terrorism committed by Radical Islamist. Instead they use the word “Extremists” lumping all acts of terrorism together. They don’t even call Al Qaeda or ISIL radical Islam. In this way they are presenting us with a new set of facts — facts that are intended to led us to a new truth. In essence they are managing the perception of what is happing around the world when it pertains to Islam. The motives for doing this are unclear, but one must consider Barack Obama’s background and various statements he has made about Islam over the years.

It is the job of a conscientious and diligent press to challenge the action and statements of those in authority over us — this why we have a First Amendment in our Constitution. When a free press becomes the spokespersons for authority bad things happen. This is what happens in totalitarian states such as Germany under the Nazis, Russia under the Communists, North Korea, and Cuba.

Below is a video clip of CNN’s Christiane Amanpour reporting on the slaughter at Charlie Hebdo in Paris last week refused to use the words “Islamic Terrorism” or even “Terrorism” but instead used the word "Activists" when referring to the actions of the two Islamic gunmen. This video of her is introduced by Greg Gutfeld of Fox News and reported extensively across the Internet.

Of course what would one expect from a woman of Iranian heritage and married to American James Rubin, a former US Assistant Secretary of State and spokesman for the US State Department during the Clinton administration and currently an informal adviser to former US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and President of the United States Barack Obama.

There are other quotes from CNN contributors in this clip warning of an overreaction to the killings by “right-wing” activists. It should be noted that no such action has ever happened – even in the wake of 9/11.

Activists are people championing a cause. Most right-wing act activists are peaceful marchers. Many left-wing activists use violence – note the recent demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri and New York City.

Martin Luther King was an activist. Gandhi was an activist. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are activists. They don’t walk into an establishment with AK-47s and start indiscriminately blasting away. Major Nidal Hasan is a terrorist.

As Gutfeld states in his comments on Christiane Amanpour:

“I get it. The enemy is pre-ordained. It's us. Which means Howard Dean is right. This is a cult, a cult of apologists. But Dean is also right when he says this is not a religious issue, which means, if I don't see Islam when I fight terror, then you cannot see Islamophobia when I fight it.

What should we see instead? Again, a death cult, one that needs no understanding, just eradication. It would be nice for moderate Muslims to help, but if they don't, we can handle it, it's nothing personal, Muslims. Just step aside.

Finally, where did this cult learn to punish language? From the Quran? From Al Qaeda? How about Harvard, and our modern cult of hate speech activists, who see language as violence, creating speech codes with penalties? Seeing "activists" silence critics so easily must make them drool with envy.”

Gutfeld is pointing out how language and the management of perception is why we cannot mount effective attack on Radical Islam.

Fueling the Western paralysis in dealing with radical Islam is the late 20th century doctrine of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is one of those buzzwords that does not mean what it should. The ancient and generic Western study of many cultures is not multiculturalism. Rather, the trendy term promotes non-Western cultures to a status equal with or superior to Western culture largely to fulfill contemporary political agendas.

On college campuses, multiculturalism not so much manifests itself in the worthy interest in Chinese literature, Persian history, or hieroglyphics, but rather has become more a therapeutic exercise of exaggerating Western sins while ignoring non-Western pathologies to attract those who see themselves in some way as not part of the dominant culture.

It is a deductive ideology that starts with a premise of Western fault and then makes evidence fit the paradigm. This is classic Perception Management.

A multicultural approach to the conquest of Mexico usually does not investigate the tragedy of the collision between 16th-century imperial Spain and the Aztec Empire. More often it renders the conquest as melodrama between a mostly noble indigenous people slaughtered by a mostly toxic European Christian culture, acting true to its imperialistic and colonialist traditions and values.

In other words, there is little attention given to Aztec imperialism, colonialism, slavery, human sacrifice, and cannibalism, but rather a great deal of emphasis on Aztec sophisticated time-reckoning, monumental building skills, and social stratification. To explain the miraculous defeat of the huge Mexican empire by a few rag-tag, greedy conquistadors, discussion would not entail the innate savagery of the Aztecs that drove neighboring indigenous tribes to ally themselves with Cortés.

For the multiculturalist, the sins of the non-West are mostly ignored or attributed to Western influence, while those of the West are peculiar to Western civilization. In terms of the challenge of radical Islam, multiculturalism manifests itself in the abstract with the notion that Islamists are simply the fundamentalist counterparts to any other religion. Islamic extremists are no different from Christian extremists, as the isolated examples of David Koresh or the Rev. Jim Jones are cited ad nauseam as the morally and numerically equivalent bookends to thousands of radical Islamic terrorist acts that plague the world each month. We are not to assess other religions by any absolute standard, given that such judgmentalism would inevitably be prejudiced by endemic Western privilege. There is nothing in the Sermon on the Mount that differs much from what is found in the Koran. And on and on and on.

In the concrete, multiculturalism seeks to use language and politics to mask reality. The slaughter at Ford Hood becomes “workplace violence,” not a case of a radical Islamist, Major Nidal Hasan, screaming “Allahu Akbar” as he butchered the innocent. After the Paris violence, the administration envisions a “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism,” apparently in reaction to Buddhists who are filming beheadings, skinheads storming Paris media offices, and lone-wolf anti-abortionists who slaughtered the innocent in Australia, Canada, and France.

The likes of James Clapper and John Brennan assure us of absurdities such as the Muslim Brotherhood being a largely secular organization or jihad as little more than a personal religious journey. Terrorism is reduced to man-caused violence and the effort to combat it is little more than an “overseas contingency operation.” The head of NASA in surreal fashion boasts that one of his primary missions for the hallowed agency is to promote appreciation of Muslim science and accomplishments through outreach to Islam. The president blames an obscure film-maker for causing the deaths of Americans in Benghazi (when in reality, it was a preplanned Al-Qaeda affiliate hit) — and then Obama makes it a twofer: he can both ignore the politically incorrect task of faulting radical Islam and score politically correct points by chastising a supposedly right-wing bigot for a crime he did not foster.

For the useful idiot, multiculturalism is supposedly aimed at ecumenicalism and hopes to diminish difference by inclusiveness and non-judgmentalism. But mostly it is a narcissistic fit, in which the multiculturalist offers a cheap rationalization of non-Western pathologies, and thereby anoints himself both the moral superior to his own less critical Western peers and, in condescending fashion, the self-appointed advocate of the mostly incapable non-Westerner.

Multiculturalism is contrary to human nature. Supposedly if Muslims understand that Westerners do not associate an epidemic of global terrorism and suicide bombing with Islam, then perhaps Muslims — seeing concession as magnanimity to be reciprocated — will appreciate such outreach and help to mitigate the violence, all the more so if they also sense that they share with the more radical among them at least some legitimate gripes against the West.

In the psychological sense, multiculturalism also serves as a way of dealing with affluent Western guilt: one does not have to put his kids in an inner-city school, visit the barrio to shop, or invite undocumented aliens over for dinner, when one can both enjoy a largely affluent and apartheid existence in the concrete, while praising the noble Other in the abstract. In the European context, the liberal French or British elite welcomes in the Muslim Other for low-wage jobs and to feed his multicultural sensitivities — only to outsource the immigrants to outlander suburbs that devolve into no-go zones even for the police. In the Clinton context, when Hilary lectures us that we must understand and even empathize with the minds of our enemies, we assume that Chelsea is not on the barricades trying to fathom what drives the violent “Other.”

Ultimately multiculturalism is incoherent, claiming that all cultures are equal, but then (privately) disturbed that Iranians behead gays or Saudi women cannot drive a car — or radical Muslims prefer to live in Europe than among the believers in Yemen. Yet even multiculturalism cannot quite equate honor killings with the glass ceiling.

