Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for June 13th, 2010

“What BP drilled into was what we call a ‘migration channel,’ a deep fault on which hydrocarbons generated in the depth of our planet migrate to the crust and are accumulated in rocks, something like Ghawar in Saudi Arabia.” Vladimir Kutcherov, Swedish researcher and expert on oil geology

Ghawar, the most productive oilfield in the world, has been putting out millions of barrels a day for about 70 years and there’s no end in sight.

(H-T American Daughter)


 

Scope of the Oil Spill Disaster

By Dr. Ron Hei

This could be the worst ecological disaster in earth’s history, according to one report. Many experts believe the Obama administration has deliberately misrepresented the nature of the oil reserves that are leaking.

According to Swedish researcher Vladimir Kutcherov, who is an expert on oil geology, the Deepwater Horizon well tapped into one of the earth’s major oil migration channels:

According to Kutcherov, a leading specialist in the theory of abiogenic deep origin of petroleum, “What BP drilled into was what we call a ‘migration channel,’ a deep fault on which hydrocarbons generated in the depth of our planet migrate to the crust and are accumulated in rocks, something like Ghawar in Saudi Arabia.” Ghawar, the world’s most prolific oilfield, has been producing millions of barrels daily for almost 70 years with no end in sight. According to the abiotic science, Ghawar like all elephant and giant oil and gas deposits all over the world, is located on a migration channel similar to that in the oil-rich Gulf of Mexico.

The implications of this are horrendous — oil may continue a volcano-like eruption from the broken well at a rate of more than 100,000 barrels a day for years to come. The spill feeds into the Gulf Stream, and the flow will curl up around Florida and wash across western Europe, causing irreversible damage to the Atlantic ecosystems. And there are 30,000 other off-shore oil rigs that use the same shut-off valves as the faulty Deepwater Horizon one.

The Obama administration says that oil is “leaking” at a rate of up to 210,000 gallons a day, and will soon be “contained.” But it may be “erupting” from unimaginable reserves at a rate of 100,000 barrels a day, and continue for years. There’s a world of difference between those two stories, a heartbreakingly damaged world.

References:

Democracy Now!Scientist: BP Well Could Be Leaking 100,000 Barrels of Oil a Day

…scientist Ira Leifer says the oil may be gushing out at a rate of more than 100,000 barrels a day, a number that BP once called its worst-case scenario. Leifer is a researcher in the Marine Science Institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara…

Rense How The BP Catastrophe May Devastate Europe

The Market OracleBP Oil Disaster Could Hit Europe Via the Powerful Gulf Stream Current

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Only minority victims and white perpetrators concern DoJ attorneys in the Civil Rights Division.

[T]he attorneys who populate the civil rights division of the Justice Department believe that civil rights laws exist only to protect minorities from discrimination and intimidation by whites. … Former voting rights attorneys confirm that the belief is omnipresent in the Justice Department. … There are instances of attorneys refusing to work on cases against minority defendants.—Jennifer Rubin

DoJ attorneys openly object to the notion that any discrimination case should be filed against black defendants. They argue that “a history of official discrimination” prohibits cases from being brought against blacks regardless of the evidence or legal arguments. Therefore, since “socio-economic” factors determine whether voting discrimination has occurred, the open-and-shut, straightforward voter intimidation case against the two New Black Panther defendants in Philadelphia had to be dismissed until economic parity exists between blacks and whites.

Clearly, only cases of voting rights violations by white perpetrators will be prosecuted by Brother O’s DoJ, and cases of voting rights violations against minority defendants won’t make it on the docket.

The Democratic Congress continues to ignore both the Black Panther case and DoJ’s civil rights enforcement approach. Even though the Democrat Party is constructing a totalitarian state in plain sight, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Jerry Doyle, Michael Savage and a host of other such pompous-ass personalities, who clutter the TV and talk radio airwaves with their political beliefs and prejudices, persistently claim that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.

If the American electorate continues to believe these self-important numbskulls and remains fragmented enough to allow the Democrat Party to hold power in the Congress after November, the tattered remains of the rule of law will disappear completely and America will be under tyrannical rule.

It’s time for patriots to come to their senses before it’s too late!

I am dismayed … I am distraught …

I.M. Kane


 

Friends in High Places

By Jennifer Rubin

The Obama Justice Department went to bat for the New Black Panther party—and then covered it up.

