…My message in these Koch-sponsored speeches was the same: Big Business is using big government to steal from taxpayers, consumers and small-businessmen.

But liberal journalist Jane Mayer’s 10,000-word piece on the “Kochtopus” (as the web of Koch-funded nonprofits is known) has set the tone for liberals going into the midterm elections. Brothers Charles and David Koch are Exhibit A for the Democrats’ claim to be running against Big Business.

Mayer writes that the Kochs’ free-market efforts fund a “pro-corporate movement” that “dovetail[s] with the brothers’ corporate interest.” The Kochs’ policy efforts are just “a rationale for corporate self-interest,” according to one academic she quotes.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich followed up, attacking the Kochs’ “self-interested … agendas” that “tilt completely toward big business.” Tea Partiers are dupes “aiding and abetting [the Kochs'] selfish interests.”

But only free-market money men get such scrutiny. Mayer cites the blogs ThinkProgress and ClimateProgress, the Web site Media Matters and the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy without ever mentioning they are funded by billionaire financier George Soros.

Mayer did write a 2004 article on Soros, but she implies throughout that his political giving is motivated by a desire to make the world a better place rather than out of economic self-interest. Mayer uncritically quotes a Soros spokesman saying “none of his contributions are in the service of his own economic interests.” She notes that the campaign-finance regulations Soros backed also empowered the 527 organizations he was funding, but she calls this “an unintended consequence” of “reform.”

Rich buys the Soros line, writing: “like many liberals — selflessly or foolishly, depending on your point of view — [Soros] supports causes that are unrelated to his business interests and that, if anything, raise his taxes.”

Soros invests in every industry and every country. Why should we believe, without evidence, he wouldn’t profit from the regulations and subsidies his groups advocate?…

The entire article is at the Washington Examiner

You’ve heard a lot about the Justice Department’s lawsuit to stop the new Arizona immigration law. But that’s just one part of the Obama administration’s multi-front war on immigration enforcement in Arizona.

In addition to the drive to kill the new law, Attorney General Eric Holder is also suing the Maricopa Community College system in Phoenix, alleging it broke the law by requiring a job seeker to provide a green card before being hired. And on Thursday the Justice Department filed suit against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office, run by the flamboyant Joe Arpaio, as part of an extended investigation into alleged civil rights violations there.

Despite the splash of attention from the newest lawsuit, the Justice Department’s investigation of Arpaio could end badly for Holder. When the Department first informed Arpaio that a probe was under way, back in March 2009, it sent a letter saying the investigation would focus on “alleged patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures.” But now we learn that just six months before that, in September 2008, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, known as ICE, did its own investigation of Arpaio’s office — and gave it a clean bill of health. Arpaio’s lawyers recently got a copy of the ICE report through the Freedom of Information Act.

ICE officials evaluated how the sheriff’s office performed under a law that allows specially trained local law enforcement officers to enforce parts of federal immigration law. The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, which is the largest sheriff’s office in the Arizona, has 189 officers who have been trained by ICE to enforce federal immigration statutes.

The article continues at the Washington Examiner.

(CNSNews.com) – Behind the polite talk at Thursday’s re-launch of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at the State Department was a deep gulf on what Israel calls a make-or-break issue – Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

Addressing Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas directly in English, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu identified what he called “two pillars of peace that I think will enable us to resolve all the outstanding issues … legitimacy and security.”

“Just as you expect us to be ready to recognize a Palestinian state as the nation-state of the Palestinian people, we expect you to be prepared to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people,” Netanyahu said, adding that the more than one million non-Jews living in Israel enjoy full civil rights.

“I think this mutual recognition between us is indispensable to clarifying to our two people – our two peoples – that the conflict between us is over.”

Abbas’ response, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton turned the floor over to him minutes later, was that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had already recognized Israel – in September 1993, when his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, and then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had signed “a document of mutual recognition.”

“And in this document, we give enough to show that our intentions are good, our intentions with respect to recognizing the state of Israel,” he added, speaking in Arabic through a translator.

Left unsaid was the fact that neither in 1993 nor since then has the PLO agreed to recognize Israel specifically as a Jewish state.

On the contrary, Abbas and other Palestinian leaders have repeatedly rejected this Israeli requirement.

“Palestinians reject the demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state,” PLO Executive Committee member Wassel Abu Yousef told reporters in Ramallah less than a fortnight ago, after Netanyahu told his cabinet that “recognition of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people” was a necessary component of a peaceful settlement to the conflict.