Radical Muslims both emigrate to the West and yet, once there, seek through Sharia law to destroy the very foundations of what made the West attractive to them in the first place. Clean water, advanced medicine, entitlement support and free speech ultimately cannot exist in a society that routinely assassinates the outspoken satirist. In a less dramatic sense, the entire open-border, La Raza movement is based on the anomaly that the United States is such an inhospitable and racist place, while Mexico is such a benevolent homeland, that 11 million risk their lives to reach the former and abandon the latter.

For Muslims of the Middle East, there is a clear pathway to economic prosperity and a secure lifestyle; countries as diverse as South Korea, Japan, and Chile are proof of it. Within wide parameters, success only asks adherence to a mostly free market, some sort of freedom of expression, religious tolerance, a separation of science from orthodoxy, the rule of law, and consensual constitutional government — along with a cultural ethos of rough parity between the sexes, merit-based evaluation instead of tribal favors, and tolerance for ethnic and religious minorities.

Fail that, and human misery follows of the now familiar Middle East sort, in turn followed by the tired blame that the Jews, the Americans, the Europeans, or the West caused these self-generated pathologies.

If the Western establishment were truly moral, it would reject multiculturalism as a deductive, anti-empirical, and illiberal creed. It would demand that critics abroad first put their own house in order before blaming others for their own failures, and remind Western elites that their multicultural fantasies are cheap remedies designed to deal with their own neuroses.

Finally, it would also not welcome in newcomers who seek to destroy the very institutions that make the West so unlike the homelands they have voted with their feet to utterly abandon.

This Really Makes Me Angry

“The eyes of the world being thus on our Country, it is put the more on its good behavior, and under the greater obligation also, to do justice to the Tree of Liberty by an exhibition of the fine fruits we gather from it.” — James Madison letter to James Monroe — 1824

Yesterday (June 14) in 1777, during the American Revolution, the Continental Congress adopted a resolution stating that "the flag of the United States be thirteen alternate stripes red and white" and that "the Union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new Constellation."

The national flag, which became known as the "stars and stripes," was based on the "Grand Union" flag, a banner carried by the Continental Army in 1776 that also consisted of 13 red and white stripes. According to legend, Philadelphia seamstress Betsy Ross designed the new canton for the flag, which consisted of a circle of 13 stars and a blue background, at the request of General George Washington. Historians have been unable to conclusively prove or disprove this legend.

With the entrance of new states into the United States after independence, new stripes and stars were added to represent new additions to the Union. In 1818, however, Congress enacted a law stipulating that the 13 original stripes be restored and that only stars be added to represent new states.

On June 14, 1877, the first Flag Day observance was held on the 100th anniversary of the adoption of the American flag. As instructed by Congress, the U.S. flag was flown from all public buildings across the country. In the years after the first Flag Day, several states continued to observe the anniversary, and in 1949 Congress officially designated June 14 as Flag Day, a national day of observance.

The American flag has gone through many changes since it was adopted 237 years ago by the Second Continental Congress. As the adoption of the Stars and Stripes is commemorated this Thursday on Flag Day, find out more about Old Glory’s mysterious origins and its rise to iconic prominence.

In June 1775, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, created a united colonial fighting force known as the Continental Army. Some historians claim that George Washington, the army’s commander-in-chief, ordered that a flag called the Continental Colors be raised the following New Year’s Day during a siege of British-occupied Boston. But David Martucci, past president of the North American Vexillological Association, the world’s largest group dedicated to the study of flags, believes Washington likely raised a British Union Jack instead. The Continental Colors, which contained 13 alternating red and white stripes with a Union Jack in the upper left-hand corner, was only used by the navy and perhaps at forts, according to Martucci. “It was sort of a compromise between the radicals who wanted to see a separate nation and the people who were more conciliatory and wanted to see some accommodation with the crown,” he said.

Either way, Washington realized soon after that it probably wasn’t a good idea to fly a flag resembling that of the enemy. The Second Continental Congress was busy drafting a constitution known as the Articles of Confederation, seeking an alliance with France and supplying the war effort. But on June 14, 1777, it took time from its schedule to pass a resolution stating that “the flag of the United States be 13 stripes, alternate red and white” and that “the union be 13 stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.” To this day, no one knows who designed the flag or why that particular color combination and pattern were chosen. Although legend holds that Betsy Ross made the first American flag in 1776 after being asked to do so by Washington, primary sources backing up that assertion are scarce although Ross’ ancestors claim to have documentary evidence it was Betsy.

Be that as it may during the remainder of the Revolutionary War, the Stars and Stripes was mainly used for naval purposes, but afterwards it took on a national role. By 1794 two new states had been added to the Union, and Congress passed an act declaring that the flag would henceforth contain 15 stripes and 15 stars. More states kept joining, including Tennessee in 1796, Ohio in 1803, Louisiana in 1812, Indiana in 1816 and Mississippi in 1817. Nonetheless, the flag featured 15 stripes and 15 stars until 1818, when Congress passed a new act providing for 13 stripes in honor of the 13 original colonies and one star for each state.

It was almost unheard of for individuals to fly the U.S. flag until the Civil War broke out in 1861, at which time the Stars and Stripes suddenly became a popular symbol in the North. This was the beginning of what some people call the cult of the flag, the almost religious feeling that many Americans have for the red, white and blue. In 1870 the Betsy Ross legend took off when her grandson held a press conference touting her possible role in sewing the first flag, and the earliest flag protection laws appeared not long after. Meanwhile, in 1885, Wisconsin teacher Bernard Cigrand originated the idea for a national flag day.

In 1912, President William Howard Taft signed an executive order that, for the first time, clarified what the flag should look like. Up until then, some flags were oddly proportioned or even had six — or eight-pointed stars. Four years later, President Woodrow Wilson issued a proclamation officially establishing a nationwide observance of Flag Day on June 14, the anniversary of the Flag Resolution of 1777. And in 1949, President Harry Truman signed legislation designating June 14 of each year as National Flag Day. Though Flag Day is not a federal holiday, the U.S. government encourages its citizens to display Old Glory outside of their homes and businesses. The tradition is not widely observed, however. To most folks, unfortunately, Flag Day is not on their radar screen today.

While the 1777 resolution establishing a national flag was the impetus for the national holiday known as Flag Day, that date also holds great significance for the U.S. Army. Two years earlier, just weeks after the Battles of Lexington and Concord kicked off the American Revolution, the Congress formally authorized the enlistment of soldiers to fight in what became known as the Continental Army. So Flag Day is also celebrated as the birthday of the U.S. Army.

It’s the Textile Color Card Association of the United States (TCCA) that creates the palate of colors used for both private and public institutions, and the U.S. Army that issues a reference guide of acceptable shades to be used in local, state and national flags. So if you’re trying to produce a truly authentic American flag, you’ll need to use the exact shades of white, “Old Glory Red” and “Old Glory Blue,” specified in the guide. Although mass-market flag manufacturers have been known to fudge a bit and use the more-easily processed Pantone Matching Shades of Dark Red (193 C) and Navy Blue (281 C).

While the battle over perceived desecration of the flag remains a hot button issue today, some of the first anti-desecration measures had little to do with flag burning or other destructive measures. In fact, 19th century lawmakers were more concerned with the already rampant use of the flag as a promotional tool by advertisers, which they considered treating the banner with “contempt.” Many of the first statues passed by state and local governments aimed to restrict use of the flag’s image on commercial products. In 1907, the Supreme Court upheld these laws in the case of Halter v. Nebraska, and many of them remain on the books today.