The case is straightforward. On Election Day 2008, two members of the New Black Panther party (NBPP) dressed in military garb were captured on videotape at a Philadelphia polling place spouting racial epithets and menacing voters. One, Minister King Samir Shabazz, wielded a nightstick. It was a textbook case of voter intimidation and clearly covered under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

A Department of Justice trial team was assigned to investigate. They gathered affidavits from witnesses—one of the poll watchers was called a “white devil” and a “cracker.” A Panther told him he would be “ruled by the black man.” The trial team, all career Justice attorneys and headed by voting section chief Chris Coates, filed a case against the two Panthers caught on tape. Malik Zulu Shabazz, head of the national NBPP, and the party itself were also named based on evidence the party had planned the deployment of 300 members on Election Day and on statements after the incident in which the NBPP endorsed the intimidation at the Philadelphia polling station.

The trial team quickly obtained a default judgment—meaning it had won the case because the New Black Panther party failed to defend itself. Yet in May 2009, Obama Justice Department lawyers, appointed temporarily to fill top positions in the civil rights division, ordered the case against the NBPP dismissed. An administration that has pledged itself to stepping-up civil rights enforcement dropped the case and, for over a year, has prevented the trial team lawyers from telling their story.

The Panthers like to tout their “victory” and parrot the Obama Justice Department’s line that the case was unmeritorious. The party held a national convention in Atlanta over Memorial Day weekend (sponsored and attended by the once mainstream Southern Christian Leadership Conference and a grab bag of socialist and anti-Semitic figures). Its website boasts: “The New Black Panther Party has been embroiled in a battle between Republican Congressmen and the U.S. Department of Justice over a ‘voter intimidation’ scandal for the last 18 months. During these 18 months right wing and Republican Newspaper and Electronic media have gone to exhaustive lengths to discredit and slander the New Black Panther Party and its Chairman and Attorney Malik Zulu Shabazz.”

But on June 4, J. Christian Adams, a veteran lawyer in Justice’s voting section and a key member of the trial team, resigned. His reasons were spelled out in a letter that also noted that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which was investigating the dismissal, had subpoenaed him and Coates, but their superiors, in violation of federal law, had ordered them not to testify. He noted that “the defendants in the New Black Panther lawsuit have become increasingly belligerent in their rhetoric toward the attorneys who brought the case. .  .  . Their grievances toward us generally echo the assertions [by Justice Department officials] that the facts and law did not support the lawsuit against them.” Coates, too, has left the Voting Section, moving to South Carolina to work in the U.S. attorney’s office. Last Friday, the civil rights commission’s general counsel, David Blackwood, announced that he had received an email from Christian Adams’s attorney stating that Adams is now available to provide information to the commission. Commissioner Todd Graziano said they would schedule Adams’s appearance at a public hearing as soon as possible as the commission had been seeking his testimony for many months.

With Adams’s resignation and letter, a clearer picture is finally emerging of what led to the dismissal of the case, the actions of DoJ political appointees, the department’s misrepresentations about the case, and the Obama administration’s approach to civil rights enforcement.

Based on documents obtained by The Weekly Standard and interviews with Justice personnel, we now know far more about the sequence of events surrounding the dismissal. The then-acting assistant attorney general for civil rights, Grace Chung Becker, signed off on the case as the Bush administration was leaving office in January 2009. She confirms that the decision to file the case was an easy one. In response to my questions, she was emphatic that this was a serious case of voter intimidation. The trial team, which also included attorneys Robert Popper and Spencer Fisher, conducted its investigation and on January 8, 2009, filed suit against the NBPP. As the Panthers did not respond to the lawsuit, the department had a slam-dunk victory.

The trial team was poised to enter a default judgment in late April 2009. An order for a default of judgment was drafted and sent to the voting section management. On the morning of April 29, the acting deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights, Steven Rosenbaum, sent an email to Coates about the case. It was the first indication by any department official that something was amiss. “I have serious doubts about the merits of the motion for entry of a default judgment and the request for injunctive relief,” Rosenbaum, an Obama appointee, wrote. “Most significantly, this case raises serious First Amendment issues, but the papers make no mention of the First Amendment.” Rosenbaum asked Coates a series of questions—whether “the defendants make any statements threatening physical harm to voters or persons aiding voters,” for example, and what was the “factual predicate for enjoining the Party, as opposed to individual defendants”—which indicated that he was not familiar with the case and had not read the detailed memorandum accompanying the draft order.

