Are You Fed Up With The Change?

The Jihad Against A Seattle Cartoonist - HUMAN EVENTS

2010-10-05T08:28:00.000-04:00

The Jihad Against A Seattle Cartoonist - HUMAN EVENTS: "It should be front-page news in every newspaper in the country: Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris has given up her job, her home, and even her identity because of death threats for Islamic supremacists. That Islamic jihadists can force an American citizen into hiding for exercising her freedom of speech is bad enough; that her cause has aroused only indifference from the media and the nation’s leading officials is even worse.

Norris was a popular cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly. Her life changed forever a few months ago when she announced “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” on Facebook. It was a lark, but with a serious point about violent threats and intimidation: if Islamic supremacists were threatening to murder European cartoonists Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks because of their cartoons of Muhammad, and anyone else who dared to draw him, then if everyone drew him, the thugs couldn’t possibly kill us all, could they?

And now Norris herself has become a living illustration of how right her point was in the first place, and yet the political and media elites are not standing with her. “On the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI,” the Seattle Weekly explained, “she is, as they put it, ‘going ghost’: moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. She will no longer be publishing cartoons in our paper or in City Arts magazine, where she has been a regular contributor. She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program–except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab.”

This is in sharp contrast to the Ground Zero mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is receiving protection from the New York City Police Department because of threats he has allegedly received. In even sharper contrast, Gainsville, Florida authorities have announced that they plan to bill the abortive Koran-burner Terry Jones $180,000 for security costs for the Koran-burning event that he ultimately called off after a blizzard of international publicity, all negative – despite the fact that they never bothered to warn Jones beforehand that he would be footing the bill.

Molly Norris’s cause should be taken up by all free people – not least the President of the United States. Obama could have explained that human beings control their own reactions to things. If Muslims chose yet again to riot and murder because of Terry Jones or Molly Norris, that would be a choice they would be making out of an unlimited array of other choices. Instead, Western authorities have fallen into the Islamic supremacists' trap and are starting to behave in just the way they want them to: thinking that they must not do certain things, because if they do, there will be violence from Muslims. Yet that violence is in every case solely the responsibility of the perpetrator, not of anyone else.

Obama could have said that the idea that Molly Norris would have to give up her career and live in hiding because of cartoons is unconscionable. He could have told the Islamic world that cartoons depicting Muhammad did not harm Muslims, and that the willingness of some Muslims to commit murder over such depictions was the only thing that made people care to draw Muhammad in the first place.

Obama could also have said that to threaten people with death because of cartoons was destructive to free speech and hence to free societies — and as such, it was something that the U.S. would do everything it could to resist. He could have announced that Molly Norris and others who were threatened for exercising their freedom of speech would be given full round-the-clock protection — and that if violent protests and riots over cartoons broke out in areas where American troops were deployed, those troops would put down those riots and protect the innocent to the fullest possible extent.

Apparently when Muslims behave with violent irrationality, Obama thinks that it is entirely the responsibility of non-Muslims to clean up the mess they make. In these dark days we don’t have any leaders who will stand up for the freedom of expression, explaining its importance as a bulwark against tyranny. Molly Norris, wherever she is, and the embattled free people of the United States, deserve better.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Townhall - Obama: Not Rough Enough?

2010-09-29T06:00:00.000-04:00

Townhall - Obama: Not Rough Enough?:

NBC Universal is getting ridiculous with its shameless courting of President Obama. On the morning of Sept. 27, NBC's Matt Lauer interviewed Obama for a half-hour with no commercials. But it wasn't just on NBC. Their devotion to El Jefe is so transparent they aired it live on most of their other cable properties, including MSNBC, USA, Syfy, Bravo, Oxygen, Chiller, Sleuth, Universal HD and Universal Sports.

The announced topic was education, but Lauer also turned to politics, and that's where the NBC host just regurgitated the current liberal complaint: Obama is apparently too calm and not tough enough toward Republicans. Lauer noted Obama's recent declaration that 'The Republicans, they're treating me like a dog.' He didn't ask for proof for that bizarre and whiny claim. He underlined it like it was the gospel truth.

Then he begged for ratcheting up the 'rigor' in Obama's attacks on opponents: 'Former President Clinton said he doesn't think the Democrats, and you included, have been rigorous enough in pushing back against some of the Republican attacks. Over these next five weeks, Mr. President, do you intend to change your tone or your emotion in terms of your pushing back?'

(Try to imagine NBC welcoming Jim DeMint or Newt Gingrich to the studio and Lauer saying suggestively 'Some think your tone has been too timid in attacking Democrats. Do you intend to ratchet up your attacks as the election nears?')

The biggest myth in the Obama arsenal is that Obama is some kind of blissfully bipartisan mediator not prone to mean-spirited messaging. It should be obvious to anyone with ears that he was a hardball-throwing liberal throughout the presidential campaign, and he's grown even more partisan since he won and the Democrats took over everything.

The president has to be shocked when he hears this too-wimpy complaint. He gently replied that anyone who's 'heard me speak around the country over the last several months' would know he's declared 'a very sharp difference with the Republicans' -- even as he admits he's hammering them at every turn. In his Saturday radio address two days previous, Obama accused the GOP of wanting to cut taxes for the super-rich and 'cut the middle class loose to fend for itself.' He called the new Pledge for America document 'an echo of a disastrous decade we can't afford to relive.'

Obama's real problem is his atrocious record. Much of that 'disastrous decade' featured an unemployment rate between 4 and 6 percent, which right now sounds like a dream. The president unspools crazy anti-GOP lines like this one to Lauer: 'They proposed $4 trillion worth of tax cuts and $16 billion in spending cuts.' Lauer didn't follow up with any notion that (a) the trillions in 'tax cuts' aren't actually 'cuts,' but keeping the current tax rates the same. Then there's (b), the Republicans propose to peel spending back to Fiscal Year 2008 levels, which is -- if they ever accomplished it -- many multiples of '$16 billion in spending cuts.'

Network anchors buy (and sell) every silly thing the Democrats have to say on fiscal issues, including the mind-boggling whopper that adding millions of people to federally funded health insurance under ObamaCare is going to reduce the deficit.

But that wasn't the only question where Lauer worried out loud to Obama that his mythical status is falling apart. Lauer referred to the other recent NBC hour of free airtime to Obama, on CNBC, where the discouraged Obama supporter said she was tired of defending him. An incredulous Lauer suggested she was feeling 'in some way, you have lost touch with the struggles of the average person on the street. I say it with some sense of irony, because you began your career in public service as a community organizer. That is all about getting in touch with people on the street. So how can this criticism now be coming up of a guy who started out as a community organizer?'

Obama correctly suggested that this discouraged woman, Velma Hart, is still an enthusiastic supporter, but like many liberals, she's in disbelief that Obama's socialism didn't work. She told Michelle Singletary of The Washington Post: 'I guess I started to believe, on some small level, that he had a magic wand. Maybe in that respect my question was somewhat unfair.' She also told the Post she would have hugged him if he told her that recovery was coming, but 'Right now, you're expecting too much from me.'

The liberals at NBC Universal want to hug Obama, too, with all the free airtime he wants. But first, they want him to put his every ounce of civility aside and pick up the mud bucket. Liberals can't maintain control of Washington without casting the conservatives as the incoming embodiment of all evil.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Illinois Professor Says Chanting ‘USA’ is Bellicose Propaganda by:Warner Todd Huston | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010

2010-09-26T17:07:00.000-04:00

Illinois Professor Says Chanting ‘USA’ is Bellicose Propaganda by:Warner Todd Huston | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010:

Oh, you ignorant Americans with your venal patriotic chants of “USA, USA” at sporting events. Your bellicosity isn’t patriotism, it’s propaganda and lowly militarism… so says David Green, University Administrator and member of the University of Illinois Institute of Government & Public Affairs.

Green’s poisoned pen letter to American patriots was published by the Daily Illini, an “independent newspaper” at the U of I, and features every manner of attack on America.

Green’s vituperation covers the gamut of anti-Americanism: America is “imperialist,” she is unconcerned over the deaths of Muslims, America is”nativist,” and patriots are prone to “obnoxious, fake-macho, chicken-hawk” chants. In other words all that is wrong with the world is evinced in the United States of America.

The professor’s screed was short, but filled with hate for America:

The vast majority of 9/11 observances in this country cannot be seen as politically neutral events. Implicit in their nature are the notions that lives lost at the World Trade Center are more valuable than lives lost in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and elsewhere; that the motives of the 9/11 attackers had nothing to do with genuine grievances in the Islamic world regarding American imperialism; and that the U.S. has been justified in the subsequent killing of hundreds of thousands in so-called retaliation.

The observance at Saturday’s football game was no different. A moment of silence was followed by a military airplane flyover; in between, Block-I students chanted “USA, USA.” This was neither patriotism nor remembrance in any justifiable sense, but politicization, militarism, propaganda and bellicosity. The University is a public institution that encompasses the political views of all, not just the most (falsely) “patriotic.” Athletic planners should cease such exploitation for political purposes. They might at least consider how most Muslim students, American or otherwise, would respond to this nativist display; or better, Muslims and others that live their lives under the threat of our planes, drones and soldiers.

The overwhelmingly white, privileged, Block-I students should be ashamed of their obnoxious, fake-macho, chicken-hawk chant, while poverty-drafted members of their cohort fight and die in illegal and immoral wars for the control of oil. University administrators need to eliminate from all events such “patriotic” observances, which in this country cannot be separated from implicit justifications for state-sponsored killing.