On September 13, 1814 Francis Scott Key penned a poem which was later set to music and in 1931 it became America's national anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner." The poem, originally titled "The Defence of Fort McHenry," was written after Key witnessed the Maryland fort being bombarded by the British during the War of 1812. Key was inspired by the sight of a lone U.S. flag still flying over Fort McHenry at daybreak, as reflected in the now-famous words of the "Star-Spangled Banner": "And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there."

On June 18, 1812, America declared war on Great Britain after a series of trade disagreements. In August 1814, British troops invaded Washington, D.C., and burned the White House, Capitol Building and Library of Congress. Their next target was Baltimore.

After one of Key's friends, Dr. William Beanes, was taken prisoner by the British, Key went to Baltimore, located the ship where Beanes was being held and negotiated his release. However, Key and Beanes weren't allowed to leave until after the British bombardment of Fort McHenry. Key watched the bombing campaign unfold from aboard a ship located about eight miles away.

Key knew that his flag held deep symbolic meaning as he stepped aboard the British flagship of Admiral Alexander Cochrane on September 7, 1814. Cochrane invited Key and Skinner to dine with him. Though he and another British officer agreed to free Dr. Beanes, they wouldn’t let Key, Skinner, or Beanes depart until after the British attacked Baltimore. “Ah, Mr. Skinner, after discussing so freely our preparation and plans, you could hardly expect us to let you go on shore in advance of us?” Cochrane explained.

Surrounded by Union Jacks for days, Key, Skinner, and Beanes stayed with the British fleet. Key was worried about Baltimore. “To make my feelings still more acute, the admiral had intimated his fears that Baltimore must be burned, and I was sure that if taken it would have been given up to plunder. It was filled with women and children.”

Starting on September 13, for more than twenty-four hours, Key watched the British Navy bombard Fort McHenry, which guarded Baltimore’s harbor. The staccato sound of rockets and bombs suddenly stopped the morning of September 14. Gone from the fort was its small storm flag.

Through his spyglass, Key must have held his breath during the silence as he wondered what would happen next. Would the Union Jack or a white flag of surrender appear at the top of Fort McHenry? Relief swept through him as he saw the giant thirty by forty-two foot U.S. flag soar to the top of Fort McHenry. While the men at the fort played Yankee Doodle, Key’s emotions took flight. Phrases such as “O say can you see” and “by the dawn’s early light” pulsed through his heart and pen. By the time he returned to Baltimore two days later, he’d written lyrics for a poem, The Star-Spangled Banner. Key’s genius is that his words were so inspirational, they could be applied to many generations and situations, not only to Fort McHenry and Baltimore. Though he didn’t know it at the time, Key had given the land of the free its anthem for the ages.

The poem was printed in newspapers and eventually set to the music of a popular English drinking tune called "To Anacreon in Heaven" by composer John Stafford Smith. People began referring to the song as "The Star-Spangled Banner" and in 1916 President Woodrow Wilson announced that it should be played at all official events. It was adopted as the national anthem on March 3, 1931.

Now we come to the part that really makes me angry.

Fox News reported on this Flag Day a desecration of our national flag beyond the pale. This desecration was not done by some Islamic radicals of left-wing nuts burning our flag. It was carried out by our ambassador to Israel — a representative of the U.S. Government and We The People.

“TEL AVIV – The U.S. Embassy broke new ground and raised a few eyebrows by flying the rainbow-colored gay pride flag below the Stars and Stripes in a show of support for the city’s week long Gay Pride week, not to mention a rare example of tolerance in the wider Middle East.

“Proudly flying the colors!" read a dual-language post on the Facebook page of U.S. Ambassador Dan Shapiro’s office. "For the first time in history, the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv has raised the Pride flag together with our American flag. We are proud to join with the municipality of Tel Aviv-Yafo and its residents in celebrating LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual] Pride Week.”

The Tel Aviv embassy gesture to the local gay community is not the first of its kind though. Last month, according to Spanish media reports, the gay pride flag flew over U.S. Ambassador James Costos’ official residence in Madrid, and last September, the flag was unfurled by Ambassador Theodore Sedgwick at the U.S. Embassy in Bratislava, in Slovakia.

Reaction from outside of the gay community to the sight of the American flag being accompanied by the rainbow banner was mixed.

“I see that it is OK to put up a gay pride flag over an embassy but not ok for military members to espouse their religious beliefs in God," read a post on the Embassy's page, attributed to Grant Hix Jones. "I am ashamed to see those flags side by side.”

“How is this "gay pride flag" representative of all Americans?" wrote a poster named James Brown. "This flag needs to come down.”

While most people posting messages on the embassy Facebook page expressed various shades of disapproval, on the other side of the debate there were those in favor of hoisting the gay flag, with “Way to go!” and “Proud” being among the posted comments.

An embassy official told FoxNews.com all the responses were appreciated.

“We are glad to see our Facebook page utilized as a forum for free speech,” the official said.

Shapiro announced late last month that the flag would fly above the building, noting "the United States’ strong support for the LGBT community at home and abroad."

I am sick and tired of the LGBT community forcing its beliefs on me. I really don’t care what they have to say or what their behavior is. It’s their business. But for the U.S. Government to sanction it is a travesty against the First Amendment. We are not allowed bibles in government buildings and shows such as the Duck Dynasty are sanctioned for expressing their views on homosexuality. If you fly the symbol of the Tea Party (the Gadsden Flag) you are considered by the Department of Homeland Security to be a potential terrorist. Schools will not permit kids to wear patriotic T-shirts and the Ten Commandments are removed from public buildings. Christian Christmas displays are banned from the public square and even flying Old Glory has been banned by some homeowner’s associations. But our government — in our name can fly the LGBT flag with impunity on a government building.

Not many news associations have covered this event. This is no doubt due to their reluctance to report news that would infuriate their viewers and in some case is new they would rather not report as it might prove to be a negative to their narrative.

The LGBT community can do want they wish in their bedrooms and communities but don’t do it in my name. What’s next — flying the Planned Parenthood banner.

Have the Inmates Finally Taken Over the Asylum?

"Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom." —John Adams

When the President Obama’s Pentagon declared the mass shootings at Fort Hood by Army Major Nidal Hasan as “workplace violence” I thought that political correctness by the left had gone too far. Even when he shouted “Allāhu Akbar” as he emptied his 9mm magazines on unarmed soldiers and civilians. This refusal by the Pentagon to recognize this as an act of terrorism caused the survivors of this attack to lose all benefits owed them by the military. It was and still is a gross miscarriage of justice for the victims.

If you thought that was bad we now have Air Force claiming in their training manuals that our Founding Fathers were extremists. According to the Air Force George Washington would not be welcome in the modern U.S. military. Neither would Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin, according to Department of Defense training documents that depict the Founding Fathers as extremists and conservative organizations as “hate groups.”

“This document deserves a careful examination by military leadership,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Fox News. “Congress needs to conduct better oversight and figure out what the heck is going on in our military.”

Included in the 133-pages of lesson plans is a student guide entitled “Extremism.”

The DOD warns students to be aware “that many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights and how to make the world a better place.”

Under a section titled “Extremist Ideologies,” the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.

According to a report in the Daily Caller:

“Besides a brief reference to 9/11 and another to the Sudanese civil war, the guide makes no mention of Islamic extremism.

The guide also repeatedly tells readers to use the Southern Poverty Law Center as a resource in identifying hate groups. The SPLC has previously come under fire for its leftist bias and tendency to identify conservative organizations such as the American Family Association as hate groups.