The trial team was surprised by the email and answered Rosenbaum point by point in a response sent that same evening. They corrected his misstatements and explained in answer to his First Amendment concerns, “We are not seeking to enjoin the making of those (or any) statements. We plan to introduce them as evidence to show that what happened in Philadelphia on Election Day was planned and announced in advance by the central authority of the NBPP, and was a NBPP initiative.” They pointed out that dressing in military garb did not raise First Amendment concerns when “used with the brandishing of a weapon to intimidate people going to the polling station.” They concluded: “We strongly believe that this is one of the clearest violations of Section 11(b) [of the Voting Rights Act] the Department has come across. There is never a good reason to bring a billy club to a polling station. If the conduct of these men, which was video recorded and broadcast nationally, does not violate Section 11(b), the statute will have little meaning going forward.”

The trial team assumed that Rosenbaum was simply confused about the applicable law. The notion that this was a problematic case would have been outlandish. With video evidence, multiple witnesses, and clear case law, it was one the easiest cases on which any of the trial team attorneys—who had more than 75 years of collective experience—had worked.

After sending the response, Coates and Robert Popper met with Rosenbaum and the then acting assistant attorney general for civil rights, Loretta King. People familiar with the discussions describe “two days of shouting.” The trial team now knew that DoJ political appointees were serious about undermining the case by using whatever arguments they could dream up, including First Amendment concerns. The team prepared a detailed memo dated May 6 explaining the factual and legal basis for the case. In 13 pages, the attorneys meticulously analyzed the law and the facts and rebutted any notion that the First Amendment could insulate the Panthers. The memo made clear that Rosenbaum’s and King’s arguments for dismissing the case were spurious. Rosenbaum and King, for example, argued that legal precedent involving protestors at abortion clinics would undermine the case. The trial team pointed out, however, that these cases were either inapplicable or actually supported the issuance of an injunction when there was a significant government interest (such as the protection of voting rights) at stake.

The arguments continued after the May 6 memo was submitted. During one meeting in a conference room on the 5th floor of the Main Justice building, Coates became so exasperated he threw the memo at Rosenbaum who had admitted not reading the trial team’s detailed briefing on the issues.

Rosenbaum and King sent a request to the appellate section asking their opinion of the case. The appellate attorneys sided with the trial team on May 13. Coates announced this to his team with the words “Good news.” They all agreed it would be unthinkable for their superiors to nix the case. They were wrong. On May 15, Coates received an order to dismiss the case against everyone but the baton-menacing Shabazz. And they were ordered to scale back the injunction against him to cover only the display of a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place until 2012. (No other behavior was enjoined.)

The actions of King and Rosenbaum were unprecedented in the collective experience of the trial team. They were not alone in that assessment. A former associate attorney general for the civil division Greg Katsas testified before the civil rights commission on April 23, 2010, and termed the Panthers’ actions a blatant case of voter intimidation. He said it was a “straightforward and overwhelmingly strong case” and that the Panthers’ conduct was “egregious and intentional.” As for the party itself and its leadership, Katsas said that under “general principles of agency law” they were liable.

From the onset, Justice has denied that any political appointees were involved in the decision to dismiss the case. This line was repeated in multiple letters to and face-to-face meetings with Republican representatives Frank Wolf and Lamar Smith and in statements to the media. We now know that this is incorrect. In interrogatory answers supplied to the civil rights commission, the department acknowledged that Attorney General Eric Holder was briefed on the decision to dismiss the case and that the number three man in Justice, Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, was consulted as well. Katsas testified, “Certainly DoJ’s decision to abandon all claims against the party, Malik Shabazz, and Mr. Jackson [the second polling place intimidator], despite their refusal to even defend the case, would have qualified as important enough for the leadership of the Civil Rights Division to raise with [Perrelli].” The same is true of the decision to seek only a narrow injunction against the billy club-wielding defendant. He notes that the filing of the case may have been routine, but the decision to dismiss it was so extraordinary that someone of Perrelli’s rank must certainly have played an “active role.”

