By Debbie Schlussel
As I’ve noted previously on this site, every time a Muslim gets a hangnail or papercut, we read about it in the Islamo-pandering mainstream Detroit media, here in greater Dearbornistan (which spans the entire Southeastern Michigan and beyond). And add to that, every time they burp, we read about it.
In that vein, many readers have asked me why I haven’t yet commented on yesterday’s Detroit Free Press article by resident Islamist Niraj Warikoo about how a Dearbornistan franchise of Kentucky Fried Chicken is now serving Halal chicken. My friend, the great Carl in Jerusalem, noted it, but until now, I haven’t.

Finger Lickin’ Dhimmitude: Col. Sanders is Turning Over in His Grave
The reason I haven’t is that Detroit businesses–especially restaurants–serving halal meat and poultry isn’t new and–unlike the Detroit media–it’s not something I think is newsworthy. Making big news out of each time a Muslim must blow his nose, in my opinion, elevates their needs over those of the rest of us, and I’m trying to avoid that. Every single person mentioned in the article is from a Hezbollah-supporting family and three of the people named–Imam Mohammed Ali Elahi (an agent of Iran), Bilal Dabaja, and Tarek Baydoun–are open, proud Hezbollah supporters. I’m supposed to celebrate that they’ve now managed to expand their takeover to poor Colonel Sanders.
And I hate the false comparison the article makes between kosher, and the Muslim rip-off of it, halal. Oh, and by the way, please hope you don’t find yourself in line behind this pain–Zeinab Chami–if you’re at a Subway:

When Chami eats tuna or vegetarian sandwiches at Subway restaurants, she always asks the sandwich preparer to don another set of plastic gloves because they might have the taint of non-halal meats on them.

Kosher people wouldn’t do this. They simply don’t eat at non-kosher restaurants, as they would never impose their dietary laws on you or others.
And again, Muslims’ dietary needs and what I call the kitchen kowtow to them isn’t new, it’s just a virus that has been spreading for years. Almost a decade ago, the Detroit papers swooned over two Dearbornistan McDonald’s franchises when they started serving halal chicken McNuggets. Allegedly. I say allegedly, because my Muslim sources have long known that most of this halal stuff is fraudulent. Muslims in town are notorious for cheating each other to make a buck, so a lot of the halal chicken ain’t halal. If you eat at these “halal” establishments, you’re paying more for the allegedly halal meat.
That said, the main reason I haven’t written about the fact that KFC in Dearbornistan is now serving up “Halal Orignal [sic] and Crispy,” is because I think we’ve already seen what their real version of “Halal Orignal and Crispy” is . . .
Remember This “Halal Orignal [sic] and Crispy”?–Muslim Fallujah Massacre of Four American Blackwater Contractors:

Remember, the word “halal” means “permitted” (under Islamic law), and this is halal to them. Bin Laden and far too many Muslim clerics have called for Muslims to slaughter Americans the way they do animals for food. We are all Halal Orignal [sic] and Crispy, to them.
More Halal Orignal [sic] and Crispy:


Palestinian Woman on Ramallah Street Cheers 9/11 Attacks.

By Debbie Schlussel
You’ve all read the stories about how this sports team or that sports franchise soaks a city for millions–even billions–for new stadiums, while holding a gun to the municipality’s head, threatening to move. It always results in more taxes paid by residents and higher fees to the less fortunate. And it always subsidizes the workplaces of millinaires (the players) and billionaires (the team owners).
But, now, it is the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) that is soaking taxpayers. The USOC–which is already subsidized by American taxpayers in millions of dollars due to 501(c)(3) status (so, it does not pay taxes on millions in revenue and profit) and gets other tax-paid earmarks for security and other costs–threatened to leave the city of Colorado Springs, unless it pays millions, $53 million to be exact, in new buildings, dorms, headquarters, etc. for the USOC. Yup, the USOC is taking the city hostage.

And Colorado Springs–unwilling to lose the USOC (which is not the city’s largest employer, the U.S. military is)–has reluctantly decided to pony up the $53 million package the USOC is demanding:

They are expected to provide the organization with offices in a new downtown building at the nominal fee of $1 a year.
At the end of a 25-year deal with the city and a local developer, the USOC would own the building.
That’s not all. Other incentives to keep the USOC in the Springs include a major face-lift of the USOC’s Olympic Training Center in the Springs, new offices for several Olympicrelated amateur sports groups and a skybridge to connect USOC offices to a parking garage.
The total package, with about half funded by the city and most of the rest by real estate company Land-Co Equity Partners, is worth about $53 million.

Paying this ransom is ridiculous. And Colorado Springs residents and you, the rest of the American taxpayer rolls, will foot the bill. The fact is that this decision by Colorado Springs does not occur in a vaccuum. Colorado Springs cannot make up the expenditure by merely raising taxes on residents, businesses, and workers. It will need to make up the expenditure in some way, for instance, by applying for more federal grants and loans in areas where it normally got less. Money is a fungible good, and it’s fungible-ing to wealthy sports execs and athletes with endorsement deals.
The fact is that the USOC is a very wealthy organization. It has billions in funds from exclusive sponsorships of the U.S. Olympic team, sales of USOC-emblazoned license plates (does your charity get to make money through license plates?), and other revenue sources. This is a profitable “charity.”
Worse, one of the expenditures, which Colorado Springs will now have to “spring” for is a state-of-th- art set of luxury dorms for Olympic athletes in training. But many of these are athletes with big endorsement deals, none of which they will have to pony up for their stay in the dorms or free training at Olympic facilities.
As a former sports agent for an Olympic athlete (and Silver Medalist in diving), I saw my client get thousands of dollars in monthly subsidies from the USOC for what was basically a subsidy of his chosen career. The same goes for this $53 million package for the rich USOC.
Do you get free new offices, living facilities, spa chef-made meals, and job-training paid for by the government?
Why should the USOC get this largesse, when it can well afford to pay for it on its own?
It’s one thing to root for Team USA. It’s entirely another to pay this kind of corporate welfare to those who can well afford to pay for it on their own.