In August 2012, an attempted terrorist attack occurred at the Family Research Council, another conservative organization the SPLC has branded a hate group. FRC president Tony Perkins said the SPLC’s designation prompted the attack, stating the gunman “was given a license to shoot by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

In a statement, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton slammed the Department of Defense documents for what he described as their bias against conservatives.

“The Obama administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism. And now, in a document full of claptrap, its Defense Department suggests that the Founding Fathers, and many conservative Americans, would not be welcome in today’s military,” said Fitton. ”And it is striking that some the language in this new document echoes the IRS targeting language of conservative and Tea Party investigations. After reviewing this document, one can’t help but worry for the future and morale of our nation’s armed forces.”

The training guide warned that participation in groups that are regarded as extremist organizations is “incompatible with military service and is, therefore prohibited.”

“It’s craziness,” Fitton said. “It’s political correctness run amok.”

The training documents also focus on those who cherish individual liberty.

“Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publically espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights and how to make the world a better place.”

The document relied heavily on information obtained from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a leftwing organization that has a history of labeling conservative Christian organizations like the Family Research Council as “hate groups.”

This policy is beyond political correctness it is an obscene attack on our Founders, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Our Founders were not extremists they were classical liberals in the sense of John Locke and Montesquieu. The believed in liberty, private property, and individual rights. They authored a document that became a road map for the greatest form of self-governance that was known to man and still is.

Was Thomas Jefferson an extremist when he authored the Declaration of Independence? Were James Madison and George Mason extremists when they authored the Bill of Rights? Were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay extremists when they wrote the Federalist Papers in support of the ratification of the Constitution? Was George Washington an extremist when he acted as the president of the Constitutional Convention? These were men of honor, vision and a dedication to a republican form of self-government something we are drifting away from every day the progressive masterminds hold power. I doubt that the authors of this inane teaching document have ever read even one of the Federalist Papers.

When a cadet is enrolled in one of the military academies they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution — not to worship Barack Obama. This is just one more example of the inmates taking control of the Washington asylum.

A Note to John McCain and the Gang of Eight

“Learned Institutions ought to be favorite objects with every free people. They throw that light over the public mind which is the best security against crafty and dangerous encroachments on the public liberty.” — James Madison

Last Wednesday, police in Austin arrested two Mexican nationals who reportedly participated in the gang-rape of a 13-year-old girl on June 29.

The girl, a runaway, who lives at the Settlement Home for Children, was picked up by three Latino men and driven to the Avalon Arms apartments, where she was raped by a large group of men for several hours, according to police.

As many as 13 men took turns sexually assaulting the girl. Many cheered and filmed the sickening crime on their cell phones, according to court documents.

Juan Lozano Ortega, 25, and Edgar Gerardo Guzman Perez, 26, have been charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child. Both are currently being held in the Travis County Jail on immigration detainers.

Austin’s KTBC, Channel 7 reported:

“The affidavit states the assault lasted until early into the morning of June 30, then the victim was driven to a nearby neighborhood and told to "find somewhere to go."

Police say they were able to track Ortega and Perez from the phone call the girl made to her foster brother with their cell phone. She was able to make it back on her own to the settlement home.”

The teen victim told police she was taken inside an apartment, where Ortega forced himself on her as the other men cheered him on, recording the assault on their cell phones. All the men took turns having sex with her against her will.

The girl was taken to a nearby hospital, where doctors determined her injuries were consistent with her allegations. Austin police are currently searching for the other assailants.

Illegal aliens are leaving a trail of victims from coast to coast – a massive crime wave that most Americans don’t know about – because the media typically plays it down. And so frequently the victims are children or involve children – thanks to a perverse Mexican culture that virtually ensures the victimization of the young.

I doubt they will be deported. They will be given a fair trial and take up two more spaces in our already over-crowded prison system. There, they will be given three squares, water, shelter, a gym membership, reunions with their friends and family members, crafting activities, counseling and a free education. In no time, they will be deemed "rehabilitated", apply for and receive amnesty and be released back into our society. They will have it made in the shade while this poor child's life is in ruins.

There is yet another example of an illegal killing a mother of a 13-year old for denying his sex with the child. This one happened on April 4, 2013 in Aquila, AZ, 45 miles Northwest of Phoenix.

Authorities say the suspect, 25-year-old Jose Zarate, went to 31-year-old Maria Saucedo’s home around 9:30 p.m. Zarate reportedly wanted to take Saucedo’s 13-year old daughter to his home, presumably for sex. When she refused, an argument ensued and Zarate pulled out a rifle and shot her in the chest at close range — in the presence of the teen.

According to the MCSO, “One of several witnesses to the crime apparently disarmed Zarate before he fled the area on foot.” When they arrived at the scene, deputies administered CPR on Saucedo, but she was later pronounced dead.

“How awful this is that a mother loses her life in the process of defending her daughter’s honor,” said Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Within 24 hours, deputies arrested Zarate. He was found at his home.

The Fox 10 Phoenix report of the crime showed the apparent effects of the Associated Press ban on the term “illegal immigrant” just 24 hours earlier. Fox 10 reported that: “Sheriff’s deputies say Zarate is a non-U.S. citizen who has been living in the country without proper authorization.”

For a more detailed account you need to go to the Daily Mail where they are not afraid to use the term “illegal alien” like the most of the U.S. media.

In other words Zarate is an illegal alien invader. So why not just say that? We don’t want to “stigmatize” illegal alien pedophile murderers?

Zarate was booked into the 4th Avenue Jail on the following charges: 2nd degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person (an illegal).

This was just the latest crime involving underage children by an illegal alien. America has been savaged by illegal alien pedophile crimes. Why? Because the sick culture of Mexico, which disgustingly has a minimal age of consent for sex of TWELVE, and rarely prosecutes child rapes of even younger than that. Punishments for rape and sexual assaults are just minor slaps on the wrist. Many times the rapist just has to pay a small fine or sit in jail for a day. And if they marry the victim, they are completely let off the hook.

When we permit hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who reflect this sick culture to invade America we shouldn’t be surprised when there is a trail of victims from coast to coast.

In another case police in Barstow arrested Jose Luis Aguilar, 36, at a Greyhound bus station after he reportedly sexually assaulted and beat his girlfriend's baby daughter to death.

A day earlier, the baby's mother, Jennifer Reedy, 31, awoke to find her daughter lying dead in her crib.

Aguilar was gone, as was Reedy's car and money from her purse.

Police were able to find Aguilar using the GPS in his cellphone. At a press conference Benton County prosecutor Andy Miller, told reporters: "It appears that Mr. Aguilar was on his way to flee to Mexico." [Source: Washington Examiner June 12, 2013]

An then there is the case in Omaha, Nebraska where A 19-year-old accused of beating and raping an elderly woman who later died will now face a murder charge.

Prosecutors said Sergio Martinez-Perez beat and sexually assaulted 93-year-old Louise Sollowin in her home Sunday. Sollowin died Wednesday, June 24^th.

Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine on Thursday said Martinez-Perez will be charged with first-degree murder.

Autopsy results showed that Sollowin's cause of death was blunt force trauma.

Martinez-Perez, who already faces charges of first-degree sexual assault, first-degree assault and burglary, is set to appear before a judge Friday to be arraigned on the new charge. [Source: KETV, Channel 7, Omaha]

Illegal alien child rapists continue their unchecked rampage across America, while politicians in both parties refuse to secure the border, and plot to legalize these criminals instead.

When we permit hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who reflect this sick culture to invade America we shouldn’t be surprised when there is a trail of victims from coast to coast. But instead of securing the border to stop it, politicians in both parties are working right now to legalize them instead.