Looking at the comments section finds very little support for this anti-American and not everyone at the Daily Illini are in love with this hater as an October 11 entry from 2005 shows.

But this isn’t the first time that Green went down the path of hate for the west. Green has penned many antiAmerican, anti-Jewish screeds over the last decade. In 2005, for instance, Green wrote a review of one of Holocaust denier Norman Finkelstein’s books that proved that Green is a supporter of Palestine Liberation Organization and is critical of the so-called Holocaust industry.

Like a well-worn hat, Green tries on the old claim that the American’s actions at abu Ghraib and “Israeli torture” are materially the same as the Nazi-generated Holocaust. In his review Green intimates that Israel perpetrates “criminal behavior” that is little different than Hitler’s.

In March Green wrote a screed on the supposed iron-fisted Israel Lobby where he also says that the U.S. is motivated solely by imperialism in its war on terror.

Green is also a member of the Champaign/Urbana chapter of Anti-War, Anti-Racism Effort and is known as a member of the Jewish Voice for Peace which absorbed Not In My Name, the latter formerly based in Chicago.

It is infuriating that this man makes his living feeding off the taxpayers of the state of Illinois. According to the CollegiateTimes.com website, Green’s 2009 salary was $36,388 of Illinois tax dollars. This is the sort of anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-western “academic” that infests the American university system from north to south and east to west. These people are living off the taxpayers and spreading their hate every single day.

If you would like to contact Green and let him know how you feel, his office phone number is (217) 333-3231 and is email is dlgreen@illinois.edu .

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Townhall - 29 Reasons Why BHO Is the Greatest President Ever (If You Hate America)

2010-09-19T12:59:00.000-04:00

Townhall - 29 Reasons Why BHO Is the Greatest President Ever (If You Hate America):

Y’know, if I were a terrorist I think I’d hit America right now because I don’t think we’ve been this vulnerable since Clinton gutted our military, worked against our national security, and paved the way for 9/11.

For the record, I am not a terrorist, no matter what the mutant Janeane Garofalo says. How do I know I’m not a terrorist? Well, you pretty much have to be a Muslim or a progressive to be one, and I’m not Islamic but rather a Christian and a conservative.

For those unfamiliar with Christianity, one of the tenets of this faith disallows its followers to blow innocent people up while they’re working, riding a bus, flying home to see Granny for Christmas, or getting a slice of pepperoni at Famous Ray’s. The Koran, on the other hand is, how shall I say … more lenient … when it comes to such issues, and so are the likes of toads such as Bill Ayers. But I digress.

Regarding my assessment of our nation’s security (or lack thereof), I am not the only one out there with this opinion. Oh, no Spanky. There are more of us. Many more. As in many, many more.

Matter of fact, bestselling author and military analyst, Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson, formerly Clinton’s senior military aide in charge of the “nuclear football” (which is not code for Monica’s plus-size lingerie bag), also thinks we’re incredibly susceptible to being attacked on a scale much larger that 9/11. He also believes … wait for it … that BHO is America’s biggest national security threat.

Who’s this “Buzz” guy, and why should we perk up and listen to what he says? Well, he’s not an obese commie who does shoddy documentary crap films, for one thing; nor is he a chunky, redheaded, unfunny, nerve-grating female comic who likes to spew her ill-informed views on HLN.

Nope, the good Colonel is a man who has honorably served our nation and was Billy’s top gun during the Clinton Administration. Patterson witnessed firsthand how William J. whittled away our military might, which Buzz meticulously documented in his New York Times bestselling book, Dereliction of Duty. Did you miss that one?

Patterson, however, in his latest tome, Conduct Unbecoming: How Obama is Destroying the Military and Endangering Our Security, says to the effect that Clinton looks like Genghis Khan on HGH compared to how Obama is dismantling the U.S. and thereby setting us up to be brutalized by those who detest the U.S. and that for which it stands.

Don’t believe me, MSNBC’er? Well check out these ditties I gleaned from Buzz’s most recent in regard to how Obama has gutted us from a security standpoint in just his first eighteen months (oh, how giddy Bin Laden must be seeing us morphing into a weak horse).

1. January - December 2009: The Administration refuses to detain the vast majority of illegal workers they find by drastically revising policy, such as halting workplace raids and stripping local law enforcement of the ability to pursue illegals. Also, terrorist detainees are ordered to be tried in civilian courts.

2. February 26, 2009: White House announces plans to slash defense budget, which undermines the U.S. military’s ability to meet its commitments.

3. March 13, 2009: No longer “enemy combatants,” terrorist supporters have new legal protections against being detained.

4. April 6, 2009: Obama gives speech in Turkey, apologizing for America, even as Turkey embraces Iran and Syria.

5. April 16, 2009: The Justice Department’s legal opinions on terrorist interrogations are disclosed and overruled by the Obama Administration.

6. May 21, 2009: President signs the US-UAE Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, which is intended to clear the way for the United Arab Emirates to gain access to sensitive U.S. nuclear technology.

7. May 2009: Obama Administration slashes missile defense funding and capabilities.

8. June 2009: CIA director Panetta kills program to explore options for assassination of Osama Bin Laden.

9. September 17, 2009: Obama Administration abandons Poland and Czech missile defense.

10. October 19, 2009: White House floats Iranian nuclear fuel swap offer, saying that it is willing to give Iran all of the enriched uranium they need to run Iran’s nuclear plant in Natanz.

11. December 2, 2009: Obama announces Afghanistan surge and prompt withdrawal of troops, with will expose U.S. troops to higher levels of risk.

12. December, 4, 2009: End of U.S . on-site inspection activities in Russia.

13. December 8, 2009: President sends U.S. Ambassador to North Korea for direct one-on-one negotiations.

14. December 29, 2009: National declassification order, which results in the release of over 400 million pages of Cold War-era records, exposing a wealth of secret data on U.S.-Soviet relations.

15. January 7, 2010: Obama blames “Christmas Day Bomber” on intelligence instead of fixing the problem.

16. January 20, 2010: China is no longer a Top Intelligence Priority.

17. March 25, 2010: U.S. backs away from tougher components of nuclear Iran sanctions proposal.

18. April 7, 2010: Terms “Islam,” “Jihad” banned from National Security Strategy.

19. April 8, 2010: New Gates-Obama plan announced to gut military.

20. April 17, 2010: Secretary of Defense Gates warns that U.S. has no long-range plan to deal with nuclear Iran.

21. April 27, 2010: Obama Administration refuses to release documents on the Fort Hood shooting to Senate Committee.

22. April 30, 2010: Department of Defense announces obesity as major security threat.

23. May 2, 2010: U.S. publicly reveals the size of nuclear arsenal, which until now has been a closely-guarded secret.

24. May 8, 2010: Secretary of Defense Gates calls for more sweeping cuts to the defense budget—around $10 billion for 2012.

25. May 24, 2010: Counter-terrorism Advisor Brennan praises foreign terrorist group Hezbollah.

26. May 27, 2010: Counter-terrorism Advisor Brennan says Jihadists are not America’s enemy.

27. May 27, 2010: Obama Administration’s new national security strategy is to focus on homegrown threats, says terror is not an enemy.

28. June 11, 2010: Obama White House seeks to ease U.S. sanctions against Iran.

29. July 6, 2010: Obama Administration sues Arizona over immigration legislation.

Do you feel safer after reading that partial list, children? I know I don’t. If you want to be even more freaked out—as in freaked out to do something like vote BHO out and champion those who still dig America and think national security ought to be a major issue (duh)—you must log on to Amazon.com, find Buzz’s book, Conduct Unbecoming, and then click your mouse and melt your plastic and buy this razor-sharp, easy-to-read and comprehensive book on how Barack is setting us up to be crushed.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Townhall - Obama's Muslim Mess

2010-09-19T12:57:00.000-04:00

Townhall - Obama's Muslim Mess:

“The bottom line is this – if the Koran is burned, our troops will be in greater danger. It’s that simple…”

That remark came from a certain military officer (an officer who will remain unnamed here), during a special press briefing I attended regarding upcoming foreign troop deployments.

The news of a threatened “Koran burning ceremony” to be held in Florida was being widely reported at the time, and a journalist had asked the Officer for comment.

In response to the Officer’s comment, I followed up by asking “if Americans didn’t exercise their Second Amendment rights, would the troops be safer?”

“ With all due respect, I think you’re politicizing the matter, sir,” the Officer said to me, “and I have no further comment…”

It was appropriate that the Officer had “no further comment.” But I wasn’t politicizing anything. I was asking a very serious, sobering, and legitimate question, a question that all Americans should be asking in the face of the Obama Administration’s disposition towards Islamic Radicalism.

For the entire duration of his Presidency, Barack Obama has articulated a vision of “the Muslim Word,” as he calls it, and practitioners of the Muslim faith, that conveniently ignores what is frighteningly obvious to most Americans: that some of the most horrific and gruesome murders and terrorist acts on the planet these days are committed by people who call themselves Muslims, and claim to be following the edicts of the Koran.

President Obama set this pattern of denial in motion back in June of 2009, when he made good on his campaign promise of delivering a speech in the capitol city of a predominantly Muslim nation.