By Debbie Schlussel
**** SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE ****
I’ve previously written about the absurdity of employees being allowed to bring their pets to work. Now, the latest trend is for people to bring their babies to their offices.
We’re not talking about on-site daycare–which is bad enough. This is about mothers (and fathers) having their babies sit at their desks and inside their physical offices and cubicles. And it’s equally as absurd as the pet thing. It’s completely unprofessional. If you must have your baby next to you, maybe you should think about staying at home to raise it.
Try conducting business with a screaming or crying baby around the corner. And try having an employee be productive when her/his baby is sitting there wanting food, a diaper change, or some other form of attention.

I’m not sure how accurate the article is because it’s written by USA Today’s resident fabricator, Stephanie Armour (why she still has a job in “journalism” I’ll never know, especially since Jayson Blair is gone):

At the T3 advertising firm in Austin, employees have a saying: It takes an agency to raise a child. [DS: Gee, that’s original. Remember Hillary Rodham Cankles Clinton’s book, “It Takes a Village”?]
The $261 million company, whose clients include Marriott International, Microsoft and J.C. Penney, lets a new parent bring his or her baby to work – every day – until the child is old enough to crawl.
Almost 50 babies have spent their infancy in the office beside their mothers or fathers, who generally tote in baby swings and playpens to set up makeshift nurseries. Some parents even take infants to meetings in BabyBjorn strap-on carriers.
It’s not as unusual as it may sound. More than 80 companies across the nation allow babies in the workplace, according to Parenting in the Workplace Institute in Framingham, Mass. . . .
The number of companies allowing children at work on an occasional basis climbed to 29% last year, up from 22% in 2006, according to the Society for Human Resource Management. . . .
But the practice – a big step beyond the day care centers that began popping up in workplaces more than 20 years ago – continues to grow. Employers allowing workers to bring babies to work each day include retail companies, insurance firms, law offices and credit unions. In such arrangements, parents typically keep their children at their desks.
At T3, new parents are offered private offices. The babies are allowed to come to work daily until they are mobile, usually around 9 months old.
The perk isn’t just for working mothers: 10 fathers at T3 have participated. Toys that one parent used often are passed to other new moms and dads returning to work with their babies, company spokeswoman Courtney Layton says.
“It’s been fun,” she says. “You can’t be in a bad mood when there is a baby there.”

Um, I beg to differ.
**** UPDATE: Reader GS send this pic and writes:

Deb-
Hey……. what’s the big deal…..Airline Pilots can take their kids to work‚Ķ‚Ķ???

By Debbie Schlussel
Barack Hussein Obama is trying to pawn off very liberal statements he made on gun control, abortion, and the death penalty on low-level staffers, according to the Politico:

During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion – positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he has projected during his presidential campaign.
The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.

B Hussein O: . . . Pants on Fire

Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire.
They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position.” . . . “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires – a staffer did – and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now,” Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, said in an e-mailed statement.

But, as I reported back in January, this isn’t the first time Obama has used this lie, once he was caught making controversial statements and wanted to get out of it:

When Obama first ran for the U.S. Senate, he gave militant responses to the Chicago Jewish News about Israel. Obama denounced Israel’s fence–which he called a “wall” and “barrier to peace”–to keep out terrorists and favored working with Yasser Arafat. When members of the Chicago Jewish community circulated his responses, Obama said that the answers were not his positions, but the work of a low-level intern. He submitted new answers. But that was a lie, the insider says. In fact, they were the work of Obama’s Policy Director, Audra Wilson.

Obama then asked to fill out another questoinnaire from the Chicago Jewish News and changed his answers to please Jewish voters, even though his original answers were his real views.
And the Politico found that he is lying now, as he was with the Chicago Jewish News:

But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama ‚Äî the day after sitting for the interview – filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.

Barack Hussein Obama. He was a liar then. He’s a liar now. And he always pawns off his lies and misdeeds on his staff. Don’t look for any of this to change in the White House.

By Debbie Schlussel
This weekend’s new releases are a study in contrasts–this year’s two best movies–“21” and “Flawless”–and one of its worst, “Stop-Loss.” Due to a movie-screening conflict, I was unable to review, “Run, Fat Boy, Run” (will try to see and review it later). “Superhero Movie” was not screened for critics, a sign that it’s probably a dud.
* “21“: Whether or not you like–or approve–of gambling, you will like this movie. It has a moral message. And, regardless, it’s a fun, entertaining, non-political adventure. It’s getting panned by most critics, but I loved it–one of the year’s two best, so far.