These crimes perpetrated by illegals (usually from Mexico) are committed on a daily basis across the United States. If you doubt me I challenge you to watch your local TV news at 11:00 pm each night for a week. You will see reports of murder, sexual assault, home invasion, child abduction, and gang shootings almost on a nightly basis. Pay attention to the neighborhoods where these crimes happen and who the reporter in interviewing. If you can’t see a pattern you are suffering from conative dissidence.

According to a 2006 report by World Net Daily:

“Schurman-Kauflin, who runs the Violent Crimes Institute in Atlanta, participated in a 12-month, in-depth study of illegal immigrants who committed sex crimes and murders from January 1999 through April 2006. The study found approximately 240,000 illegal-immigrant sex offenders reside in the United States — while 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders come across U.S. borders illegally every day.” [emphasis added]

Schurman-Kauflin said, “Gang rapes by illegal immigrants appear to be gang related. Many of the cases I reviewed involved gang members. As part of being a cohesive group, they offend together. Inflicting brutal gang rapes brings them closer together as a group. It is a way to demonstrate their power. And it sends a message to anyone who dares to cross them.”

Where are the race hustlers and amnesty apologists when it comes to these cases? Where are La Raza, MEChA, and MALDEF in defending the rights of these little girls? Where is President Obama, Cecilia Muñoz (the past president of La Raza and now Director of the Domestic Policy Council, for the White House and the person behind Obama’s immigration reform), and Luis Gutiérrez the Illinois Congressman and apologist for illegals and the crimes they commit. Where is the Congressional Hispanic Caucus? None of these people or organizations are speaking for these victims. They prefer to make excuses for or ignore the perpetrators of these heinous acts as they run counter to their agenda.

Obama and his race hustling buddies in the media can go around touting Trayvon Martin and how his civil rights were violated but can’t seem to find the time to expose the myriad of crimes committed on a daily basis by illegal immigrants.

Perhaps John McCain and his gang of eight compadres should pay closer attention to the victims of these crimes and less effort on trying to gin up the votes from the Hispanic community.

There needs to be as much emphasis on stories like this as we move closer and close to so-called comprehensive immigration reform.

When Will It End?

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” — John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770

The verdict was met by "mostly peaceful" demonstrations, as the media likes to call them, when they're not interested in discussing the demonstrators who weren't peaceful. The liveliest protests occurred not in Florida, where the Zimmerman-Martin incident and trial occurred, but in California and New York. Windows were broken, police were pelted with rocks, reporters were assaulted, American flags were burned, and roads were shut down.

It could have been a lot worse - many authorities feared it would be. Perhaps underplaying the violence helped to keep things from getting worse. But what was the point of even the entirely peaceful demonstrations? During the height of unrest in Sanford, Florida after Martin died, we were told the angry demonstrators just wanted a fair trial. Well, they got one, even though Florida law had to be bent out of shape to produce it. Outrageous charges were filed, less outrageous charges were introduced at the last minute, the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense, the judge sometimes seemed to conduct herself as an assistant to the prosecution... and Zimmerman still won a full acquittal.

Profiting from the death of a child is sick and disgusting. Unfortunately, this describes the circle of exploiters promoting the Trayvon Martin traveling show after his death in February 2012. And if you're Trayvon's parents, there's nothing like having the president, the attorney general, the state attorney general, several civil rights lawyers, and invested others to help you in your campaign.

Shame on Sybrina Fulton, Tracy Martin, the State of Florida, the lawyers, and all the vultures picking a dead kid's bones clean for a lousy buck and political points.

In his column "Race Hustlers" last Thursday, Mark Alexander wrote:

"Once the race hustlers and DoJ had plowed the Florida fields, Obama, the consummate racial agitator, nationalized the Zimmerman/Martin case by sowing this seed a month after the incident: 'This is a tragedy, uh ... uh and when I think about this boy, uh, I think about my own kids, uh ... I think that all of us need to do some soul searching to figure out how something like this happened. ... If I had a son he would look like Trayvon, and, uh, you know, I think [his parents] are right to expect that all of us as Americans, uh, are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves."

On the Zimmerman verdict, Alexander notes, "Now that Zimmerman has been rightfully exonerated, perhaps Obama can nationalize the race-based murder of a white man in Georgia by a group of black gangbangers. I suggest he start by declaring, 'If I had a son, he would look like those thugs'.. who murdered Josh Chellew last week."

"Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP is already lobbying Attorney General Eric Holder to indict Mr. Zimmerman on federal civil-rights charges. Millions of Americans would see such federal charges as an example of double jeopardy, and a politicized prosecution to boot. There is no doubt that many law-abiding black men are eyed suspiciously in some quarters because they are black. The motivation may sometimes be racial. But such a discussion also cannot exclude that the main victims of crimes committed by young black men are other blacks. Mr. Zimmerman made many mistakes that February evening, not least failing to heed police advice not to pursue Martin. Despite his acquittal, he will pay for those mistakes for years as he defends against a possible civil suit and must wear a bullet-proof vest to protect himself from threats of violent revenge that he has to take seriously. If there is any satisfaction in his acquittal, it is that the jurors followed the law's requirements that every defendant deserves a fair trial, even one who becomes a symbol of our polarized racial politics." — The Wall Street Journal

I have been reluctant to comment on the Zimmerman case while the trial was in progress or the jury was deliberating. I left that to the talking heads, legal experts, politicians, and race hustlers — they did a bang up job of obfuscating the truth and pushing their ideological prejudices and self-serving agendas. Yes. There were a few reporters and legal experts following the trial and they did a fair job of reporting on the evidence presented to the court and the jury along with speculating on what conclusions that evidence should bring. Most of the experts predicted a not guilty verdict and based on the law and the charge and hey were correct.

I will not comment on the case, the evidence presented, or the verdict but I will comment on three elements of the media circus surrounding the trial. Those three things are:

• The media coverage,
• The politics and misconduct surrounding the prosecution, and
• The racial politics that we are deluged with today

The Media Coverage.

From NBC doctoring the 911 operators tape to the AP calling George Zimmerman a “self-identified” Hispanic the mainstream media has been in the tank for a conviction of Zimmerman. A conviction would have fit their narrative of racism and the acquittal did the same. Even with the trial now behind us, and a verdict of not guilty, Trayvon's parents and their exploiters will no doubt get a maximum rate of return on a kid they hardly knew.

Sybrina's and Tracy's fictionalized image as doting parents has been woven into the Trayvon narrative. How ironic that Martin's and Fulton's detached, aloof, and controlled affect so soon after their ordeal has managed to elicit such emotional responses from the public. Whoever was coaching these people deserves some kind of award -- but then again, money and fame are powerful motivators.

The famous pastor Jamal Bryant called Fulton the "mother of the new civil rights movement" when she addressed his Black Empowerment Temple in Baltimore in 2012. The Baltimore Sun went so far as to describe the "grey cocktail suit with sparkling buttons" Fulton was wearing for her debut. Fulton told the congregation she couldn't cry, because "she had work to do" and God was "using her."

The media also bears a real responsibility for sensationalism. After all, most people can’t spend their days reading police reports or listening to trials. But in Zimmerman’s case, "NBC Nightly News" and the "Today Show" went so far as doctoring tapes of Zimmerman’s 911 call to make it look as if he was fixated on Trayvon Martin’s race.

Even late in the trial, media coverage still showed pictures of a much younger 12-year-old Martin continually reinforcing the image in many minds that Zimmerman had shot a young child, not a six-foot, 17-year-old football player.

Many readers might be surprised to learn that 17-year-olds are almost 50 percent more likely to commit murders than 28-year-olds such as Zimmerman.

While the national media’s rush to judgment against George Zimmerman was going on they seemed to overlook a few cases that did not fit their racial narrative.