Speaking at Cairo University in that month, the President said, in part, “I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings…”

Five months after that speech, the United States sustained what previously may have been unthinkable – a terrorist attack at an Army base in Texas, all at the hands of an Army Major who was – yes, you guessed it – a Muslim. Major Nidal Hasan, a Medical Doctor in the U.S. Army, shot and killed 13 other Army soldiers and wounded 30 other people. He claimed that he was operating in allegiance to the Koran, and his Muslim faith.

As President Obama spoke at the Memorial Service for the dead soldiers, he referred to the murders as “craven acts,” and insisted that “no just and loving God looks upon then with favor.” But how are we to take these remarks?

Was President Obama insinuating that the “God” of Islam is not “just” and not “loving?” This proposition is doubtful. More likely, the President’s remarks were intended to suggest that Mr. Hasan wasn’t really behaving as a “real Muslim” would, so, therefore, these “craven acts” were no indictment on Islam.

But since the massacre at Fort Hood, we have sustained two other terrorist attacks on American soil – the “underwear bomber” case on Christmas Day last year, and the effort to blow up Times Square in Manhattan last Spring. Both of these incidents were terrorist attacks (despite Homeland Security Secretary Janet Naplitano’s claim that “The system worked” last December – it did not), attacks that were both fortunately thwarted before they could be carried out to full fruition.

All three of these acts were carried-out by people who called themselves Muslims. And if these terrorists each called themselves a “Muslim,” who am I – and who is Barack Obama – to insist that they are not?

President Obama’s timid stance with “the Muslim World” stands in stark contrast to this undeniable reality: In America, we are a very diverse bunch, but we generally get along with each other pretty well.

We are Christians and Jews and Secularists. We are theologically conservative Protestants and Catholics and Jews, and we are theologically liberal Protestants and Catholics and Jews. We are Atheists and Buddhists and Mormons and Bahai’s and completely irreligious. “Church” and “synagogue” and “temple” happen every weekend in America, as do sporting events and naps and work and play. As Americans we go about these activities according to our own wishes, being disagreeable with each other at times, yes, but still living together and getting along.

But then, there is this one particular group in America and around the world that can’t seem to play by America’s “we all get along” terms. According to our President, our lives are jeopardized if we so much as state the obvious about this group.

If our President continues with his denial of the obvious, he will continue to alienate America, and weaken our nation abroad.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Townhall - Muslims Behaving Badly

2010-09-19T12:53:00.000-04:00

Townhall - Muslims Behaving Badly:

The freedom to speak freely is a hallmark of the American constitutional tradition, as is the freedom of religion. These twin liberties are two reasons why so many people have risked – and continue to risk – life and limb to make it to our shores. Not surprisingly, these freedoms often come into conflict with each another in the public arena. No one likes to see their deeply held beliefs insulted, degraded, or mocked, yet the right of free speech includes the right to criticize our neighbor's religious views. The moment we deny our citizens the right to criticize other people or their ideas, we will no longer be truly free.

By all indications however, our government appears to have developed a double standard when it comes to criticism of certain religious traditions – or, I should say, one such tradition. While other religious groups in America (Christians in particular) are expected to tolerate all manner of offenses, debasements, and outright attacks against their beliefs in the name of the First Amendment, Muslim Americans benefit from a government that goes out of it's way to avoid offending their religious sensibilities. In a country that has gone to sometimes extreme lengths to preserve the hallowed 'separation' between Church and State, the question is, why?

Many Christians in America today feel that their religion is under attack, and with good reason. An attitude of skepticism and downright hostility towards Christianity has taken hold in many corners of society, resulting in actions that test the charity and tolerance of even the most pious believers. Revered Christian icons have been immersed in urine and smeared in elephant dung in the name of 'art' (with the patronage of the federal government, no less), Jesus Christ and his followers have been portrayed as gay lovers in an off-Broadway play, personal faith testimonies and religious groups have been censored on high school and college campuses across America, a veterans' cross memorial in the California desert has been the target of an ACLU lawsuit, and Bibles have been burned by the U.S. government in the name of 'diplomacy.'

Despite the role that Christianity has played in the character and formation of the United States – despite it's status as the majority religion in America and one of the three great world religions – I don't recall a single instance where a President and a Secretary of State and a general intervened on behalf of Christians with a plea for respect and restraint directed toward provocateurs who denigrated their faith. I certainly cannot recall any instance in which an anti-Christian provocateur has been told by such luminaries that his actions against Christianity might prompt Christians around the world to commit violent acts of retaliation. An offense against Islam, however, is a different story. When rumors began to circulate that a fundamentalist Christian pastor named Terry Jones was planning to burn the Koran on September 11th as a sign of American opposition to Islamic terrorism, darn near the entire government – from the military to the State Department to the FBI, even the President himself – weighed in.

So we're back to the original question: Why the double standard? Why do Muslims warrant special treatment in a country that prides itself on its ability to distinguish between the secular and the sacred? Dr. Mark Mitchell, author and Professor of Political Theory at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Virginia, offers an interesting perspective. Turns out, while the American constitution may view all religions as equally valid in the eyes of the law, not all religious traditions comport equally well with the principles embodied in the American constitution:

'Let's reverse the situation for a minute. Imagine that an obscure Imam in Kuwait decided to burn a pile of Bibles to commemorate the end of Ramadan. . . . The American response to a Muslim cleric burning Bibles might indicate an important fact about Christianity and about the American Constitutional order. Christ taught his disciples to turn the other cheek. To love their enemies. To pray for those who persecute them. Christianity at its best is a religion dedicated to loving God and loving one's neighbor. Thus, the proper Christian response to the Bible burning Imam is to pray for him. To pray as Christ did while on the cross: 'Father forgive them.' Peaceful persuasion rooted in prayer and characterized by love is the Christian ideal. Protests and violence (or the threat thereof) is not in keeping with the Christian faith; although, plenty of Christians have veered down that road to the detriment of the very faith they claim.

The American Constitutional order is one historically rooted in the Christian faith but separated from any established national church. In that sense, the American Constitutional order is secular in form but an outgrowth of a culture permeated by assumptions about human nature and moral truths born of Christianity. As a result, we enjoy a political sphere that can be influenced by the religious sphere while at the same time citizens are free to worship as they please and the state has no say over the content of religious beliefs. . . . There are no Muslim states that effect the separation of the state and the church save Turkey, an experiment imposed in the early twentieth-century by a strong ruler who was attempting to help Turkey become a modern nation. While Turkey certainly provides some evidence in support of the hope that Muslim nations can establish political institutions that are formally separated from the dominant religious institutions, the jury is still out and recent trends suggest a resurgence of Islamicist control. So the question remains: can Islam exist as a majority religion in a nation committed to religious pluralism and freedom of expression? This is one of the great questions of our time.'

Dr. Mitchell poses an excellent question, one that our leaders in Washington would do well to ponder. Should the American government abandon its ideals and compromise on its constitutional principles to appease a segment of the population who, because of their religion, refuses to integrate those principles into their way of life? Should we allow fear of violent retaliation abroad to prevent us from defending the exercise of constitutional liberties of American citizens here at home, however offensive and misguided their actions may be?

The President, for one, had no difficulty in standing up for the First Amendment rights of those wishing to build a Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero, despite the highly offensive nature of the project. He unequivocally stated his view that Muslim Americans have a right to build a mosque wherever they wish to build one, be it Ground Zero or any other location allowed by law. The inappropriateness of the project's proposed location didn't merit a word from the Commander in Chief. The insult to the memory of those that died on that spot nine years ago at the hands of fanatical Muslim terrorists didn't warrant a call for compassionate restraint.

The nuanced distinction between 'right' and 'rectitude' that the President should have acknowledged with regard to the Ground Zero mosque proposal was instead employed against the pastor in Florida, whose desire to burn the Koran was offensive and misguided – yet nonetheless protected by the Constitution. In this instance the President's focus shifted from the legality of the action to the appropriateness of the action. A call for restraint was issued, pressure was applied, and the pastor backed down.

At no time during the Koran-burning controversy did the President see fit to address the troubling fact that Muslims often respond violently whenever their religious sensibilities are offended. Yet the assassination of Theodore Van Gogh, the threats against Salman Rushdie and the violent response to the Danish cartoons that mocked Muhammed were not that long ago. Alas, the President and his emissaries seem resigned to the fact that Muslims often appear incapable of tolerating criticism of their faith with grace and civility. But is a policy of appeasement toward Islam a proper course under the Constitution? Does allowing Islam to occupy a 'criticism free zone' comport with American constitutional ideals? Or will such a policy increase the likelihood that the producers of 'Muslims Behaving Badly' will be all the more inclined to trot out their act the next time any critic of Islam deigns to speak unkindly of the Islamic faith?

The current clash of civilizations is not going away. Many European countries are struggling to deal with the fallout from tensions between their secular societies and Muslim immigrants. The American people need to know that they have a president who is prepared to protect and defend the liberties of all Americans, regardless of religion. When it comes to the Constitution, there is no room for double standards.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Mrs. B.O.: Hell Is Your Just Reward for Betrothing the Devil! by:John Lillipop | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010

2010-09-18T06:47:00.000-04:00

Mrs. B.O.: Hell Is Your Just Reward for Betrothing the Devil! by:John Lillipop | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010:

Poor Michelle Obama.

Despite having 30 or more servants satisfying her every temporal need and wish 24/7 in the White House;

Despite the fame and fortune that accrues to one fortunate enough to be the FLOTUS;

Despite lavish vacations in Europe that cost taxpayers close to one half million dollars;

Despite the full force and service of the Secret Service to protect she and her daughters;

Despite living a life of extravagant leisure and luxury while seven percent of the nation languishes in poverty;

Despite her pampered and protected life, Michelle Obama regards her situation as FLOTUS as “hell,” as least according to a book which quotes acquaintances of Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, France’s first lady.