The department is, moreover, trying to characterize King and Rosenbaum, who instructed the trial team to dismiss the case, as “career attorneys with over 60 years of experience.” It is true that they both served in career positions at Justice in the past. But under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, as soon as someone is appointed to fill a political position—as Rosenbaum and King were early in the Obama administration—they are political appointees.

Neither King nor Rosenbaum has directly worked on a voting rights case since the mid-1990s and both have received sanctions of hundreds of thousands of dollars by federal court judges for bringing unmeritorious cases and for failing to respond to court orders. In January 2010, a federal court judge in Kansas fined King and Rosenbaum for failing to respond to interrogatories in a housing discrimination case. Former civil rights division attorney Hans von Spakovsky has written: “That particular sanction is also very unusual—I have never seen a sanction order directed at individual lawyers that specifically says their employer is not responsible for paying the costs. .  .  . During the Bush administration, when liberals claim there was politicization going on in the division, I am not aware of a single such sanction.” King and the Justice Department were also ordered to pay $587,000 in attorneys’ fees and fines for bringing an unmeritorious claim during the Clinton administration in Johnson v. Miller. (In that case the court also took DoJ and King to task for allowing the ACLU to unduly affect the litigation decisions of the department.)

The administration’s internal investigation also appears to have been fraudulent. Under ongoing pressure from Representatives Smith and Wolf, an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) was finally ordered to commence in July 2009. Until a few days before Adams’s resignation, however, none of the trial team had been interviewed by OPR investigators.

Furthermore the department has been less than candid in congressional testimony. In December 2009, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez testified before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, and he either did not understand the case fully or chose to disregard the documentation the trial team had put together. Perez said, for example, that Shabazz had received the “maximum penalty.” An experienced voting rights lawyer scoffs at the statement. “The maximum penalty is Leavenworth.” Perez then suggested that the attorneys on the trial team might have violated Federal Rule 11, which prohibits lawyers from bringing frivolous actions. The trial team was angered at the public insinuation that they had been derelict in their professional responsibilities.

In written responses to the civil rights commission, the Justice Department has claimed there was no evidence of involvement by outside groups—specifically the NAACP. Yet there is substantial reason to doubt this assertion. An attorney for the NAACP, Kristen Clarke, has admitted that she spoke to department attorneys about the case and shared the complaint with others. (In a deposition she also said that a department lawyer sent her news clippings of the case.) She spoke to a voting section attorney Laura Coates (no relation to Chris Coates) about the case at a Justice Department function. Clarke asked Coates, who she assumed was sympathetic, when the Panther case was going to be dismissed. The comment suggested that the NAACP had been pushing for such an outcome, and Coates reported the conversation to her superiors. Under oath in a deposition with the civil rights commission, however, Clarke denied six times that she had any conversations with Justice Department attorneys. When shown an email from a department attorney to her calling a Washington Times report on the NBPP case nothing but “lies” and declaring “This is CC’s doing” she incredibly denied (despite her long association with him) that she understood the reference was to Chris Coates.

While the interference by political appointees in the NBPP case has been egregious, there is a critical issue with implications far beyond this single case: Whether the attorneys who populate the civil rights division of the Justice Department believe that civil rights laws exist only to protect minorities from discrimination and intimidation by whites. In a farewell address to his colleagues before his reassignment to a U.S. attorney’s office, Coates spoke about this widespread sentiment and why it was antithetical to the department’s mission to seek equal enforcement of federal laws.

Former voting rights attorneys confirm that the belief is omnipresent in the Justice Department. DoJ attorneys openly criticized the Panther case, objecting not to any lack of evidence or to the legal arguments but to the notion that any discrimination case should be filed against black defendants. There are instances of attorneys refusing to work on cases against minority defendants. In 2005, for example, Coates pursued, filed, and won a case (upheld on appeal to the Fifth Circuit in 2009) of egregious voter discrimination by black officials in Noxubee County, Mississippi. Colleagues criticized Coates for filing the case and refused to work on it.