Based on the novel, “Bringing Down the House,” about Jeff Ma and some fellow M.I.T. students, it’s the story of how the students count cards at the blackjack tables at Vegas casinos. While Ma says that card-counting only increases your chances at winning in blackjack by 3%, that 3% makes a big difference. In the movie, we watch students organized by their cunning professor (Kevin Spacey) making hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop. But it comes with a price.
In the movie, there is no Jeff Ma. Instead, Jim Sturgess, a British actor, plays a working-class MIT student who can’t figure out a way to pay for Harvard Medical School. After he’s discovered to be a whiz at numbers Spacey and his students, including the beautiful Kate Bosworth, recruit Sturgess.
Soon, he blows off his nerdier MIT friends for trips to Vegas and big money, which will pay for med school. But he soon discovers that professor Kevin Spacey is a vindictive, violent creep. Far-leftist Spacey’s real-life love-fest with Venezuela’s nutty dictator, Hugo Chavez, definitely came in handy for the thug he plays.
It’s really more of a caper movie than a movie about gambling. I enjoyed it a lot.
* “Flawless“: This is another caper movie and also one of the year’s two best, so far. It takes place in 1960’s London, where Demi Moore plays a bright American executive at “Lon Di,” the London Diamond Corporation–Europe’s largest diamond broker. The only woman executive in a world of males, she is passed over for promotion after promotion, even though she is more qualified. Soon, she learns from the building’s janitor, Michael Caine, that she will be fired. Moreover, the company has poisoned the well against her, as she tries to look for another job in the finance world. But, she hasn’t been fired yet. She goes along with Caine’s plan to rob diamonds from Lon Di.
This movie was fun, exciting, nail-biting, and escapist. And it was charming. The acting was so good, you forget that it’s Demi Moore in the lead role. She even gets right the fake semi-English accent that American expatriates to England sometimes engage in (Madonna, originally from the Detroit area, comes to mind). And the clothing, building architecture, and design are perfect to the period–the ’60s. The set designers and wardrobe people did their job, here.
While the ending is a little too neat and somewhat cheesy and some occurrences challenge credulity, I highly recommend it, as the rest was pure gold. Mrs. Ashton Kutcher is back. And now she’s graduated to great acting in great movies.

* “Stop-Loss“: This movie is exactly what I predicted–on this site–that it would be. Produced by MTV Films (and that’s “’nuff said” right there), it’s a movie against the war in Iraq, against our military, and against its policies. And worse than that, it’s a movie that portrays middle-American soldiers–in this case from Texas–as complete hicks from jingoistic, uncultured families, with nothing going on.
The ex-Mr. Reese Witherspoon a/k/a Ryan Phillippe must’ve figured that since his ex did an anti-war bomb in “Rendition,” that it was his turn to produce the same with “Stop-Loss.” And that he did. This movie is as boring as “Rendition,” maybe more so. It was so slow, I kept wanting to go to sleep. But I perked up when it showed us the “hick” soldiers shooting bottles in the woods and then catching a rattlesnake, which we saw skinned alive and cooked in a stew of tomatoes for dinner.
And we hear a whole lot of non-stop whining and watch a whole lot of Phllippe and his Texas soldier buddies engaging in violence, drunkenness, relationship dysfunction, crying, flashbacks, and–ultimately–suicide.
Sgt. Phillippe (of Delaware, in real life), with his bad Texas accent (everyone in this flick has a bad Texas accent, so deep and exaggerated it’s like an SNL skit), finds out–after returning from a hellish terrorist attack in which he lost several of his men–that he’s been “stop-lossed,” that the day he’s scheduled for an honorable discharge from the Army, he’s been ordered to serve another tour of duty back to Iraq several days later.
The rest of the movie–aside from focusing more on the “hick” culture and behavior of Texans, especially American soldiers from Texas–shows us the long, feudal, boring attempt of Phllippe to escape Texas and challenge his stop-loss order in Washington and his non-stop whining and crying about it. (Along for the trip is Australian actress Abbie Cornish, who sounds like an Australian trying to do a Texas accident, but failing badly. She’s the woman who reportedly broke up the Phillippe-Witherspoon marriage.)
Phillippe encounters dead ends and obstacles. And *****SPOILER ALERT*****, he ultimately returns and goes back to Iraq. The end.
There are only a few points made in this movie with which I agreed. Phillippe quotes one of his fellow soldiers, telling him:

You’re always saying that this war is so snakebit, that they won’t let us fight it the way we need to win it.

At another point, another soldier says:

We ought to throw a bomb on a city there, every time there’s a terrorist attack against us.

And at the beginning of the movie, we watch the soldiers go door-to-door/apartment-to-apartment, looking for terrorists, who kill them one by one.
This is never how we will win or how we will show the terrorists we mean business. I agree that we’re not fighting it the way we need to win it. We are being too nice, too humanitarian. And it will be the death of us, if not there then in the future elsewhere. Had we fought it in a tough manner and dropped bombs, we’d be outta there by now and there would be no need for stop-losses. That ought to be a movie. Not this lackluster, whining screed.
Other than those brief moments of truth–which are not at all the point of the movie–this film is a boring, depressing, complete waste of time. Rated “P” for Propaganda. Skip at all cost.

By Debbie Schlussel
For years, I’ve been complaining (including in New York Post columns) about the absurd outreach by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan to extremist Muslims in the Detroit area. As I’ve repeatedly noted, a monthly “BRIDGES” group meeting hosted by FBI award revokee and “former” Islamic terrorist, Imad Hamad, and U.S. Attorney Stephen Murphy III a/k/a “Abu Porno,” consisted of extremist Muslim leaders bitching and federal officials pandering to them, apologizing for their agents and prosecutors trying to doing their jobs against Muslim terrorists and other criminals.
Now, we see the fruits of this absurd “outreach.” The entire U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan has recused itself from the case against Iraqi spy Muthanna Al-Hanooti, indicted on Wednesday. The case must be tried by lawyers from Washington, who will have to fly in, eat out at nice restaurants, and stay at nice hotels . . . courtesy of the taxpayers.