Sorry, Michelle, but HELL is being unemployed, a situation exacerbated by your husband's anti-business zeal and lack of understanding;

HELL is the huge tax increases about to devastate all taxpayers because of your husband's insolence and arrogance;

HELL is being a senior citizen in frail health during the era of rationed care and death panels, both products of your husband's arrogant destruction of the finest health care system in the world;

HELL is having friend or family in Iraq where American men and women are still engaged in combat, a fact not appreciated by your husband;

HELL is being a parent living in the knowledge that your husband's reckless and irresponsible spending has bloated the federal deficit completely out of control;

HELL is living in Arizona where illegal aliens continue to invade America and where your husband refuses to secure the borders and enforce the laws, and even sues Arizona for defending American citizens from foreign invaders.

Above all else, HELL is living with the devil which you, Michelle, have as your just reward for betrothing the Evil One!

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Burn a Koran bad, burn a Holy Bible okay? - National Homeland Security | Examiner.com

2010-09-12T08:57:00.000-04:00

Burn a Koran bad, burn a Holy Bible okay? - National Homeland Security | Examiner.com: "

Panic Surrounding Rogue Pastor's Plan To Burn A Koran On The Anniversary Of 9/11

Political Correctness Run Amok As The President On Down Beg The Pastor From Florida Who Has About 50 Followers To Reconsider His Koran Burning Plan

The fear in the west concerning the potential backlash from the proposed burning of the Koran is most probably warranted. One need only look at the worldwide reaction from Muslims when a Dutch cartoonist published something not to their liking. Riots and death threats abounded.

The reactions of the west and of the Muslim world will typically vary in this regard. American Flag burning and rioting is more of the norm in some of these Muslim societies where in the west reactions to distasteful situations will be found most likely in editorials and on op-ed pages.

Christian missionaries may be kidnapped or killed based on the accusation of the 'crime' of spreading Christianity, where in the United States and elsewhere there truly exists freedom of religion.

How many churches or synagogues have been built in the Muslim world versus the number of mosques that have been built in the United States? Why worldwide outrage over the asking of the location of the Cordoba House to be moved several blocks away from Ground Zero?

Would the Japanese have been welcomed to build a Temple mere feet from Pearl Harbor in 1950?

How Some Parts Of The Muslim World Have Treated The Holy Bible In The Past, If The Argument Surrounds The Treatment of Holy Books?

I reprint here snippets from four stories that show examples of disregard for the Bible, courtesy of Plancks Constant.

1) 25 May 2005, Saudi Arabia Desecrates Hundreds of Bibles Annually

Washington DC - The Saudi government burns and desecrates hundreds of bibles its security forces confiscate after raids on Christian expatriates worshiping privately or at border crossings.

As a matter of official policy, the government either incinerates or dumps bibles, crosses and other Christian paraphernalia.

Hundreds of Christian worshipers are arrested every year by Saudi police in raids on their private gatherings. Bibles, crosses and printed materials are confiscated and later burnt or dumped into trash. Bibles and other Christian paraphernalia found with travelers into the country are confiscated and destroyed...

2) 10 Dec 2006, Muslim Students Urinate, Spit On Then Burn Bible

TWO Muslim students have been expelled from an Islamic school in Melbourne for urinating and spitting on a Bible and setting it on fire.

The explosive incident has forced the East Preston Islamic College to call in a senior imam to tell its 650 Muslim students that the Bible and Christianity must be respected.

Anxious teachers at the school have also petitioned principal Shaheem Doutie, expressing 'grave concern' about an 'inculcation of hatred and radical attitudes towards non-Muslims' at the school, including towards non-Muslim teachers...

3) 18 Jun 2007, Christians in Gaza Fear for Their Lives as Muslims Burn Bibles and Destroy Crosses

Father Manuel Musallem, head of Gaza's Latin church, told the AP that Muslims have ransacked, burned and looted a school and convent that are part of the Gaza Strip's small Romany Catholic community. He told the AP that crosses were broken, damage was done to a statue of Jesus, and at the Rosary Sister School and nearby convent, prayer books were burned...

4) 19 Dec 2008, Muslims burn Bible in Pakistan

Pervez Masih tells AsiaNews that on that day, he and others were whitewashing and decorating the little church for Christmas. They stopped at noon for lunch, leaving the church open. When they returned, they found the bible and other sacred texts reduced to ashes, and a handwritten letter telling them to convert to Islam if they wanted to 'live in peace' and avoid hell. In Pakistan, there is significant controversy over the law on blasphemy, condemning even to death those who offend the sacred book of Islam, the Qur'an. But nothing is done against blasphemous acts toward the books of other religions...

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Obama Braggadocio about Iraq: Another Failure! by:John Lillipop | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010

2010-09-06T10:21:00.000-04:00

Obama Braggadocio about Iraq: Another Failure! by:John Lillipop | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010: "He began his disastrous term as U.S. president by ordering the closure of GITMO. Thankfully, that order has never been carried out.

He then forced passage of a trillion-dollar stimulus bill which he promised would create and or save 3.5 to 4 million jobs, keep unemployment under 8 percent and save the American economy.
Those promises never materialized, unemployment is still a disgrace, and the economy is in the grips of an Obama-double-dip recession.

He escalated the war in Afghanistan, the so-called “right” war, but has failed to provide even a semblance of leadership for winning there. American mothers and fathers with sons and daughters in Afghanistan need to know that their offspring, although in the military by choice, are being commanded by a rank, anti-American amateur whose sole objective is to get the troops home in time to shore up his ratings in time for the 2012 presidential elections.
Should your son or daughter suffer injury or worse, the man running the show is all about winning—reelection, that is.

He has declared all-out war on American business, the engine of prosperity and the only entity that creates real jobs. When that and the ill-conceived stimulus notion devastate the economy, he seeks even more billions in economic aid.

On and on it goes, this president has failed the American people early every time he has become involved.

Obama’s latest failure was his disgusting self-congratulation about ending the war in Iraq.

As reported at Myway.com, in part:

“BAGHDAD (AP) - Days after the U.S. officially ended combat operations and touted Iraq's ability to defend itself, American troops found themselves battling heavily armed militants assaulting an Iraqi military headquarters in the center of Baghdad on Sunday. The fighting killed 12 people and wounded dozens.

“It was the first exchange of fire involving U.S. troops in Baghdad since the Aug. 31 deadline for formally ending the combat mission, and it showed that American troops remaining in the country are still being drawn into the fighting.

“The attack also made plain the kind of lapses in security that have left Iraqis wary of the U.S. drawdown and distrustful of the ability of Iraqi forces now taking up ultimate responsibility for protecting the country.

“Sunday's hour-long assault was the second in as many weeks on the facility, the headquarters for the Iraqi Army's 11th Division, pointing to the failure of Iraqi forces to plug even the most obvious holes in their security.”

Combat over, Mr. President?

Is there nothing this man can do right?

How about a “resignation” speech, Mr. President?

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq

2010-09-03T21:46:00.000-04:00

Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq: "WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop 'surge' in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a 'problem' that had barely reduced violence.

'The surge is not working,' Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an 'improved security situation' paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.

It praises G.I.s' 'hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.'

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is 'not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.'
GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. 'The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong,' said McCain, adding that Obama 'refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding.'

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Obama Is Not A Muslim - HUMAN EVENTS

2010-09-01T22:41:00.000-04:00

Obama Is Not A Muslim - HUMAN EVENTS:

The nonsense about President Obama being a Muslim has got to stop. I rise to defend him from this absurd accusation by pointing out that he is obviously an atheist.

Leave aside Obama's fanatical opposition to allowing Illinois hospitals to save the lives of babies with God-given souls inadvertently born alive during abortions. Also leave aside the fact that neither of his parents were Christians. And leave aside his current crop of 'spiritual advisers,' which is a collection of Mother Earth worshippers, polytheists and other nonbelievers.

Now rest from all that 'leaving aside.'

The only evidence for Obama's Christianity is that he faithfully attended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years.

Yes, the guy bellowing 'God damn America!' is the one vouching for Obama's Christianity. That's like saying you got sober with the help of your A.A. sponsor Lindsay Lohan.

It is a fact that any non-retarded person (thank you, Rahm Emanuel!) sitting in the Rev. Wright's church for 20 minutes, much less 20 years, does not believe in God. Even stepping inside Wright's church for a moment to get out of the rain is borderline racist.

Going to Trinity United Church of Christ is even stronger evidence of nonbelief than Bill Clinton returning from Sunday services to receive oral sex from Monica Lewinsky. This isn't mere sin -- everybody sins (though some with more frequency and less remorse than others).

Attending Wright's church is the conscious, calculated decision to immerse yourself in hate-filled demagoguery and call it 'Christianity.'

But according to North Korean TV's Chris Matthews, it is a provable, scientific fact that Obama is a Christian because he says so. 'Everybody watching right now,' Matthews said to his several viewers last week, 'gets credit for being of the religion you say you are. ... We accept that in America. It's called freedom of religion and respect for religion.'

That would make professions of religious belief, unlike all other self-professions, unchallengeable. Liberals say conservatives don't believe in civil rights. I say liberals are godless traitors. Why is one statement debatable and the other not?