Liberal civil rights lawyers argue that because “a history of official discrimination” can be one subsidiary factor in voting cases it “wipes out every other factor” and prohibits cases from being brought against blacks. And further, that since “socio-economic” factors can be considered in determining whether voting discrimination has occurred, these cases cannot be brought against black defendants until there is economic parity between blacks and whites. Such attorneys use phrases like “traditional civil rights cases” and “traditional civil rights victims” to signal that only minority victims and white perpetrators concern them. Justice sources tell me that career attorneys have been “assured” that cases against minority defendants won’t be brought. In testimony before the civil rights commission, Thomas Perez denied he was aware of any such conversations or sentiments.

To date the Democratic Congress has exercised virtually no oversight over either the Panther case or the department’s civil rights enforcement approach generally. The OPR investigation shows no sign of completion. Neither Holder nor Perrelli has been questioned in depth about his participation in the case or about the allegations that Justice attorneys don’t intend to enforce civil rights laws against anyone other than white defendants.

Smith and Wolf, who just this week fired off two-dozen questions to Attorney General Eric Holder, continue to pursue the case, but without Democratic support they cannot subpoena either witnesses or documents. That may change after the November election. If the House of Representatives or Senate flips to Republican control and new committee chairmen decide to engage in actual oversight, Perrelli and Holder may find themselves forced by subpoenas to tell the complete NBPP story and explain why Obama’s Justice Department believes the civil rights laws exist only to protect citizens of certain races.

Jennifer Rubin is a contributing editor to Commentary magazine.

Read Full Post »

Blacks attend church regularly, oppose abortion and homosexual marriage, and are inclined to be more conservative than leftist; yet they vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

“I always tell my mother when she asked me why am I a Republican, ‘It’s because you raised me that way.’ When I got old enough to make my own decisions, I started comparing what I believed to the Democratic Party platform and I saw no alignment whatsoever.”—Ron Miller, executive director of Regular Folks United

Allen West is a true patriot and a great conservative candidate for Congress. He is the real deal who deserves the attention he is getting from the Fox network and radio talk shows.

“[W]e are very fortunate to have a man of his exemplary caliber running for Congress in our area – the 22nd C.D. of Florida. … Lt. Col. West … would be the Black Caucuses worst nightmare … he is a self-made black man who asked nothing more from his government but the opportunity and chance to succeed on his own … without claiming victim status”—Charles W. Lehmann

Charles Lollar is another great black conservative running for Congress who is now beginning to get some much deserved attention from Fox et al.

“The policies that say government should get involved in competition … there’s something wrong with that.” … If we keep going down the road we’re going, financially – I think – it’s 53 to 54 cents of every dollar we make with this health care bill intact. We’re getting closer and closer to slavery.”—Charles Lollar

Lollar, a major in the Marine Corps Reserves and businessman who holds an MBA from Regent University, is taking on the Nancy Pelosi toady, Steny Hoyer, in Maryland’s 5th district. Lollar is a great speaker with plenty of charisma who has a tough row to hoe against the Murtha clone in the people’s republic of Maryland (Hoyer won the district with 73 percent of the vote in 2008, whereas Brother O received a piddling 68 percent).

Lollar needs national exposure on Fox and syndicated radio talk shows to get Americans to support him as they have West.  Both men are dynamic statesmen who are the cure for the statism that ails America.  

I.M. Kane


 

A Real American Hero

By Charles W. Lehmann

The now famous words spoken by Martin Luther King Jr. about judging a man, not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character, really resonated with me by describing the object of this column, “A Real American Hero”, Lt. Col. Allen B. West (ret.) U.S. Army, who is a real American hero who just happens to be an African-American or should I say, an American.

A year or so ago, a Jewish friend of mine invited me to attend a debate between Lt. Col. Allen West and Congressman Ron Klein, the Republican and Democratic candidates for Congress in the 22nd C.D.  The topic was to be on terrorism and how it affects us here in the U.S.A.  The debate was sponsored by the Zionists of America and was held at a Temple in Delray Beach.  At the last minute, Ron Klein backed out, as was usual by Congressman Klein, and Lt. Col. West then had to proceed all alone.

I didn’t know what to expect, as I never heard him speak before.  As he began his talk on the topic of terrorism, I was immediately impressed with his demeanor and grasp of the subject matter.  His knowledge of the Muslim religion and how it has evolved over the centuries was very informative and eye opening with the breadth of his historical insights that he referred to, all without notes.  With a crowd of approximately 100 on hand, you could hear a pin drop from the audience, which I would estimate as being made up of mostly Democrats.  The comments from the attendees, after his talk, were overwhelmingly positive and laudatory.