At a landmark convention in Bethlehem last year, Abbas’ Fatah faction of the PLO adopted a platform rejecting recognition of Israel as a Jewish state…

…As the talks began in Washington Thursday, back in the region the PLO released a statement through its news agency Wafa outlining its vision for a peace agreement.

On the issues which repeatedly have proven to be stumbling blocks over the years since the Oslo accords were signed in 1993, the PLO stance was clear…

Read the rest at CNSNews.com

NY1 News
9/2/2010

State Attorney General and gubernatorial hopeful Andrew Cuomo said Thursday he has no plans to investigate the Islamic community center and mosque.

According to a recent poll, 7 out of 10 New York State voters say they want him to look into the project’s financing.

Cuomo said he could not investigate the fundraising for the project because so little money has been raised so far.

He said his office would also need cause to probe the group.

“I hope nobody is suggesting this is a religion that some people don’t like and therefore we should start a government investigation. That would be a terrible and dangerous precedent,” said the Democratic candidate.

Cuomo did note that if anyone has evidence that the project has terrorist ties, that might be cause for an investigation.

The article, with video, continues at NY1.com

H/T Weasel Zippers

Cheezus Canada has enough CBC staff crazed leftists of its own without crazed Americans trying to muscle in. Isn’t that cultural hegemony in lefty speak anyway?

I wonder how many in opposition to SunNews supported Al Jazeera hitting our airwaves? Answer: All of em

“A group called Avaaz.org [connected with MoveOn.org] operating out of New York City is warning their supporters that SUN TV News Channel, which has yet to launch, will bring “American-style hate media onto our airwaves.” Odd, I didn’t realize that Manhattan was part of Canada.

Proof that this outfit and campaign is being run out of New York can be seen in the e-mail they are sending to their Canadian supporters and anyone who signs the petition.”

Go SunNews Go.
…

Oh Lord, Peggy Attwood explains why she should be in charge of your thoughts.

MYFOXNY.COM – Fox 5 News reported Thursday that one of the financial backers of the Islamic mosque and cultural center project in Lower Manhattan once contributed to a terror group, although the investor says the contribution was made because he thought he was giving money to a harmless charity.

One of the key players in Sharif El-Gamal’s Mosque near Ground Zero is Egyptian born businessman, Hisham Elzanaty. Fox 5 News has learned exclusively and confirmed with Mr. Elzanaty’s attorney that Elzanaty made a “significant investment” in the development of the mosque near Ground Zero.

Fox 5 has also uncovered Elzanaty has teamed up with El-Gamal on at least two real estate deals: the controversial mosque site and another deal involving a commercial property in the Chelsea section of Manhattan.

In the Chelsea deal, mortgage documents show Elzanaty played a major role signing off as the guarantor on El-Gamal’s $39 million mortgage.

When Fox 5 News reporter Charles Leaf tracked down Elzanaty outside his Long Island home in Roslyn Heights last week Elzanaty avoided the camera and did not answer a single question about his business dealings with El-Gamal…

The article continues, with video, at MyFoxNY.com

H/T Ace of Spades HQ

On Twitter @elana13 asks:

maybe you can tell me; how’s it an issue of religious freedom if the building isn’t a mosque but a community center?

A protest rally by the Muslim group Islamic Defender Front outside the Dutch embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, 31 March 2008. Dozens of Muslim protestors condemned a controversial film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who released his anti-Islam film 'Fitna' on March 28.

Australia: Popular Islamic Cleric Calls For The Beheading of Geert Wilders…

Zip
Weasel Zippers
9/3/2010

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – A well-known Australian Muslim cleric has called for the beheading of Dutch anti-Islamic politician Geert Wilders, a newspaper said on Friday.

Wilders’ Freedom Party scored the biggest gains in June 9 polls and is currently negotiating to form a new minority government with the Liberals and Christian Democrats. Polls show Wilders would win a new election if one were called now.

Wilders demanded to know why he had learnt about the threat from the newspaper and not from Dutch authorities who are guarding him after a film and remarks he made angered Muslims around the world.

De Telegraaf, the Netherlands’ largest newspaper, led its front page on Friday with a story on the speech by Feiz Muhammad.

The Sydney-born Muhammad has gained notoriety for, among other things, calling on young children to be radicalized and blaming rape victims for their own attacks.

The paper posted an English-language audio clip in which he refers to Wilders as “this Satan, this devil, this politician in Holland” and explains that anyone who talks about Islam like Wilders does should be executed by beheading.

De Telegraaf did not say when the speech was given but said it and the Dutch secret service both had copies. According to his website, Muhammad is based in Malaysia.