Doesn't anyone question the Christianity of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker? How about the Satanists claiming to be Christians who stand outside soldiers' funerals with signs that say 'God Hates Fags'?

And, for the record, the allegedly inviolate assertion of one's own religious belief wasn't so inviolate when it came to Ronald Reagan.

Tip O'Neill used to question President Reagan's Christianity all the time, taunting the president for not attending church regularly. Matthews might remember that: He was working for O'Neill at the time.

In fact, parading to church in front of the TV cameras carrying a 10-pound Bible -- like a certain serial adulterer, impeached president I could name -- is strongly discouraged by the creator of the universe. ('Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.' Matthew 6.1)

Some conservatives have cited Obama's near complete refusal to go to church to suggest he's not the 'devout Christian' who 'prays every day' as the White House claims.

But that's not your proof, Christians. To the contrary, it's Obama's church attendance -- back in Chicago -- that proves he's an atheist.

This was inadvertently admitted by Obama's leading butt-boy, Richard Wolffe, on North Korean TV Monday night. Wolffe acknowledged that Wright's liberation theology was not Christianity, but then forcefully distinguished Obama from the Rev. Wright –- i.e., Obama's sole character witness for his alleged Christianity.

Of Glenn Beck's denunciation of liberation theology as a false religion, Wolffe said: 'Is he debating Jeremiah Wright or Barack Obama? They're two different people. If he wants to debate liberation theology with Wright, he's got something to talk about. But liberation theology hasn't been anything espoused by this president.'

But it was espoused in the only church Obama ever attended regularly -- for 20 years, no less -- was married in and had his daughters baptized in. The title of Obama's autobiography came from the title of one of Wright's sermons and snippets from Wright's sermons have appeared in Obama's work.

So the sole evidence of Obama's supposed Christianity is his longtime pastor, who everyone admits is a racist nut.

No sentient human is required to take Obama's profession of Christianity any more seriously than if it were coming from a 1980s blow-dried, money-grubbing televangelist with a mistress on the side.

All liberals are atheists. Only the ones who have to stand for election even bother pretending to believe in God.

Not being acquainted with any actual Christians, they aren't particularly good bluffers. That's why Democrats babble incoherently whenever the subject of religion comes up. Liberals acting devout always looks like the love scenes between Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis in 'Top Gun': awkward and unconvincing.

Former divinity student Al Gore famously botched a biblical verse, switching God's instruction that we put heaven before earthly things ('For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also,' Matthew 6:21) by saying we should make the Earth our treasure. (In the druidical religion of liberalism, not separating your recyclables is a sin, but abortion is just a medical procedure.)

Howard Dean told a reporter his favorite book of the New Testament was Job.

It took the Democrats' born-again Christian Jimmy Carter three decades to announce, in 2005, that he didn't think Jesus would approve of abortion ('unless the mother's life or health was in danger or perhaps the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest,' etc. etc.).

There's only one true Christian liberal in the country and that's Mike Huckabee.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Ground Zero Imam a Taxpayer-Subsidized Slumlord - HUMAN EVENTS

2010-08-30T16:05:00.000-04:00

Ground Zero Imam a Taxpayer-Subsidized Slumlord - HUMAN EVENTS: "The elitist, media-generated grand illusion of the Ground Zero mosque imam has begun to collapse under scrutiny.

New reports from The Record out of Hackensack, N.J., reveal Feisal Abdul Rauf, the would-be Ground Zero imam, owns taxpayer-subsidized apartment buildings in Hudson County where the tenants have made municipal health complaints including rat, roach and bedbug infestations, seeping toilets, leaks, urine-soaked hallways, no heat and no hot water.

Despite millions of dollars in government subsidies, Rauf has trouble maintaining several small apartment buildings in North Bergen, Palisades Park and Union City.

From the NewJersey.com report:

Page after page of municipal health records examined by The Record show repeated complaints ranging from failure to pick up garbage, to rat and bedbug infestations and no heat and hot water.

Cynthia Balko, 48, of Union City -- a longtime tenant of Rauf’s -- said she’s had to live with rats, leaks and no heat: “I don’t have anything nice to say about the man.”

Despite having received over $2 million in public funding for renovations, Rauf’s tenants were forced to file municipal health complaints to seek relief. One such single mother living in a Rauf-owned apartment in Union City said Rauf has not answered complaints.

From an additional story in The Record:

To understand her perspective, you need to go to a forlorn corner on the Jersey side -- to 22nd Street in Union City and a four-story apartment building owned by Rauf. The locks on a front door are broken and the hallway leading to [Melba] Lopez’s two-bedroom apartment smells of urine.

Looking east on 22nd Street -- back across the Hudson -- the Empire State building pokes the sky. On that side of the river, New York’s mayor speaks of Rauf as a symbol of religious freedom and last week invited the Imam’s wife, Daisy Khan, to dinner at Gracie Mansion to honor the Islamic celebration of Ramadan.

But in Union City, Lopez, a single mother, has another way of describing the man who has time to promote the so-called Ground Zero mosque, but does not seem to have time to answer her complaints about leaks in her toilet.

Lopez said in the report she has never met the would-be Ground Zero mosque imam but she says she has met Rauf’s wife Khan.

Lopez said she remembers Khan telling her that she and her husband did not have enough money to fix her leak and other problems in the building. What Lopez did not know was that at the same time, Rauf and Khan were trying to raise money for their mosque project on the other side of the Hudson.

According to the new reports, Rauf has a long history of taxpayer subsidies and grants for slum properties. There’s even a new revelation of a lawsuit settled in June over what the report terms a suit alleging fraud.

From the link:

[T]he suit alleged Rauf and Khan transferred ownership to another firm they owned and then obtained a $650,000 mortgage on the same building from a bank. After the building was damaged by fire in February 2008, Rauf and Khan stopped making mortgage payments to Cockinos, a former key executive at Daibes’ Mariner’s Bank. When Cockinos tried to foreclose, he discovered Rauf and Khan had switched ownership and filed suit alleging “fraud.”

The case was settled shortly before a June 28 trial, with Rauf and Khan agreeing to pay off the mortgage to Cockinos within the next few years, said the couple’s lawyer, Richard Rosa of Hackensack.

There is much more on Rauf and Khan’s current financial woes at the link.

The New York Post reported the site's developers owe hundreds of thousands in back taxes:

The mosque developers are tax deadbeats.

Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show.

El-Gamal's company, 45 Park Place Partners, failed to pay its half-yearly bills in January and July, according to the city Finance Department.

Sounds like a good time to raise $100 million for a mosque.

Reuters is reporting New York is considering granting the group a reported $70 million in public funding.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

EDITORIAL: Obama administration indicts America - Washington Times

2010-08-27T07:35:00.000-04:00

EDITORIAL: Obama administration indicts America - Washington Times: "

Move over Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Syria. The State Department has made it official: The United States violates human rights. In an unprecedented move, the Obama administration submitted a report to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights detailing the progress and problems in dealing with human rights issues in this country. The document is a strange combination of left-wing history and White House talking points.

It describes how the United States discriminates against the disabled, homosexuals, women, Native Americans, blacks, Hispanics and those who don't speak English. There is the expected pandering to Muslims, noting that the government is committed to 'challenge misperceptions and discriminatory stereotypes, to prevent acts of vandalism and to combat hate crimes,' offenses that the American people evidently keep committing. And the current economic woes are blamed on the housing crisis, which itself was the result of 'discriminatory lending practices.' The implication is that if Americans had only been less racist, they would be enjoying prosperity today.

The report notes that until recently, the U.S. engaged in torture, unlawfully detained terrorist suspects and illegally spied on Americans communicating with terrorists - but the report assures readers that Mr. Obama has been putting a stop to all that.

The main impact of the document will be to confirm critiques of the United States as a haven for hatred and rights abuses. It turns the Obama administration's domestic political agenda into an international scorecard by which other countries can judge American 'progress.' And it makes it that much more difficult for those abroad who have held up the United States as a model for the kind of liberal, capitalistic democracy they would like to see in their own countries.

'Progress is our goal,' the report proclaims, 'and our expectation thereof is justified by the proven ability of our system of government to deliver the progress our people demand and deserve.' This reflects the general tone of a report that sees the state, not the people, as the source of American progress. All the problems discussed have a corresponding federal solution, whether health care, nutrition, housing or any other issue. To read the report, one could conclude that, to the Obama administration, big government is not just everything - it is the only thing.

The authors claim that the United States does not, by filing the report, 'acknowledge commonality with states that systematically abuse human rights,' but of course it does. Dictatorships, authoritarian regimes and theocracies competing for legitimacy on the world stage have been handed a potent new weapon, the kind of assessment they would never offer about their own governments. The report also cautions that it should not be read to reflect 'doubt in the ability of the American political system to deliver progress for its citizens.' The authors of the report should understand that the doubts in the Obama administration to deliver progress are already well-established. And they come from the American people, who don't need the United Nations telling them to shape up.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

EDITORIAL: Obama administration indicts America - Washington Times

2010-08-27T07:34:00.000-04:00

&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;

MSNBC Swears to Allah that Obama's Not A Muslim - HUMAN EVENTS

2010-08-25T18:04:00.000-04:00

MSNBC Swears to Allah that Obama's Not A Muslim - HUMAN EVENTS: "

MSNBC's Monday programming was dedicated to denouncing Sen. Mitch McConnell's response to a question about whether Obama is a Muslim.

McConnell said: 'We all have to rely on the word of (Barack Obama) -- something about as reliable as a credit default swap.'