Afterward, I wanted to know what made this excellent speaker tick, so I Googled up his name on the internet and was pleasantly elated to find a biography of a true patriot, a well decorated American war hero.

Lt. Col. Allen West (ret.) U.S.Army, has earned two master degrees after he graduated from the Univ. of Tennessee in 1983.  He was sworn in as an Army officer immediately after graduation in 1983.  During his career in the military, he spent over 36 months in both Iraq wars and in Afghanistan.  During his tour in Iraq, he had the occasion of interrogating a terrorist, one-on-one, and was able to glean valuable information from the terrorist that prevented an attack upon the troops under his command.  He takes great

pride in the fact that he didn’t lose one soldier under his command while in Iraq during his deployment.

After his tour in Iraq, he returned to the service of his country as a consultant to the Afghan Army as a training advisor to its military.  Upon reading about him on Google, it was apparent that his soldiers, who were interviewed, all had the highest regard for his leadership in battle and praised him to the hilt as a man of excellent character and integrity.  The kind of a guy we need in the Congress of the United States.

In recognition of his service to his country, the Army awarded him the Bronze Star medal, Meritorious Service medal, 3 Army Commendation medals, one with valor, plus others too many to mention here.

I’ve heard him speak many more times over the past year or so, and I have come away with the same conclusion, each and every time, that I reached before during my first encounter upon meeting him.

All I can say is that we are very fortunate to have a man of his exemplary caliber running for Congress in our area – the 22nd C.D. of Florida. Meeting Lt. Col. West, if you get the opportunity, will show you what Martin Luther King Jr. meant by judging the man’s character and not the color of his skin as the determining factor of evaluating his place in a free society.  He would be the Black Caucuses worst nightmare, if he is elected to Congress, as he is a self-made black man who asked nothing more from his government but the opportunity and chance to succeed on his own, and he did so without claiming victim status, as the “Rhyming Reverends”, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, try tell all black people to use in order to get ahead.  Vote to better our country, vote for Allen West for Congress in Florida’s 22nd C.D.

Read Full Post »

PayPal, the online payment account service giant, has threatened to suspend service to conservative blogger Pamela Geller for promoting hate, violence, and racial intolerance regarding Islam. Geller researches and writes about national security issues, Mideast policy, and the War on Terror and is funded almost entirely by online contributers.

“What do they expect me to do, stop blogging about jihad?” said “These are strange times. And they’re going to get stranger still.”—Pamela Geller 


 

PayPal.com Targets Conservative Blog as ‘Hate’ Site

By Robert Stacy McCain

Conservative blogger Pamela Geller says she has been threatened with discontinuation of her online payment account by PayPal, the most widely used service of its kind.

On her popular Web site, Atlas Shrugs, Geller posted the text of an e-mail notice she received Saturday morning from PayPal’s Acceptable Use Policy Department.

“[A]fter a recent review of your account, it has been determined that you are currently in violation of PayPal’s Acceptable Use Policy,” the PayPal e-mail said. “Under the Acceptable Use Policy, PayPal may not be used to send or receive payments for items that promote hate, violence, racial intolerance or the financial exploitation of a crime.”

Geller said similar “acceptable use” violation notices were also sent by PayPal to two organizations she helped establish, the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI) and Stop Islamicization of America (SIOA).

PayPal is a division of the online market eBay, whose former CEO Meg Whitman recently won the Republican gubernatorial nomination in California

Geller helped organize a major protest against the “Ground Zero Mosque” in New York City. The shutdown notices from PayPal, Geller said in a telephone interview Saturday, came after she received widespread media attention and sponsored an advertising campaign that offered support to former Muslims threatened for renouncing the faith. Her activism is funded almost entirely by small online contributions from readers.

An Associated Press article about Geller last month quoted Faiza Ali, of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who accused Geller of a “long-standing history of anti-Muslim bigotry.” Geller said Saturday she is considering pursuing legal action against PayPal’s attempt to attach a “hate” label to her site.

“What do they expect me to do, stop blogging about jihad?” said Geller, whose blog emphasizes national security issues, Mideast policy and the War on Terror. “These are strange times. And they’re going to get stranger still.”

Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.

Read Full Post »