Let’s begin with the case of the 13-year old son of Melisa Coon of Kanas City, MO. On March 12, 2012 the New York Daily News:

“A 13-year-old boy who police say was doused with gasoline and lit on fire last week while walking home from school is recovering from first-degree burns to his face and head.

The boy was just two blocks from his home in Kansas City Tuesday when two teenagers began to follow him and then attacked him, his mother, Melissa Coon, said.

Police have described the suspects as black 16-year-olds, while the victim is white.

"We were told it's a hate crime," Coon told KTLA.

"They rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open, Coon told KMBC. "(One of them) poured the gasoline, then flicked the Bic, and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy."

By lighting the gasoline, the second attacker "produced a large fireball burning the face and hair" of the boy, according to a Kansas City Police Department report obtained by KCTV.

"It was pretty bad stuff," Detective Stacey Taylor told the TV station, adding that police are concerned the boy may have suffered damage to his eyes and lungs.

Coon said her son put out the fire with his shirt and called 911 himself. He was rushed to the hospital and was treated for his injuries.

She believes the students also attend East High School with her son, and said he will not be returning to the school. She also told KMBC her traumatized family plans now plans to move.”

As you can see black on white is not considered a hate crime by the media.

Then there is the case of Sherry West in Georgia and her 13-month old baby. The woman was pushing the baby in her stroller when approached by two black youths. The youths wanted money and when the woman said she had none De'Marquise Elkins, 17, and Dominique Lang, 15 said they would shot here and her baby if she refused their demands Once again the woman stated she had no money so the De'Marquise shot the woman and the baby in the face. Fortunately the bullet on grazed Sherry West but the baby died instantly. According to CNN Justice:

“A Glynn County, Georgia, grand jury indicted two teenage defendants in the death of a 13-month-old boy, the district attorney announced Wednesday.

Because the defendants were younger than 18 when the killing took place on Thursday, they cannot face the death penalty if convicted.

De'Marquise Elkins, 17, and Dominique Lang, 15, were charged with murder last week and made their first court appearance Monday.

CNN is identifying Lang because he is charged as an adult and media in the community have been naming him since he was arrested.

Elkins faces malice and felony murder charges. Lang is accused of felony murder.

Among other charges, each teen is accused of aggravated assault, criminal attempt to commit armed robbery and first-degree cruelty to children. Elkins also is accused of attempted robbery on March 11.

According to the indictment, the gun used in each case was a .22-caliber revolver.

Last week, Sherry West told reporters she was pushing her baby, Antonio Santiago, in a stroller in broad daylight in Brunswick, Georgia, when two teenagers approached her.

One demanded money and pointed at her what West first thought was a fake gun. But he fired at her twice, missing her head and hitting her in the leg, West said. The teen then shot the baby Antonio in the face, West said.

Neither teen entered a plea during Monday's court hearing.

The indictment also includes charges against Elkins' mother, Karimah, his sister, Sabrina Elkins; and an aunt, Katrina Elkins.

Karimah and Katrina Elkins are accused of making a false statement. Karimah and Sabrina Elkins are charged with tampering with evidence by throwing a firearm into a pond. The mother also is accused of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Mom to teenage son accused of shooting baby: 'I love you'

Baby's death marks 2nd time Georgia mom loses a son to violence.”

Once again the national media did not think this a story worthwhile of its time or concern. Of course this was a case of black on white crime and we know these crimes do not merit our attention. Will Eric Holder investigate this as a hate crime?

And finally we have the report from Chicago that over the Fourth of July weekend there were 72 shootings in Chicago, President Obama’s hometown, with 12 dead. According Channel 5, NBC Chicago:

“Twelve men were killed and at least 60 other people were wounded in shootings throughout Chicago during the holiday weekend, including eight people who were shot in a West Side attack Saturday.

The weekend's latest shooting took place Sunday afternoon around 3:30 p.m. in the 4700 block of South Ashland when two men were shot, one fatally.

According to preliminary information, one man, whose age was not known, was killed in the shooting after being shot in the back and another was taken in critical condition with wounds to the arm and chest, said Chicago Police News Affairs Officer Joshua Purkiss.

Two men reportedly fired on a group of people at a home in the 2800 block of West Flournoy Street in the Lawndale neighborhood around 6 p.m. Saturday, police said.

The evening shooting left one person dead, four people in serious-to-critical condition at John H. Stroger Hospital and another in fair-to-serious condition at Mount Sinai Hospital, according to fire officials.

Police said a total of six people were hospitalized after the incident.

One man, 49-year-old Terry Patterson, of an unknown address, was pronounced dead, according to the Cook County Medical Examiner's office.

One of the victims also included an elderly woman, 72, who was shot in the ankle, police said.

No one was in custody for the shooting as of Sunday morning.

A 5-year-old boy was among the wounded -- shot early Friday alongside two men at a West Pullman park. Several hours earlier, a 7-year-old boy was also shot in a park -- this one in Chatham.

A 24-year-old man was charged Saturday in connection with the shooting of the 5-year-old boy.

Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy released a statement on the weekend's violence stating "no shooting or murder is acceptable."

"While to date we've had significantly fewer shootings and significantly fewer murders this year, there's more work to be done and we won't rest until everyone in Chicago enjoys the same sense of safety," McCarthy said in the statement.”

How many of those killed or wounded looked like Barack Obama? I guess he nor Eric Holder just don’t give a tinker’s damn about black on black or black on white crime. These crimes just do not fit their racial agenda.

The politics and misconduct surrounding the prosecution.

This was a politically motivated prosecution from the get go. When the Local District Attorney and Chief of Police would not bring charges they were fired by the local politicians and the Governor appointed a special prosecutor as he bowed to the pressure of the race baiters who were brought in from New York and Washington D.C.

Judicial Watch announced last week that it had obtained documents proving that the Department of Justice played a major behind-the-scenes role in organizing protests against George Zimmerman. Zimmerman is on trial for second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in February 2012.

Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the DOJ on April 24, 2012. According to the documents JW received, a little-known DOJ unit called the Community Relations Service deployed to Sanford, FL, to organize and manage rallies against Zimmerman.

Among JW’s findings:

• March 25 – 27, 2012, CRS spent $674.14 upon being “deployed to Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”
• March 25 – 28, 2012, CRS spent $1,142.84 “in Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”
• March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent $892.55 in Sanford, FL “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida.”
• March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent an additional $751.60 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”
• April 3 – 12, 2012, CRS spent $1,307.40 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford.”
• April 11-12, 2012, CRS spent $552.35 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male.” – expenses for employees to travel, eat, sleep?

JW says the documents it obtained reveal that CRS is not engaging in its stated mission of conducting “impartial mediation practices and conflict resolution,” but instead engaged on the side of the anti-Zimmerman protesters.

On April 15, 2012, during the height of the protests, the Orlando Sentinel reported, “They [the CRS] helped set up a meeting between the local NAACP and elected officials that led to the temporary resignation of police Chief Bill Lee according to Turner Clayton, Seminole County chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” The paper quoted the Rev. Valarie Houston, pastor of Allen Chapel AME Church, a focal point for protestors, as saying “They were there for us,” after a March 20 meeting with CRS agents.

Separately, in response to a Florida Sunshine Law request to the City of Sanford, Judicial Watch also obtained an audio recording of a “community meeting” held at Second Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church in Sanford on April 19, 2012. The meeting, which led to the ouster of Sanford’s Police Chief Bill Lee, was scheduled after a group of college students calling themselves the “Dream Defenders” barricaded the entrance to the police department demanding Lee be fired. According to the Orlando Sentinel, DOJ employees with the CRS had arranged a 40-mile police escort for the students from Daytona Beach to Sanford.