No, I'm sorry, that's what The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan said about whether Trig Palin was really Sarah Palin's child.

McConnell responded by demanding that Obama be fired -- or at least have his security clearance suspended.

No, no -- wrong again: That was Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Chuck Schumer, respectively, not taking Karl Rove at his word when he said he had not released Valerie Plame's name to the press. (It turned out Rove was telling the truth; it was Richard Armitage, and it wasn't a crime.)

What McConnell actually said in response to the Muslim question was: 'The president says he's a Christian. I take him at his word. I don't think that's in dispute.'

Over at MSNBC, that's Republican code for: 'He's a Muslim!'

North Korean TV's Ed Schultz hysterically babbled: 'McConnell gave cover. That's what he did. He gave cover to all those low information voters out there who still believe this garbage about President Obama being a Muslim. ... The Republican leadership just loves to feed the fire.'

Chris Matthews was so impressed with Schultz's nonsensical argument that he spent the entire hour on NKTV's 'Hardball' making the same one: McConnell had expressed insufficient fervor when he said he believed Obama was a Christian! (Perhaps if McConnell had added something about a thrill running up his leg ...)

The statement 'I take him at his word,' Matthews said, was a 'pitch-perfect dog whistle to the haters.' He continued: 'Yes, sure, whatever he says. Right. This is not about belief. It's an accusation that President Obama is not one of us. The right wing's attempt to de-Americanize the president.'

What else is there besides Obama's word? If Obama suddenly announced that he was a Muslim -- or a Buddhist -- what evidence would Matthews cite to prove him wrong?

Meanwhile, liberals absolutely refuse to take Republicans at their word when they identify their own children. Or deny leaking a low-level CIA functionary's name to the press. Or when they deny they are racists.

Indeed, Matthews' guest, Howard Fineman of Newsweek, accused the entire state of Kentucky of bigotry to explain McConnell's 'crafted' words.

Kentucky, Fineman said, is 'a state where the nativist appeal outside of Louisville really works big-time.' The Republicans, he said, are 'going to use whatever fear message they can. It's aimed at Kentucky, for sure.'

I believe the Bluegrass state has just been called 'nativist' without any evidence at all! Was Kentucky's father a nativist? Was it educated in a nativist madrassa as a child? Did Kentucky just endorse the idea of a nativist cultural center at Ground Zero?

On the following night's 'Hardball,' Tuesday, Matthews and his guest, The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page, refused to take Glenn Beck at his word when he said that he picked the day for his Lincoln Memorial rally without realizing it was the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King's 'I Have a Dream' speech. (Everybody knows the 47th anniversary is the big one!)

Accusations of racism apparently do not require the ironclad proof demanded for accusations that someone is a Muslim.

And there's a lot more evidence that Obama's a Muslim than Republicans are racists. Let's compare:

Evidence for the Proposition That Obama's a Muslim: His father was a Muslim; his mother, an atheist, married two Muslims; he attended a Muslim school in Indonesia from age 6 to 10; and, during the campaign, he proudly posted on his webpage his statement that America is 'no longer' a Christian nation, a statement he has repeated as president, while announcing on French TV that America is 'one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.'

Evidence for the Proposition That Republicans Are Racist: (Nothing so far.)

Evidence for the Proposition That Liberals Lie About Republicans Being Racist: Video of a supporter of Rand Paul's opponent pretending to be a racist Paul supporter; Oregon public school teacher Jason Levin caught operating a website asking liberals to show up at Tea Parties pretending to be right-wing racists; The New York Times' Maureen Dowd claiming she heard Rep. Joe Wilson shout, 'You lie, boy!' when he shouted 'You lie!' during Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress; and the mainstream media lying about civil rights hero John Lewis being called the N-word 15 times at an anti-ObamaCare protest, with no one ever being able to produce a videotape, despite a $100,000 reward.

If Republicans played by liberal rules, they'd just call Obama a racist, who leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press, is not Sasha's father, and smokes Newports, not Kools.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Michelle Malkin » Democrat Rep. Corrine Brown gets a taste of her own sandbagging medicine

2010-08-23T12:55:00.000-04:00

Michelle Malkin » Democrat Rep. Corrine Brown gets a taste of her own sandbagging medicine: "You’ll love this. Remember back in August 2008, when Democrat Rep. Corrine Brown commanded Jacksonville FL city officials to deliver sandbags to her home to protect her from rising floodwaters caused by Tropical Storm Fay? I blogged about the Jacksonville Times-Union story at the time:

U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown’s office asked Mayor John Peyton’s chief of staff to help protect her Jacksonville home from rising floodwater Friday.

Adam Hollingsworth, who once worked for Brown, told city workers to deliver sandbags to her home, something he now says was a judgment error. No one else would get such preferential treatment, he said when contacted by the Times-Union, and Brown will be billed by the city for reimbursement.

Hollingsworth also told city workers to deliver sandbags to City Councilwoman Denise Lee, this time unsolicited.

Peyton did not condemn Hollingworth’s actions, saying Friday he was “delighted our public works employees were able to help save these homes.”

Ronnie Simmons, Brown’s chief of staff, said the congresswoman’s area director called the city’s Public Works Office and asked for help. He said he thought the city offered sandbags to residents whose homes were being flooded.

…About a dozen white sandbags were stacked in front of Brown’s garage Friday night. A man outside the house Friday night told the Times-Union the bags were not delivered by the city. He was wearing a dark blue Emergency Operations Center shirt but said he didn’t work for the city.

Well, residents there have not forgotten her arrogance and abuse of office. And neither has her GOP challenger, Dean Black. He has launched a humorous “Stop the Sandbagging” campaign to remind voters of Brown’s hubris. She’s not laughing:

One day after her political opponent launched a tongue-in-cheek campaign to unseat her, Rep. Corrine Brown fired back.

Dean Black launched a campaign Monday called “Stop the Sandbagging.” It’s a campaign that reminded voters of an August 2008 controversy when Brown requested sand bags be brought to her home during Tropical Storm Fay. Though she denied receiving special treatment from the city, her neighbors said similar requests from them had no response.

Black said that when his supporters contribute $24.95 to his campaign, he will have sand bags delivered to Brown’s home. However, Brown said Tuesday that she will seek prosecution if Black follows through on his pledge.

“Because this is not no game,” Brown said. “Don’t bring no trash to my yard!”

She said if the sand bags come, she is prepared to call the police.

Black is not backing down. Two thumbs up for this clever and inspired campaigning.

Congresswoman Sandbag has gotten a taste of her own medicine.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Hey, Obama. This Is God Callling. - HUMAN EVENTS

2010-08-19T16:54:00.000-04:00

Hey, Obama. This Is God Callling. - HUMAN EVENTS:

"I know you’re getting ready to head out on vacation (again). But we need to talk.

There’s a Time poll out today showing that 24% of Americans think you’re Muslim (the media reports stress that belief is incorrect).

Why is it that everyone in the country knows you like to golf/play basketball, but they don’t know your religion? Don’t blame it on the media or George W. Bush. Blame it on how you prioritize your time.

I’ve given you the freedom to worship however you choose. But choosing to worship as a Christian comes with responsibilities, particularly if you’ve also chosen to put yourself in a public leadership position.

And right now, looking at your record, you seem to be doing anything but leading by example.

It’s impossible for people to judge without a doubt what’s in your heart and what your intentions are. That’s my job. But that’s also why I’ve set up a system on earth where actions speak as loud as words. So let’s make correcting your record a top priority.

First, take your kids to church. Regularly. Particularly on Christmas. You missed last year. Think I didn’t notice?

I know you’re worried about inconveniencing church-goers in D.C. That’s gracious of you. But looking at your dismal approval ratings, I think more Americans -- even those dealing with the inconvenience -- would feel better seeing you in church asking for help rather than you just staying away.

Second, when you’re in church, actually pay attention to what the pastor is saying. I’m not really sure how you stayed 20 years at a church where the pastor’s philosophy was more radical than anything even the Democrats have accused the Tea Party of. I don’t know how you let a man baptize your daughters who believes God should “damn” America. That tells me your Christian faith may not be very important to you.

Third, if you can fit in this many games of golf, you can fit in going to church more regularly.

I understand you want to be ecumenical. But a great tool in being ecumenical is being the best example of your own faith. People respect someone who acts like they believe what they’re saying.

So, have a good vacation. See you on Sunday?

~ God

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Political Islam // Articles // The Mosque: A State within a State

2010-08-16T11:49:00.000-04:00

Political Islam // Articles // The Mosque: A State within a State: "THE MUSLIM MOSQUE: A STATE WITHIN A STATE

by Vijay Kumar

THE KABAH IN MECCA WAS NOT BUILT AS AN ISLAMIC MOSQUE. It was an ancient temple that had been shared by polytheists, Christians, Jews, and Hindus, honoring 360 different deities. In 630 A.D. the Kabah was captured by Islam in its military invasion and conquest of Mecca.

On the day of its capture, Mohammed delivered an address at the Kabah in military dress and helmet, according to Ayatullah Ja’far Subhani in his book, “The Message”:

“Bear in mind that every claim of privilege, whether that of blood or property is abolished . . . I reject all claims relating to life and property and all imaginary honors of the past, and declare them to be baseless . . . A Muslim is the brother of another Muslim and all the Muslims are brothers of one another and constitute one hand as against the non-Muslims. The blood of every one of them is equal to that of others and even the smallest among them can make a promise on behalf of others.” —Mohammed

Mohammed’s address at the Kabah overthrew the Meccan government and declared all of Islam, anywhere in the world, to be a political and military state against all non-Muslims, regardless of the non-Muslims’ political, geographical, or national origins.