U.S. Attorney Stephen Murphy with LIFE Officials Khalil Jassem (left), Ihsan Al-Khatib (far right) & “Former” Terrorist Imad Hamad (Murphy’s left)

Then-US Attorney Jeffrey Collins (center) w/Saddam Spy/Indictee Muthanna Al-Hanooti, Imad Hamad, unidentified person, and LIFE Official, Mohammed Alomari
That’s because Al-Hanooti was a regular participant in the “Bridges” meetings with the feds, including U.S. Attorney Murphy, a Bush nominee for the Federal Court of Appeals. He was regularly feted by Murphy and his minions, who all sucked up to him. Same goes for his predecessor, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Collins. Check out the pictures below of Collins with Al-Hanooti and Murphy wil Al-Hanooti’s boss Khalil Jassemm and other officials of the Saddam-allied charity Hanooti worked for, LIFE For Relief and Development.
And yet, a day after his indictment, the meetings with Al-Hanooti’s partners in crime, Imad Hamad, Mohammed Alomari, and other such malefactors continued, yesterday–even though it is well-known that Hamad and Alomari conspired with Al-Hanooti in much of his illicit activity:

The Dearborn Heights man accused of working for Iraqi intelligence was released from custody Thursday as Arab-American and Muslim community leaders met with federal law enforcement officials to discuss his case. . . .
About 50 people attended the meeting Thursday; half were federal officials from the FBI, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies; the others were Arab-American and Muslim leaders.
FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge Bill Kowalski said the meeting was “part of our efforts to continue an open dialogue with the community.”

Yes, to continue an open dialogue with Islamic terrorists and their enablers. This is the same Agent Kowalski who admitted to a Michigan reporter that he sent his “B Team” of terrorism agents to investigate the cellphone-purchasing Palestinians in central Michigan in 2006, because he wanted the case to go away. The local prosecutor said that Kowalski botched and sabotaged the case, despite hard evidence that the cellphone purchasers had planned a terrorist attack on Michigan’s Mackinac Bridge, including “tourist” photos of the bridges grates and supports.
Yup, that’s Islamic “outreach”–federal law enforcement officials sacrificing your national security for their ability to avoid the loud whines of Muslims. What wimps.
In 2003, at a Town Hall meeting Collins held to get good PR for himself (most of the audience was made up of Assistant U.S. Attorneys who were required to attend and ask softball questions), I asked Collins why he hung out with Al-Hanooti and others at LIFE For Relief and Development. He (and his minions) glared at me and responded that this was “the gold standard of outreach.”
More like the Fool’s Gold standard. And because he and Stephen Murphy III regularly met with and ate meals together with Muthanna Al-Hanooti, your tax dollars must now pay for the boys from Washington to come up here to try the case. And they generally lose.
Good luck, America. I won’t wish Muthanna Al-Hanooti luck because a) he doesn’t deserve it–he’s a traitorous scumbag, and b) he doesn’t need it–the feds are inept and will likely lose the case against him, the way they usually do.
Ask yourself and your President why he would nominate to the Federal Court of Appeals–the second highest court in the land–Stephen Murphy III, a man who was so tight with a spy for Saddam Hussein, that he must now recuse himself and his entire office from trying the case against that spy.
And ask yourself and your President why outreach to Islamic terrorism supporters and extremists is so much more important than Justice for Americans in the scheme of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan.

By Debbie Schlussel
Oprah’s “reporter”–former “The View” panelist, Lisa Ling–is trying to get me to publicize and send traffic to her new blog. I thought readers would enjoy my letter to Lisa Ling’s “people” about why I find her loathsome and won’t be linking. Her blog, by the way, is more left-wing, anti-American drivel and whining about the war in Iraq, etc. Sorry, but we already have Daily Kos, Democratic Underground and Talking Points Memo. Why do we need her?:

Sick: Lisa Ling Greets HAMAS Supporters
For Story Glorifying Female Homicide Bombers

From: Caitlin Leonard caitlin@uber.com
Date: Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 8:49 PM
Subject: Global Perspective
To: writedebbie@gmail.com
Hi Debbie,
My name is Caitlin Leonard, and I work with Lisa Ling’s blog- “Trying to do Good.”
I came across your blog, and found the content very interesting- especially your coverage of the Al-Hanooti scandal.
As Lisa speaks out regarding global issues that are often ignored, I thought you might like to check out some of her posts.
[DS: Lisa Ling’s website address redacted, b/c I ain’t givin’ her traffic.]
Let me know what you think- I’d love to get your feedback.
Caitlin

***

From: Debbie Schlussel writedebbie@gmail.com
Date: Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Global Perspective
To: Caitlin Leonard caitlin@uber.com
Caitlin:
Do you know the definition of the word “chutzpah“?
That’s the word that best describes anyone contacting me on behalf of Lisa Ling, especially in connection with Muthanna Al-Hanooti, a Muslim extremist for whose lifestyle and beliefs Lisa Ling is a major apologist.
Lisa Ling has made a career out of doing National Geographic “specials” in which she serves as a HAMAS apologist, trying to “understand” and “explain” to us the grievances of a female Palestinian Muslim homicide bomber . . . the kind that Mr. Al-Hanooti was funding through his “charity,” LIFE for Relief and Development.
And just last Friday, as a “reporter” for Oprah, Ms. Ling did a whole hour on the mindless daytime talk show about “Polygamy in America,” which focused exclusively on Christians and bore not a word about the many Muslims in America–including Mr. Al-Hanooti (he has two wives)–who practice it.
And who can forget her reports from Hurricane Katrina-fraught New Orleans on “Oprah,” in which she said that President Bush delayed helping these people because they are “not White”? Yet, when she and Oprah’s interior decorator/game show host, Nate Berkus, encountered a homeless Black victim in a New Orleans park, they invited his dog to stay in the home they were renting, but not him.
Even more “entertaining” was Ms. Ling’s report on Oprah about the “great” life women in Cuba have. “We have to get out of our sort of American way of thinking,” Ling told Oprah, in pushing Castro’s “paradise.” Yes, such a great life that they are swimming with the sharks to get to our shores.
For you to tell me that “As Lisa speaks out regarding global issues that are often ignored, I thought you might like to check out some of her posts,” is laughable. Lisa does NOT speak out. She apologizes for and excuses global outrages. And I find her loathsome.
Frankly, Ms. Ling’s qualifications and credentials are thin. The proud high school grad’s claim to fame is that she was the slightly less airheaded panelist on ABC’s “The View” before she left and was replaced by the slightly more airheaded panelist, Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Lisa Ling only got the job in the first place because she was the only panelist candidate who agreed to get her belly-button pierced and engage in a lesbian kiss with Meredith Vieira, live on the air. Great qualifications for making a porn movie. “Speaking out on global issues”–not so much.
I hope you will forward my comments to your boss/client/whatever, Lisa Ling, and let her know that I speak for many Americans who find her statements, behavior, and pan-terrorist “journalism” beyond disgusting.
Thanks, but no thanks. I won’t be setting foot, er . . . mouse or cursor on this execrable woman’s blog. Contrary to her ambitious title, she is NOT “Trying to do Good.”
Regards,
Debbie Schlussel