These documents detail the extraordinary intervention by the Justice Department in the pressure campaign leading to the prosecution of George Zimmerman,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “My guess is that most Americans would rightly object to taxpayers paying government employees to help organize racially-charged demonstrations.”

Organizing such protests falls well within both President Barack Obama’s and Attorney General Eric Holder’s wheelhouses. Obama was a “community organizer” in his career prior to elective politics, a position that uses protests and street theater, along with threats, to obtain concessions from businesses and other political opponents. Holder has accused America of being a “nation of cowards” for not discussing racial issues enough. He also described black Americans as “my people” during a congressional hearing.

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz says the prosecutors in the George Zimmerman murder trial should be charged with "prosecutorial misconduct" for suggesting the defendant planned the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.

"That is something no prosecutor should be allowed to get away with … to make up a story from whole cloth," Dershowitz told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

Dershowitz called Guy's statement "such speculation. How does he get into the mind of Zimmerman? He hasn't cross-examined him, he hasn't met him.

"To ask the jury to believe that is to ask the jury to convict based on complete and utter speculation and that's not the way the law operates."

A day earlier, prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda said Zimmerman — whom he labeled a "wannabe cop" — "followed" and "tracked" Martin after profiling him as a criminal.

Dershowitz said not only should Zimmerman have not been charged with second-degree murder, but prosecutors should not have pushed to have manslaughter and child abuse added to the list of possible jury verdicts.

“It's utterly irresponsible. The idea that the prosecution can try the case on a murder theory and then, at the last minute, substitute manslaughter, even though it seems to be permitted generally under Florida law — it's a big mistake to allow it in a case like this,” he said.

"And then the very idea of even suggesting child abuse in a case like this is so irresponsible."

Dershowitz praised the closing argument of defense lawyer Mark O'Mara.

"He did the right thing by being methodical and factual because this is a case where the prosecution's case is all emotion and the defense case is all factual," the famed civil-rights lawyer said.

"Emotionally, obviously everybody can identify with a young, unarmed 17-year-old who ends up dead, and emotionally, as President Barack Obama said, he's all of our children."

Dershowitz — whose clients have included Claus von Bulow, Mike Tyson, Patricia Hearst, and former televangelist Jim Bakker — said the case had "reasonable doubt" written all over it.

"Nobody knows who started the initial physical encounter, who threw the first blow — and if you don't know that you have to have a reasonable doubt," he said.

"Nobody knows for sure who screamed, 'Help me, help me.' You have to have a reasonable doubt about that. Nobody knows for sure who was on top and who was on bottom, though the overwhelming forensic evidence suggests that Zimmerman was on the bottom having his head banged by a younger, stronger man. You have to have reasonable doubt there."

Immediately after the verdict was announced, however, the NAACP and outspoken activist Al Sharpton called on the Justice Department to launch a federal civil-rights probe, charging that the case had been racially tainted.

Dershowitz is calling for a civil-rights probe as well. But he contends the person whose rights were violated was Zimmerman.

“I think there were violations of civil rights and civil liberties — by the prosecutor,” said the criminal-law expert. “The prosecutor sent this case to a judge, and willfully, deliberately, and in my view criminally withheld exculpatory evidence.”

He added: “They denied the judge the right to see pictures that showed Zimmerman with his nose broken and his head bashed in. The prosecution should be investigated for civil rights violations, and civil liberty violations.”

Dershowitz said the second-degree murder case should never have gone to trial considering the flimsy evidence against Zimmerman. He also does not believe it was strong enough to be submitted to a jury for deliberation.

“If the judge had any courage in applying the law, she never would have allowed the case to go to the jury,” Dershowitz told Newsmax. “She should have entered a verdict based on reasonable doubt.”

Dershowitz singled out special prosecutor Angela Corey for “disciplinary action.”

He criticized the state’s probable-cause affidavit for not including evidence indicating Zimmerman could have been acting in self-defense, including graphic images of blood streaming from his scalp and nose.

“The prosecutor had in her possession photographs that would definitely show a judge that this was not an appropriate case for second-degree murder,” the Harvard professor told Newsmax. “She deliberately withheld and suppressed those photographs, refused to show them to the judge, got the judge to rule erroneously this was a second-degree murder case.

“That violated a whole range of ethical, professional, and legal obligations that prosecutors have. Moreover, they withheld other evidence in the course of the pretrial and trial proceedings, as has been documented by the defense team,” he said.

Dershowitz described the prosecution’s attempt late in the case to add a third-degree murder charge by asserting the shooting constituted child abuse “so professionally irresponsible as to warrant sanctions and investigations.”

Dershowitz said various legal and bar association organizations could investigate how the state handled the prosecution. He added it could warrant a federal investigation as well.

“I think people’s rights have been violated,” the famed attorney told Newsmax, “but it was the rights of the defendant and the defense team, by utterly unprofessional, irresponsible, and in my view criminal actions by the prosecutor,” he said.

Dershowitz went on to express his opinion that Corey is “basically a prosecutorial tyrant, and well known for that in Florida.”

Dershowitz and Corey have had run-ins before. She contacted Harvard Law School demanding that he be disciplined for voicing his opinion that she had improperly omitted information that could have exonerated Zimmerman.

“Of course, the Harvard Law School laughed at her complaint,” he said.

As of Sunday evening Newsmax had not received a response to a request for Corey’s reaction to Dershowitz’s remarks. Even after the verdict was rendered Saturday, Corey continued to defend her decision to charge Zimmerman with second-degree murder.

“We charge what we believe we can prove,” she told the media. “That’s why we charged second-degree murder. We truly believe that the mindset of George Zimmerman and the words that he used and the reason he was out doing what he was doing fit the bill for second-degree murder.”

Corey said the case “has never been about race,” but also said there was “no doubt” young Trayvon Martin had been “profiled to be a criminal.”

Although Zimmerman was cleared of all charges, Corey told the media: “This case was about boundaries and George Zimmerman exceeded those boundaries.

Dershowitz tells Newsmax he expects there will probably be a lawsuit filed against Zimmerman for civil damages. He said civil-damage cases require a lower standard of proof that a wrong has been committed, and Zimmerman would not be able to avoid testifying.

But Dershowitz adds: “I don’t know where you’ll find a lawyer who is prepared to bring it, because it has very little chance of success.”

Asked if he expects Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department to launch a civil-rights investigation targeting Zimmerman, Dershowitz stated: “I don’t think that’s going to happen, and if it happens, I don’t think it would succeed.”

Dershowitz told Newsmax the prosecutor overcharged the case, and never should have sought a second-degree murder conviction.

“The theory was clearly to charge second-degree murder, and hope for a compromise verdict of manslaughter,” he said.

The prosecution is coming under withering criticism from some legal experts for their handling of the Zimmerman case, with some believing that the second degree murder charge was unwarranted.

The Miami Herald ran an article that stated:

“After five weeks of trial and 56 witnesses, few legal observers believed prosecutors came close to proving Sanford neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman committed second-degree murder when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in February 2012.

So for many legal analysts, it was no surprise that jurors rejected even a lesser "compromise" verdict of manslaughter, acquitting Zimmerman outright of all criminal charges and deciding he acted in a reasonable way to protect his own life.

The acquittal was a stinging blow for prosecutors and their decision to file the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman, who was not initially arrested by Sanford police after claiming self-defense. And it was a resounding embrace of the defense's strategy during closing arguments not just to establish that prosecutors hadn't proven Zimmerman guilty, but also to show he was "absolutely" innocent.