“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him.” —Koran 3:85

Although the rightful owners of the Kabah are the many religions that shared it before the Islamic military conquest of Mecca, according to Subhani the Kabah today is under the control of a hereditary regime going back to Mohammed: “currently the 12th Imam from the direct descent of the Prophet of Islam is the real protector, its custodian and guardian.”

All Islamic mosques everywhere in the world are required to have a clear visible indication pointing in the direction of Mecca and the Kabah, where the international political and military state of Islam was founded. In most mosques there is a niche in the wall—the mihrab—that points toward the seat of Islamic power. Each mosque, like the Kabah, is governed by an Imam in compliance with the political documents of Islam.

Mosques and the Political Documents of Islam

The Koran is the supreme political document of Islam—its political manifesto and political constitution. It is the only constitution of the nation-state Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Mecca and the Kabah, where all mosques point, and is the birthplace of Islam.

The Koran is a totalitarian constitution. It demands submission by anyone within its jurisdiction. The Koran governs all mosques everywhere in the world.

As a political document, the Koran asserts that everyone in the world is within its jurisdiction. So far, Islam has not been able to enforce that totalitarian claim on the entire world, but has managed to do so through threat, infiltration, violence, terrorism, and coercion on roughly 20% of the world. It is engaged in a 1400-year-long Universal Jihad to dominate the rest of the world. All mosques are its outpost headquarters.

Central to the Koran’s political mandates is prohibition of religious freedom and religious tolerance, along with denouncements of religions such as Christianity and Judaism.

“O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.” —Koran 5:51

“Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” —Koran 9:5

All mosque leaders must be loyal to and supportive of these political and militaristic mandates.

The Koran as a political document also forbids separation of church and state. That is why every Islamic nation, where Islamic leaders have managed to gain power, is a theocracy, ruled by the Koran and Islamic Sharia law.

The Hadith (reported sayings and acts of Mohammed) and the Sira (the official biographies of Mohammed) are the other political documents that, along with the Koran, constitute the basis for Islam’s Sharia law.

“There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” —Syed Qutb

Sharia law is administered by Islamic Imams who interpret the law and hand down rulings in their sole discretion. Sharia law does not allow trial by jury. Sharia law also mandates a double standard of laws for Muslims (believers) and infidels (non-believers). Sharia law mandates a discriminatory tax, called jizya, on non-Islamic religions and nations:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah...until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” —Koran 9:29

Sharia law also mandates discrimination toward women, and forbids any criticism of Islam or its founder, stifling freedom of speech.

Sharia law also mandates that all men are slaves with no right to freedom of religion:

“Allah’s right on His slaves is that they should worship Him (Alone) and should not worship any besides Him.” —Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:108, Narrated Mu’adh

Sharia law does not allow for separation of church and state. Sharia regards church and state as one inseparable entity governing every aspect of individual and social life, both spiritual and secular. That is why all Islamic nations are theocracies.

In short, Sharia law stands in direct opposition to the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. The implementation of Sharia law demands the overthrow of the American Constitution and our form of government and system of laws. Mosque leaders, in every nation in the world, are loyal to the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira, and consider them divine law, and therefore supreme over all manmade laws.

Other political and military documents of Islam include treaties of Mohammed, which are held in reverence by Islam as models of conduct in relations between nations.

“Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah [Mohammed] a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah.” —Koran 33:21

“War is deceit.” —Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:268, Narrated Abu Hurarira

In one treaty proposal, to Jaifer and Abd, Mohammed wrote:

“If you two accept Islam, your country will, as usual, remain with you. But if you refuse or object, it is a perishable thing.” —Mohammed

In another, to the Chiefs of Aqaba, he wrote:

“It is better for you either to accept Islam or agree to pay Jizya and consent to remain obedient to Allah . . . If you do not accept these terms . . . I shall have to wage war (to bring peace and security).” —Mohammed

These same patterns and political mandates have been used over and over by Muslims since 610 A.D. to invade and conquer many civilizations and nations throughout the world, and to eradicate human rights and freedoms in those lands. Iran once was called Persia and was Zorastrian. Egypt was Christian. What was once a Hindu civilization was conquered and made into Pakistan, which is now part of the Axis of Jihad, along with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was Buddhist for thousands of years. Now its chief exports are heroin and Islamic terrorism.

“When We decide to destroy a population, We (first) send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then (it is) We destroy them utterly.” —Koran 17:16

In every instance where Islam has conquered and “destroyed utterly” a nation or civilization, the key to the conquest was the establishment of mosques, which are political and military command and control centers for Islam, and which all point toward the seat of Islamic power: the Kabah.

Mosques and the Fallacy of the “Moderate Muslim”

The majority of Germans during World War II were not active members of the Nazi party, were not waging war, and were not involved in the holocaust. The leaders, though, were active members of the Nazi party, were waging war, and were involved in the holocaust.

The majority of Russians and eastern Europeans under the rule of the U.S.S.R. were not trying to spread Communism throughout the world, and were not threatening and waging war and revolution, but were going about their daily lives trying to survive. The leaders, though, were doing everything they could to spread Communism throughout the world, and were threatening and waging war and revolution.

Throughout history, since 610 A.D., the leaders of Islam have been waging Universal Jihad around the world for the purpose of Islamic totalitarian domination of the world. It has never mattered what percentage of the Muslim population was “peaceful” or “moderate.” Peace and moderation are not relevant to the totalitarian mandates of Islam’s political documents, and Islam’s leaders always follow the totalitarian mandates of Universal Jihad contained in them.

There are post-Nazi democracies. There are post-Communist democracies. There are no post-Islamic democracies. Literal Islam, as contained in its political documents, is the consummate totalitarianism. Neither Nazism or Communism had a metaphysical factor, as does Islam. Islam uses its metaphysics as a wedge to drive in its totalitarian political doctrines.

Once Islam has established itself sufficiently in any nation, it seeks to overthrow any existing regime or constitution or law, and replace it with Islamic theocracy. Even the most “moderate” Muslim is bound to obey Islamic law, and so is bound to fight if ordered to fight:

“When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:79:Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas

All Islamic mosques have Islamic leaders (rulers) who can call Muslims for fighting, and as such are satellite headquarters for spreading Literal Islam’s political doctrine of world domination and totalitarianism—no matter how many “moderate Muslims” they serve.

Mosques and the Worldwide Islamic State

Islam is a de facto political state wherever it exists anywhere in the world. The Koran is its constitution. The Kabah is its seat of power, still in the control of the regime that occupied it in 630 A.D. All Muslims in the world, regardless of nationality, are required to travel to the Kabah at least once in their lifetime and pay homage to it.

The fact that nations and international political institutions in the world do not recognize Islam as a de jure state is irrelevant. Mohammed himself declared it as a state, and Islam’s own political documents declare it to be a state, and, ipso facto, it always is a state-within-a-state, governed by the Koran and Sharia law internally, anywhere that it has not yet gained full power and control.

“The Believers are but a single brotherhood.” —Koran 49:10

“A Muslim has no nationality except his belief.” —Syed Qutb

“Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” — Syed Abul A’ala Maududi

Just as our Constitution of the United States binds and identifies us as a single political and legal union of non-contiguous states, territories, political groups, and people, so the Koran binds and identifies all Islamic nations and all Muslims as a single political and legal union of non-contiguous nations, territories, political groups and people, regardless of geographic boundaries, whose seat of power is the occupied Kabah. All Islamic Imams, in every mosque everywhere in the world, are bound to the Koran as supreme law.

As we have seen, Islamic law gives Islamic Imams the power to order Muslims to fighting. The German Max Weber, who had considerable influence on international law and politics, defined “state” as that entity that has a “monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”

Islam declares that the Koran and Sharia law are divine, and, as such, are the only “legitimate” law in the world. In that way, Islam “self-legitimizes” its right to use physical force anywhere in the world, and the right of every Imam in every mosque in the world to call for physical force and violence at any time. This makes every Imam in every mosque a military leader.

Islam is a state by every definition and theory, and is a state hostile to and at war with the United States of America and its Constitution.

Mosques and Treason and Sedition Against the U.S.

Islam’s political documents and law call for the overthrow of our Constitution and our man-made laws, and therefore for the overthrow of our government, which by definition constitutes sedition and treason. The Islamic documents call for the overthrow of our government—a protector of religious freedom and human rights—through violence:

“I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘there is no god but Allah.’” —Mohammed’s farewell address, 632

“I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:196 Narrated Abu Huraira

“He who fights so that Allah’s Word (Islam) should be superior, then he fights in Allah’s cause.” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 1:3:125 Narrated Abu Musa

“I asked the Prophet [Mohammed], ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and to fight for His Cause.’” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 3:46:694 Narrated Abu Dhar

“And fight them till there is no more affliction (i.e. no more worshiping of others along with Allah)”. —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 6:60:40 Narrated Nafi’

“Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers.” —Koran 3.151

“I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” —Koran 8:12

“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.” —Koran 8:60

The Koran, as the constitution of Islam and Muslims, is diametrically opposite to the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. According to Islam and Muslims, the Koran is divine law, uncorrupted and incorruptible, whereas the United States Constitution is man-made and is not infallible, and therefore is corrupt. The U.S. Constitution is the antithesis of the Koran; therefore Muslims have no obligation to obey it.