Lisa Ling . . .yet another reason that Oprah Sucks.

By Debbie Schlussel
**** UPDATE: PRICELESS VIDEO – HANNITY BUSTED by The Right Perspective– SCROLL DOWN ****
Why is Sean Hannity lying about his close relationship with a Neo-Nazi who openly proclaims his desire to exterminate and eradicate all Blacks and Jews from the planet?
Last year, when conservative bloggers all over the Internet–especially those Hannity regularly plagiarizes (including me, here and here)–and on the airwaves were denouncing Ron Paul for accepting a campaign contribution from a self-avowed Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist, one commentator was notably silent: Sean Hannity, himself.

The Company Sean Hannity Keeps: Neo-Nazi Pal Hal Turner
I wondered why Sean Hannity was so silent on such a newsworthy story he’d normally rip off from the others who broke it. And now we know why: White supremacist–Neo-Nazi, Hal Turner–was a close friend of Hannity’s . . . so close that Hannity gave him his direct, personal phone numbers and invited Turner and his son to visit Hannity on the FOX News Channel set of “Hannity & Colmes,” which they did. This man, Hal Turner, is the same man who called for the murder of Jewish Federal Judge Joan Lefkow. Her husband and mother were assassinated the next day.
From the ADL–a group with whom I normally disagree–here is a brief summary of some of Sean’s friend Hal Turner’s statements and behavior:

* On February 28, 2005, Turner advocated assaulting and killing African-Americans on March 15 to commemorate [Martin Luther King’s] birthday: “I think a full day of violence against blacks . . . would be a really nice thing . . . complete with lynchings, church burnings, drive-by shootings and bombings to put these subhuman animals back in their place.”
* On September 25, Turner suggested to his audience that “it is time to start killing Jews in the United States, cut their throat as they walk down the street, drive by and blast them with a shotgun . . . throw Molotov cocktails through their jewelry store windows and then Israel can ask us to stop.”
* Turner encouraged his audience to “BOMB their synagogues, BOMB their businesses, let’s BOMB their homes, that’s what I SAY because maybe when these filthy Jew, mother f-ckers start dying en masse here in the United States, they will pay attention over in Israel.”
* December 14, 2007: “I am looking for volunteers from the Klan, Aryan Nations, Nazis and Skinheads to join me in Baltimore this weekend for some good old vigilante justice. We will ride the same buses where the attacks took place, looking for the perps. If we find them – or any other upity [sic] negroes [sic] looking for trouble – we will ‘take care of business’ vigilante-style, in the street. See how the negroes [sic] like it when they finally face the original ‘Boyz in the Hood.'”
* November 13, 2007: “I advocate SPITTING ON JEWS when anyone sees them on the street. Let’s all start spitting on jews [sic] immediately. I myself am doing it starting today. In fact, I think we ought to line up outside every local Synagogue every Saturday and spit on the jews [sic] who enter. Then spit on them again as they leave. If this behavior is good enough for jews [sic] in Israel to do to Christians, then it must be good enough for Christians to do to jews [sic]. Let’s get it done.”
* October 2, 2007: “Jews love to complain about the ‘Holocaust.’ Let me tell you, there was no Holocaust in World War 2 — but rest assured, there most certainly IS GOING TO BE a holocaust. I look forward to participating with zeal.”
* January 11, 2006: Following a Moscow synagogue stabbing of nine Jews:, I just want to take a moment to publicly applaud this action. Almighty God himself has commanded us to be at war with Satan and the spawn of Satan, and this man in Russia exercised that obligation today. I’m proud of him! Congratulations on the STABBING of FILTHY JEWS at a synagogue of Satan, Moscow, Russia!”
* May 15, 2005: Instead of fighting Muslims, we Christians should be rounding up jews [sic] and killing them here in America. We should bomb their Synagogues, burn down their Yeshivas and violently attack them on the street and in their places of business. I advocate extreme violence against jews [sic] because their history as a people make them worthy of being killed. Jews are the lowest form of sub-human garbage. They deserve to be killed.”
* His “Hal Turner Radio Network” broadcasts Aryan Nations programs and provides air time to other white supremacist guests such as Matt Hale, leader of the World Church of the Creator. Turner also sponsors other race-baiting programs, among them Michigan white supremacist James Wickstrom’s “Yahweh’s Truth.”

With the stories about the racism and hate of Obama’s Rev. Jeremiah Wright–broken over a year ago by sites like Tom Blumer’s Bizzy Blog and Steve Gilbert’s Sweetness & Light–Hannity quickly jumped on the bandwagon and took credit for breaking the story he actually ripped off from them. But Hannity’s plagiarism is not the point here.
The point here is Hannity’s repeated, phony insistence that he deplores racism and bigotry and would never associate with such racism and bigotry as Obama has. But it’s a big lie–a lie exposed, ironically, by Black racist and supremacist Malik Shabazz on the airwaves of the FOX News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes”. As usual, Hannity brought on yet another Black extremist demagogue who swept the floor with the proud high school grad with a G.E.D. in Republican talking points regurgitation and website plagiarism.
When Hannity pressed Shabazz about Rev. Wright’s racism and why Obama did not disassociate himself with Wright, Shabazz asked him how this was any different from Hannity’s tight relationship with Hal Turner:

Should you be judged by your past association with Hal Turner, a neo-Nazi?