"Justifiable use of force is one of the most difficult areas of the law," State Attorney Angela Corey acknowledged Saturday after Zimmerman's acquittal. "Make no mistake, Trayvon Martin had every right to be on the premises as did George Zimmerman that's what makes this case unique."

Zimmerman defense attorney Don West Zimmerman defense attorney called the prosecution's case a "disgrace."

"We proved that George Zimmerman was not guilty," he said.

Jude M. Faccidomo, the former president of Miami's Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers said the jury clearly believed in the right to self-defense: "Especially when cases are so gray, like this one was, self-defense really resonates because people can associate with being afraid."

And while some also have questioned the state attorney's office acceptance of a mostly white jury, a more diverse panel would have returned the same verdict, lawyers who have watched the case believe.

"After seeing the quality of the evidence presented by the state, the diversity of the jury really didn't matter in the end," said Larry Handfield, a prominent African American Miami criminal defense lawyer. "But it would have helped the community in giving more credibility to the decision to acquit Zimmerman."

This is a fascinating article in that it rehashes the trial, step by step, witness by witness, showing how incredibly weak the prosecution's case was. It just wasn't credible and the jurors weren't buying it.

One telling remark is the notion that even a "diverse" jury would have found Zimmerman innocent. Could a jury with several African Americans on it given Zimmerman a fair shake? I don't know if it's universally true, but I've told by attorneys and jurors alike that a remarkable transformation occurs when people are faced with deciding the fate of a fellow citizen as they sit on a jury. They take their responsibilities very seriously and try to do the right thing without regard to race or class. I'd like to think that Zimmerman would have been found innocent regardless of who was sitting on the jury.

But now, something has happened and it’s sure to be something that won’t sit well with Angela Corey. “The indictment accuses Corey of allegedly withholding photographs of Zimmerman’s head after the incident. Also, Corey allegedly falsely signed an arrest warrant under oath without including the pictures as evidence. Critics claim that Corey rushed the arrest warrant through because activists were rallying around the Trayvon Martin shooting, demanding that Zimmerman be charged with murder. Critics argue that Corey was attempting to secure a reelection with the support of the activists.

I feel no pity for people who deliberately obfuscate facts because it is politically expedient for them to do so and are eventually discovered because of it. Such is the case with Corey. As noted above, Corey deliberately appeared to withhold key evidence and then falsified everything by signing an arrest warrant under oath. In spite of her denials to the contrary, it appears that Corey did what she did to placate the activists who were screaming for Zimmerman’s blood. This is not justice! It is political correctness and we know that under political correctness, it is not justice that is sought, but “equality,” whatever that means.

Of course, we need to be clear here. This is a citizen’s grand jury and while the results of their findings may harm Corey’s career politically, it has no power to put her in a court of law that might result in a jail sentence. Citizens’ grand juries carry little weight, but they do make a statement.

Who knows, but maybe in the not-too-distant future, a real jury will preside over a court case involving Angela Corey and her illegalities. One can only hope.

The racial politics that we are deluged with today.

The George Zimmerman case should never have been brought. Saturday night after the “not guilty” verdict was delivered, State Attorney Angela Corey justified bringing the case “to put the facts out there.” But criminal cases should never be brought simply to put the facts before the public.

No one should be charged with a crime unless prosecutors themselves really believe that the person committed a crime.

Yet, the prosecution and their own experts’ language consistently showed a lack of certainty. Prosecutors aren’t supposed to bring cases where the best they can say is that something might “possibly” have happened or that there was a “chance” that it did.

Comments by President Obama, Al Sharpton, and others surely stirred up the racial aspects of the case and appear to have led some blacks across the country to attack whites to avenge Trayvon Martin (e.g.,Gainesville, Florida; Oak Park, Illinois; Mobile, Alabama; Toledo, Ohio; Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Norfolk, Virginia).

This farce of jurisprudence would never have occurred without leading “liberals” like Al Sharpton and his mainstream media buddies beating the drums endlessly for an indictment in a case the local Florida authorities never wanted to try (and for good reason).

Barack Obama helped out too, injecting the presidency (and race) in an unfortunate, but minor regional death by saying “If I had a son, he’d look just like Trayvon.”

I guess all black people look alike to Obama who, unlike Trayvon, attended the most exclusive private school in Hawaii followed by Occidental, Columbia and Harvard in that order. No such luck for Trayvon and, most likely, not much more had he lived. He wasn’t exactly an honor student and evidently dabbled in petty crime. But he did share something with the president, an attraction for cannibis sativa.

According to former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy writing in National Review:

“Attorney General Eric Holder's minions, it is worth remembering, consulted with the NAACP before the Justice Department dropped the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case that the government had already won. There would have been no Florida prosecution of Zimmerman absent the extortionate pressure brought to bear by Attorney General Eric Holder.

We knew that even before learning last week that Justice's 'Community Relations Division' (Alinsky-style rabble-rousing under the guise of 'peacemaker') colluded at taxpayer expense with the NAACP and other agitators to demand that charges be brought against Zimmerman — managing, in the process, to get Sanford police chief Bill Lee cashiered for daring to do his job faithfully, tune out the politics, and decline to arrest Zimmerman because the evidence didn't support it.

Recall that contemporaneous with the spring 2012 demonstrations against Zimmerman that the Justice Department abetted — and with President Obama's nod-and-wink incitement that, if he had a son, the son would 'look like Trayvon' — Holder sped down to Florida. There, he sang the praises of race huckster extraordinaire Al Sharpton, joining Rev. No Justice, No Peace in calling for Zimmerman's scalp. Holder's M-O was to threaten a federal civil rights prosecution if Florida failed to act."

Race relations is an industry in our country. Many non-profit groups, who long ago out lived their own stated goals, must continue race-baiting and doing exactly what Martin Luther King preached against. What is truly sad is that they are not as passionate about solving the real problems in the ghettos and inner cities, in places like DC, Detroit and Chicago. Instead they use these disastrous places as justification to try and disarm all law-abiding Americans and demand even more tax dollars be spent on failed programs. Their main concern and focus today is to raise money and gain power. They really don’t give a damn about the people they supposedly speak for.

"Over the past several years I've read numerous articles from Mark Alexander that were great. However, Race Hustlers is outstanding and I believe it should be required reading for all who are allowed to vote in this country.

The civil rights movement in 20th century America attracted many people who put everything on the line for the sake of fighting against racial oppression. But the eventual success of that movement attracted opportunists, and even turned some idealists into opportunists. Over the generations, black leaders have ranged from noble souls to shameless charlatans. After the success of the civil rights insurgency, the latter have come into their own, gaining money, power and fame by promoting racial attitudes and actions that are counterproductive to the interests of those they lead. None of this is unique to blacks or to the United States. In various countries and times, leaders of groups that lagged behind, economically and educationally, have taught their followers to blame all their problems on other people — and to hate those other people.

Groups that rose from poverty to prosperity seldom did so by having racial or ethnic leaders. While most Americans can easily name a number of black leaders, current or past, how many can name Asian American ethnic leaders or Jewish ethnic leaders? The time is long overdue to stop looking for progress through racial or ethnic leaders. Such leaders have too many incentives to promote polarizing attitudes and actions that are counterproductive for minorities and disastrous for the country.

Will we graduate to full-blown mob rule, where the "Justice for Trayvon" community decides that verdict wasn't good enough, and demands a rerun of the legal drama - perhaps under the auspices of federal civil-rights charges — until the "correct" verdict is returned? Is this really getting anyone in any community where they want to go? The odds of a young black person dying violently remain terribly high, but the odds of a "white Hispanic" neighborhood watch volunteer pulling the trigger are vanishingly small. America should not tear itself apart pretending otherwise.