Wilders told Reuters it was “really terrible news” and that he was taking it seriously.

“I will ask for clarification from the Dutch minister of interior/justice why the secret service and anti-terrorism unit NCTb have not informed me before and what the consequences will be for me,” he said in an email.

With all due respect to our PUMA friends and the HillBuzzBoys but, from where we stand, this looks like just more of the same for America:

This was uploaded to YouTube on 9/1/2010 with the note, “This is the version to be submitted to NBC’s legal department for approval.” Interesting comments on the page, too.

Video H/T iOwnTheWorld

This is from the transcript for the CNN/YouTube presidential debates, July 2007:

COOPER: Our next question is for Senator Clinton.

(APPLAUSE)

QUESTION: Hi. My name is Rob Porter, and I’m from Irvine, California.

I have a question for Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word “liberal?”

And would you use this word to describe yourself?

Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.

Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it’s been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

I prefer the word “progressive,” which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we’re working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.

So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that’s the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.

COOPER: So you wouldn’t use the word “liberal,” you’d say “progressive.”

From January 2010:

Update: At MichelleMalkin.com Doug Powers writes, “You know it’s been a long year and a half when you can sit back, watch a pitch for Hillary Clinton for president, and fool yourself into thinking that she (and her husband) looks like Reagan compared to Barack Obama.” Read the whole thing.

The Glenn Beck rally is confusing people.

Why?

He is aiming far beyond what most people consider to be the goalposts.

Using Boyd’s continuum for war: Material, Intellectual, Moral.

Analogously for political change: Elections, Institutions, Culture.

Beck sees correctly that the Conservative movement had only limited success because it was good at level 1, for a while, weak on level 2, and barely touched level 3. Talk Radio and the Tea Party are level 3 phenomena, popular outbreaks, which are blowing back into politics.

Someone who asks what the rally has to do with the 2010 election is missing the point.

Beck is building solidarity and cultural confidence in America, its Constitution, its military heritage, its freedom. This is a vision that is despised by the people who have long held the commanding heights of the culture. But is obviously alive and kicking.

Beck is creating positive themes of unity and patriotism and freedom and independence which are above mere political or policy choices, but not irrelevant to them. Political and policy choices rest on a foundation of philosophy, culture, self-image, ideals, religion. Change the foundation, and the rest will flow from that. Defeat the enemy on that plane, and any merely tactical defeat will always be reversible.

Beck is unabashed that God can be invoked in public places by citizens, who vote and assemble and speak and freely exercise their religion. They are supposed to be too browbeaten to do this. Gathering hundreds of thousands of them to peaceably assemble shows they are not…

The rest of this article is at Chicago Boyz.

CAJ note: Glenn read this article on his radio and television programs today. He also mentioned his new news site The Blaze.

In this July 23, 2010 file photo, piles of dirty oil retention booms await disposal at a staging area in Grand Isle, La. More than 50,000 tons of boom and oily debris have made their way to landfills or incinerators, federal officials told The Associated Press, representing about 7 percent of the daily volume going to nine area landfills. AP photo/David Martin

Garance Burke and Jason Dearen
Herald Tribune
8/25/2010

NEW ORLEANS – The cleanup of history’s worst peacetime oil spill is generating thousands of tons of oil-soaked debris that is ending up in local landfills, some of which were already dealing with environmental concerns.

The soft, absorbent boom that has played the biggest role in containing the spill alone would measure more than twice the length of California’s coastline, or about 2,000 miles. More than 50,000 tons of boom and oily debris have made their way to landfills or incinerators, federal officials told The Associated Press, representing about 7 percent of the daily volume going to nine area landfills.

A month after the oil stopped flowing into the Gulf, the emphasis has shifted toward cleanup and disposal of oily trash at government-approved landfills in coastal states.

Environmental Protection Agency officials say the sites meet federal regulations, are equipped to handle the influx of waste and are being monitored closely, although three sites have state environmental issues. State records show two are under investigation and one was cited in May for polluting nearby waters.

Some residents and experts question the wisdom of adding crude-covered refuse to dumps, since it could take years for potential problems to surface. They worry about the impact on groundwater if contaminants leach past liners enclosing the decaying garbage.

“Common sense would tell you you probably shouldn’t keep dumping there if there are already problems,” said Eric Schaeffer, a former head of the EPA’s enforcement office who now heads a Washington-based legal advocacy group. “EPA needs to be able to say why despite the violations and discharges these are safe.”

The article continues at the Herald Tribune.