In response, Hannity lied and claimed that he didn’t know Turner.
But, in fact, Turner was not only a regular caller to Hannity’s WABC radio show, spewing racism on Hannity’s airwaves, the two were close off the air. The Nation–a left-wing source which has been a critic of myself and which, for years, ws the home base of Christopher Hitchens’ columns–exposed Hannity’s attempted cover-up regarding his tight relationship with Mr. Turner. And Mr. Turner, himself, notes that Hannity is lying.
The Nation:

For years, Hannity offered his top-rated radio show as a regular forum for Turner’s occasionally racist, always over-the-top rants. Hannity also chatted with him off-air . . . . Turner has boasted that Hannity once invited Turner and his son on to the set of Fox News’s Hannity and Colmes. . . . Hannity, meanwhile, remains mum about his former alliance with the neo-Nazi, homing in instead on the supposed racism of black and Latino Democrats. . . . When “Hal from North Bergen” began calling his show, Hannity found he could avoid the dangers of direct race-baiting by simply outsourcing it to Turner.
During an August 1998 episode of the show, Turner reminded Hannity that were it not for the graciousness of the white man, “black people would still be swinging on trees in Africa.” . . . Instead of rebuking Turner or cutting him off, Hannity continued to welcome his calls. . . .
Turner and Hannity had bonded off-air. . . . [Turner] wrote in an August 4, 1998, Google discussion forum that Hannity called him to clear the air: “Just last week, Sean phoned me at home from his job at FOX News to continue a conversation we’d begun earlier while he was at WABC,” Turner wrote. “Sean advised that one of you sensitive souls sent him an e-mail about ‘revelations I had made’ here on the internet. He told me it was obviously and [sic] attempt to ‘poison the water.’ ” Turner continued, “I told him that I’ve done things I’m not proud of, and had dark times in my life; and those experiences helped shape the way I live today…the right way. He [Hannity] laughed and commented that he knew the feeling.” Turner added that such chats with Hannity were “not unusual,” often occurring while Hannity held his calls during commercial breaks. . . .
Turner claimed that he and Hannity would talk by phone and even recounted that Hannity had once invited him and his son on to the set of Hannity and Colmes. But Turner and Hannity’s relationship collapsed in 2000 . . . . When WABC’s screeners began blocking Turner’s calls, he realized he was no longer of use to Hannity.

Hal Turner, himself:

About Sean Hannity and Me. . . . .
Yes, we were friends and yes, Sean agreed with some of my views
Recently, Barak Obama has come under serious scrutiny for attending a church whose Reverend Wright espouses anti-American and racist views. One media outlet that has been especially critical of Obama has been the show “Hannity & Colmes” on Fox News Channel.
On Wednesday, March 19, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party appeared as a guest on “Hannity & Colmes” to discuss the Obama / Reverend Wright controversy. During that appearance, Sean Hannity asked Shabazz if Barak Obama shouldn’t be judged by his past affiliations with Reverend Wright, to which Shabazz replied by asking Sean Hannity “Should you be judged by your past association with Hal Turner, a neo-Nazi?”
I was quite disappointed when Sean Hannity at first tried to say he didn’t know me and then went on to say that I ran some senate campaign in New Jersey. In fact, Sean Hannity does know me and we were quite friendly a number of years ago.
When Hannity took over Bob Grant’s spot on 77 WABC in New York City, I was a well-known, regular and welcome caller to his show. Through those calls, Sean and I got to know each other a bit and at some point, I can’t remember exactly when, Sean gave me the secret “Guest call-in number” at WABC so that my calls could always get on the air.
When I utlized [sic] that call-in number, Sean would very often come onto that line during commercial breaks so we could chat before I went on the air. Our off-the-air chats grew to an exchange of other phone numbers, me giving Sean my home and cellular number and Sean giving me his direct dial-in number at Fox News channel.
In 1993, My wife got pregnant and around a month later, Sean reported that he and his wife were expecting their first child. We got to talking about things expectant dads talk about and the relationship grew.
My wife gave birth to our son in June 1994, Seans wife gave birth to their child about a month later.
Over the course of the next three or four years, Sean and I spoke regularly off the air about our kids, politics and news of the day. My on-air calls to his show remained regular and welcome.
Around 1997, Sean invited me and my then-three-year-old-son, to come to Fox News Channel to be in the studio (NOT ON THE AIR) during a live broadcast of “Hannity & Colmes”. I accepted the invitation and my son and I went. We were inside the studio standing between the camera men as the show aired live. We got to speak with both Sean Hannity and Allan Colmes before the show. Like most three year olds, my son’s willingness to stay quiet didn’t last, so I thought it best to take him home rather than have his noise air during their show.
Sean and I spoke by phone the next day. I thanked him for the chance to be there and he said it was a real pleasure meeting me and my son.
In the year 2000, I sought the Republican nomination to the US House of Representatives from the 13th Congressional District of New Jersey. Since I was a candidate for federal office and since WABC served the area in which I was running for election, WABC was FORCED by federal law to accept my campaign radio ads, many of which were quite explicit. The station did not want to air the ads but the law left them no choice.
At about the same time, WABC changed program directors from John Mainelli to Phil Boyce. It seems to me that Mr. Boyce objected vehemently to my campaign commercials and political beliefs and I suspect he told Sean Hannity that I was not to be welcomed on WABC anymore. Since Boyce had the power to fire Hannity, it appears to me that Hannity did what he was told. From that point on, Sean Hannity never spoke to me again. Not on the air or off.
Here we are, more than eight years later, my friendship with Sean has become some sort of hot issue. . . .
I can tell you from my firsthand, personal experience that Sean Hannity does, in fact, agree with many of my political and social views. . . .Suffice it to say that my recollection is that when Sean and I spoke by phone, while no one else was listening, he and I exchanged the kinds of views that most White, Irish-Catholic guys hold, but won’t speak in public.
In my opinion, based on my first hand experience, I believe Sean Hannity is, in fact, a Hal Turner sort of guy. It seems to me that a big difference between Sean and me is that I am willing to say publicly what I think about savage Black criminals, diseased, uneducated illegal aliens and the grotesque cultural destruction wrought by satanic jews while Sean and many others keep quiet to protect their paychecks.

Now, Turner says he has tapes of his phone conversations with Hannity, which he is offering up for $100,000. Since Hannity is now a multi-millionaire and would certainly not benefit from his REAL views being outed, how much you wanna bet that Hannity beats the liberals to the punch for the chance at paying Turner the $250K he wants for the tapes?:

OFFER TO LIBERALS REGARDING SEAN HANNITY
I HAVE TAPE RECORDINGS OF MY CALLS WITH HIM – BOTH ON AND OFF THE AIR. . . . .
Since more than 100,000 of you read the story on Huffington Post about me being friendly with Hannity years ago, I made an offer on my radio show tonight:
I will release to the public, all the tape recordings I have between me and Sean Hannity both on and off the air IF, by April 15, 2008, those 100,000 readers of Huffington Post send me one dollar (or more) each until such time as I receive One-Hundred-Thousand Dollars ($100,000.) AND the deadline for the money arriving is April 15. If I receive the $100K by April 15, I will release via tape, CD and download from this site, all the “dicey” conversations we had. If I do not receive at least $100,000, by April 15, I will not release the tapes.
I will not speculate or make any representations about what is on those tapes, but suffice it to say I think there is material on them that you will find VERY useful!
In addition to the offer above, I am willing to SELL the tapes, complete ownership of their content and all broadcast rights forever to anyone willing to buy them for two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000).
If there is a conflit between the $100,000 coming and and the $250,000, I agree to REFUND the $100K less postage to whoever donates.
I am willing top post a LIST OF ALL DONATIONS citing only the amount, form of payment and postmark so all of you can see each day how much comes in. Complete transparency!
That’s the offer. Those of you who hate Sean Hannity have a chance to pony-up. Those of you who want to conceal these tapes forever also have a chance to buy them.
WIth regard to the legality of the tapes, I live in New Jersey and under our law, it is LEGAL to record telephone conversations if one party to the call allows it. Since I was one party to each call, I authorized it and so the tapes are legal.

Tapes or no tapes, I think it’s pretty clear that Sean Hannity had a relationship with a Neo-Nazi bent on destroying Jews, Blacks, Hispanics and others. Hannity didn’t have a problem with it then, had to be ordered to end it by a man who signed his paycheck, and is now lying about it–desperately attempting to cover it up. That tells us everything we need to know.
But I agree with Hannity in one aspect on this situation: The company you keep says a lot about you.
And Sean Hannity kept company with a self-avowed White Supremacist who would send my family back to the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Bergen Belsen.
Hey Sean, you look great in Brown. Sig Heil.
*** Thanks to Reader Marlene for the tip on this very disturbing and illuminating story.
One other thing: Now, I know why Sean finds it’s okay to rip off my stuff. Jews can’t really own property–intellectual or otherwise–per Third Reich rules. So, what’s his excuse for all the gentiles he steals from?
**** UPDATE #2: More Great Video Analysis of Sean Vannity vs. Malik Shabazz on Hal Turner:

By Debbie Schlussel
For at least six years, I’ve been asking (including in a New York Post column) why the Justice Department–specifically the Islamo-pandering parade of U.S. Attorneys for the Eastern District of Michigan–were breaking pita with officials of LIFE for Relief and Development, including Muthanna Al-Hanooti.
Today, Al-Hanooti, a former chief of CAIR-Michigan was indicted for acting as a spy for Saddam Hussein in America. (And–shocker–he has a second wife and family in Iraq.) To me and anyone who followed the story and read a newspaper, that isn’t news. In fact, the indictment is far too little, far too late. The indictment says that a trip taken by three Congressmen–liberal Democrats Jim McDermott, David Bonior, and Mike Thompson–to Iraq in 2002, was funded by Saddam Hussein, using a third party to arrange the financing, and Al-Hanooti to put the trip together. Again, not news, since I wrote about it repeatedly on this site and also in The New York Post as far back as 2003.

U.S. Attorney Stephen Murphy with LIFE Officials Khalil Jassem (left), Ihsan Al-Khatib (far right) & “Former” Terrorist Imad Hamad (Murphy’s left)

Then-US Attorney Jeffrey Collins (center) w/Saddam Spy/Indictee Muthanna Al-Hanooti, Imad Hamad, unidentified person, and LIFE Official, Mohammed Alomari

Liberal Dems Jim McDermott and David Bonior
Went on Saddam-Financed Trip to Iraq (w/Mike Thompson)
The “third party,” not identified in the indictment, is a man I’ve complained about for some time–Shakir Al-Khafaji. He owns gas stations and Italian restaurants, and property all over Michigan. He was one of three Americans–and the only one not prosecuted–named by Iraqi newspapers and Saddam government documents as a participant in the oil-for-food scam billions. A company he ran out of South Africa made $70 million. And yet he is free. I regularly have seen him pumping gas into his car and tooling about town. And I’ve also regularly written that he financed the trip with Saddam’s money.
Again, none of this is news to me. What is and continues to be news is that Shakir Al-Khafaji has gotten away with it and has been allowed to invest Saddams millions to make millions more for himself, all with impunity and under the knowing eye of the Justice Department.
It was always well known that he was Saddam Hussein’s agent, and that’s why far-left Democrats–and rudderless Republicans, like Hezbollah’s Congressman, Joe Knollenberg–got Saddam’s, er . . . Al-Khafaji’s cash, as did former U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter, who got $400,000 from Al-Khafaji for a pro-Saddam propaganda film.
But, again, Al-Khafaji–Saddam’s Mr. Moneybags–is walking free, thanks to do-nothing pan-Islamist U.S. Attorney Stephen Murphy.
I’ve also asked why LIFE for Relief and Development, Al-Hanooti’s employer and the organization through which he took the three Congressmen to Iraq, has continued to be allowed to remain open for business and to raise money, even though it was well known to FBI agents–and to me–that LIFE was Saddam Hussein’s American advertising agency, as well as a financier of Sunni Islamic terrorism against our soldiers and contractors in Iraq and elsewhere where Al-Qaeda, HAMAS, and their satellites operate.
Despite all of this information–which FBI agents have known for at least seven year–U.S. Attorneys Stephen Murphy III a/k/a “Abu Porno” and, before him, Jeffrey Collins both regularly feted the LIFE For Relief and Development crowd and their biggest promoter, “former” Islamic terrorist and eternal FBI award revokee Imad Hamad. I have pictures (posted above).
While almost two years ago, LIFE was raided by the FBI, it–the largest Islamic charity in America–was allowed to continue to operate in the neighborhood where I grew up. And U.S. Attorney Murphy–to this day–will still not do a thing to freeze LIFE’s assets or shut down its operations. Its money flows freely to fund terrorist operations against some of our own boys. The indictment of Mr. Hanooti will be not much more than a papercut in terms of making a difference. One benefit will be that Mr. Al-Hanooti will be unable to bring in more anti-Semitic clerics to America for fundraisers, as he had a habit of doing. As I wrote back in 2003:

A 1996 LIFE fundraiser, arranged by Hanooti, featured speaker Sheik Abdulmunem Abu Zant, an ardent Hamas supporter, who said, “May Allah attack the Jews and those who stand with them. May Allah attack the Americans and those who stand with them.” Hanooti appeared with indicted Islamic Jihad frontman Sami Al-Arian at a recent American Muslim Council lobbying seminar.

Then, there is Hanooti’s partner in crime, Mohammed Alomari, who apparently also was involved in coordinating the Saddam-financed trip to Iraq, made by the three easily-played Congressional violins. Mr. Alomari, who on-line calls me by the anti-Semitic moniker “Debbie the Shyster,” is and always has been Mr. Al-Hanooti’s right-hand man. (Together, they founded and operated the fly-by-night operation Focus on Arab-American Issues and Reform, which shares the same address as LIFE.) (Alomari partnered with Al-Hanooti as the U.S. lobbyists for the Sunnis in Iraq. That should tell you something about the Sunnis there–still Saddam loyalists.) Yet, Mohammed Alomari walks free. He, too, was apparently an agent of Saddam and a spy for him, just as his bosom buddy, Mr. Al-Hanooti was.
It must be Mr. Alomari’s great literary contributions that have saved him to date. He is the author of an article identifying all the Jews in the Bush Administration and complaining that there are too many of them. And he is the proud author of the unintendedly-comical book, “The Secrecy of Evil,” which argues that the creation of America was a Zionist plot of the Zionist perpetrating Founding Fathers, and that the Washington Monument is our country’s male sexual progenitor and the Oval Office is its female sex organ.
The indictment says that Saddam Hussein’s government gave Al-Hanooti two million barrels of oil in exchange for his work on behalf of the Iraqi intelligence service in America, one wonders how much of a cut of that his partner Alomari and his close buddy and champion, Imad Hamad, got. A good take, I’m sure. And I bet the feds know about this but are looking the other way. Mark my word.
So, while it is mildly good news that Muthanna Al-Hanooti may face justice, that news is far too belated and far too little.
When Mohammed Alomari is indicted, LIFE For Relief and Development is shut down and its assets frozen, and Imad Hamad–who worked for Al-Hanooti and LIFE to get USAID status and federal government protection through Senator Carl Levin–is also stopped cold, then I will be happy.
Until then, this story isn’t worth the paper upon which Stephen Murphy’s press release is written. But its value to him is the Bush Federal Appeals Court nomination of him that he desperately wants and needs the PR to push it through.

By Debbie Schlussel
Saudi King Abdullah is calling for “interfaith dialogue” with Jews and Christians. Deceiver has a great commentary and listing of the various ways the Saudis have–over the years and currently–displayed their desire for “interfaith relations”.
I’m sure King Abdullah will manage to find enough self-hating, liberal Jews to take up the cause. There are, sadly, always Jews willing to legitimize those sworn on killing their fellow-co-religionists in bulk.
Here’s the picture that I think of whenever I hear the phony term, “interfaith dialogue.” It says it all about hanging with your savage enemies.

The Real “Interfaith Dialogue”:
Palestinian Muslims Cheer on One of Their Own
After He Tore Israeli Soldier Apart Alive
Do cops have “interprofessional dialogue” with criminals? Only if they’re dirty cops who are on the take, making them just like their criminal “opponents”. Same goes for the Jews that have “interfaith dialogue.” They are as disgusting (or more so) than the Islamofascists they legitimize with their very presence.
Read Deceiver’s excellent commentary and “itemized list” on the Saudis.