A mosque in the United States is a command and control center of a foreign political and military state that seeks the overthrow of our government, and an Imam in a mosque is a political and military representative of a foreign state that calls for the overthrow of the United States.

The laws of the United States provide specific criminal penalties for sedition and treason. These laws are not only applicable to those advocating and calling for the overthrow of our Constitution and our government; they are applicable to anyone who gives “aid or comfort” to such declared enemies of the United States, or who “organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons” so engaged. The terms “organizes” and “organize” extend to “the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.”

Mosques are just such units.
______________________

Vijay Kumar is a Republican candidate for U.S. Congress from Tennessee's 5th District. A native of Hyderabad, India, Mr. Kumar lived in Iran during the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when he came to the United States. A naturalized American citizen, Mr. Kumar has lived in Nashville, Tennessee for 24 years. He has been married to his wife, Robin, a native of Bowling Green, Kentucky, for 27 years, and they have three children, two of whom are adopted.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Political Islam

2010-08-16T11:17:00.000-04:00

Political Islam: "Take the Acid Test for Islamophobia

July 28, 2010

A favorite comeback for someone who is critical of Islam is—you are Islamophobic. Never mind that the term phobic means an irrational fear. Really, the charge is that you are irrational AND a bigot. A bigot is immoral and a hater and has no possible reason for their views.

There is a cure for bigotry. If you are a bigot, learning about the subject of bigotry can cure it. Clint Eastwood’s character in Grand Torino started out as a bigot about the Hmong Vietnamese who moved in next door. As he got to know them, he changed and gave the ultimate sacrifice of his life to help them. The cure for his bigotry was getting to know more about his neighbors, the Hmong.

Notice this does not say that as you get to know them, you will always like them better. There are people and groups that the more you know them, the less you like them. As you see what they do and how they think, you may actually start to fear them. Not being a bigot doesn’t mean that you love everybody and what they do. In the sixties, the Black Panthers had a revolutionary, “stick it to the man”, image that was cool. However, the more you got to know them and see what they did, you learned that the Panthers were serious racist thugs and dangerous to society. So just because someone is “oppressed” does not mean that they are decent people.

Want to see if you are an Islamophobe? Let’s presume that you don’t like Islamic doctrine, Sharia law as an example, and would like to take the test to see if you are a bigot. Remember, if you are a bigot, then the more you get to know Islam, the better you will feel.

Here are some concepts from Islamic doctrine, so that you can understand it better. Islam says that non-Muslims are Kafirs. Allah hates Kafirs and He even plots against them. Kafirs can be tortured, deceived, enslaved, crucified, raped and robbed. How important are Kafirs to Islam? Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (his traditions). Look at how much of Islam is devoted to the Kafir:

If the Kafir is “bad”, then there is a lot of “bad”. How does your cultural sensitivity feel now? Feel any closer to Islam, any less afraid?

Maybe, you need a little more exposure to become warmer towards Islam. Jihad should cure your ills. Isn’t the jihad thing overblown? There are only a few verses about that, aren’t there? Look at the statistics:

Now that you are learning more about Islam, are your fears subsiding?

Still afraid? Every Muslim will tell you that Islam was the first ideology to give women their rights. If we take everything that is written about women in the Koran and rank it according to whether the woman is held in high status, equal status and lower status, we find:

How does the women’s issue strike you? Are you feeling more simpatico? Less Islamophobic?
So, you took the Islamophobia test. Now that you know Islam better, do you now understand and realize that your Islamophobia was bigoted hatred?
Surely, this test is biased. There must be some goodness in Islam for Kafirs. If you go through the Koran and pick out every single verse that offers good words, doesn’t that prove that Islam is good?

If every single verse that seems to promise good to Kafirs is counted up, then 2.6% of the verses offer good to Kafirs. But, wait! There is that contradiction and abrogation contradiction principle. The Koran is filled with verses that contradict each other and in every case of good verses, the 2.6%, are cancelled or abrogated, by later verses. The net result is 0%, nothing, is unmitigated good in the Koran for the Kafir.

You have finished the Islamophobe Test. Feel closer to Islam? Or more afraid? If you feel closer and warmer about Islam, then you were Islamophobic, but now you are cured. If not, then your fears are real, not a phobia. Islam is like the Black Panthers—the more you know, the less you like and the more you are afraid.

Bill Warner,
Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink /blog/the-acid-test-for-islamophobia/
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Liberals Giddy Over Perceived Good News by:J.J. Jackson | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010

2010-08-11T06:40:00.000-04:00

Liberals Giddy Over Perceived Good News by:J.J. Jackson | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010: "Any time I get a couple emails from liberals with nearly the exact same wording of a specific talking point I know that someone is feeding them what to say. Last week, while I was on vacation, the talking point appears to be that the 71,000 net jobs gained by private companies means that the recovery is well underway and the Obamanomics, the policy of tax and bailout, has worked.

Of course, this is not the first time liberals have tried this line of attack on our stagnant economy. The typical cycle goes like this. A slew of bad news is interrupted by some singular piece of good news, or at least perceived good news when taken out of context. This leads to claims that everything is getting better and how great President Obama is. I get lots of emails telling me how it is all over for the “right wing” and that socialism has been proven to be the great savior of America. Quickly however more and more bad news comes out and quickly overwhelms this singular tidbit, the giddy emails cease and the country continues on in misery.

Here is why that report about 71,000 new private sector jobs is a piece of news taken out of context to make it sound like good news. Just look at the overall numbers to see why we are in deep doo-doo. I will used the “seasonally adjusted” data in this article because that is what is being touted when they talk about the unemployment rate hanging steady at 9.5%. Personally I think the “seasonally adjusted” numbers are just a way to massage the raw data and hide true numbers. For example, if you look at the raw, seasonally unadjusted numbers for the past month the unemployment rate rose from 9.6% in June to 9.7% in July. Incidentally that is the same as it was a year ago. Incidentally incidentally the true unemployment rate including under employed souls is nearly twice this percentage.

Now, let’s look at why that 71,000 new private sector jobs are nothing to get excited about. In fact they very well could be a blip and I guarantee you that they have nothing to do with Obamanomics. Here are the seasonally adjusted numbers for the civilian labor force (source Department of Labor http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm )
Employment status, sex, and age Seasonally adjusted(1)
July Mar. Apr. May June July
2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010
Civilian noninstitutional population 235,870 237,159 237,329 237,499 237,690 237,890
Civilian labor force 154,351 153,910 154,715 154,393 153,741 153,560
Participation rate 65.4 64.9 65.2 65.0 64.7 64.6
Employed 139,817 138,905 139,455 139,420 139,119 138,960
Employment-population ratio 59.3 58.6 58.8 58.7 58.5 58.4
Unemployed 14,534 15,005 15,260 14,973 14,623 14,599
Unemployment rate 9.4 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.5
Not in labor force 81,519 83,249 82,614 83,107 83,949 84,330
Persons who currently want a job 5,978 6,044 5,951 5,734 5,895 5,886

In July of 2010 the government was shedding Census jobs like the plague. Some 200,000 total government workers went of which about 130,000 were Census workers. Now look at the numbers from July 2009 to July 2010. We are 791,000 workers less than a year ago and out noninstitutional population is up 2,020,000 in the same time (see above chart).

This all translates to an employment ratio nearly a whole percentage point lower than a year ago and even one tenth of a percent lower than in June.

Lots of people are simply, giving up looking for work. That is the only reason the numbers, cooked as they are, look as good as they do. The number of people who “want a job” is also down from a year ago after being at just over 6,000,000 in March of this year.

Is any of this good news? Heck no!

And if you think that 71,000 private sector jobs is a “good sign” that President Obama’s misplaced and highly unconstitutional economic actions are working then you need to think again. To just get back to the number of jobs we had a year ago we would need 11 months of this anemic growth. And that is, might I remind you, just to get back to a year ago. To get back to two or three years ago? Well, you do the math on that.

Now let the giddiness subside.

Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

While Obama preaches sacrifice, his family frolics in Spain

2010-08-09T22:01:00.000-04:00

While Obama preaches sacrifice, his family frolics in Spain: "While Obama preaches sacrifice, his family frolics in Spain
PETER NICHOLAS AND KATHERINE SKIBA, WASHINGTON
August 8, 2010

First Lady Michelle Obama and her daughter Sasha spent Saturday morning sight-seeing in the historic Spanish city of Ronda.

AS THE US economy endures high unemployment and a jittery stock market, President Barack Obama has preached sacrifice and fiscal discipline. But the pictures coming out of a sun-splashed Spanish resort may be sending a different message.

First lady Michelle Obama is in the midst of a five-day trip to a luxury resort along with a handful of friends, her younger daughter, aides and Secret Service. Her office said the Obamas would pay for personal expenses, but would not reveal the taxpayer cost for the government employees.

Elected officials - Democrats and Republicans - were reluctant to weigh in, not wanting to appear critical of the President's wife. But the trip provided fodder for television news shows, talk-show hosts and bloggers. Critics portrayed the foreign getaway as tone-deaf to the deep economic anxiety back home. Every first family takes vacations: the criticism aimed at Mrs Obama is that she chose to visit a foreign country rather than remain in the US and support its fragile economy.
Sasha, daughter of U.S. first lady Michelle Obama, bathes in the Mediterranean Sea in Estepona during their vacation in southern Spain. Picture: Reuters/Jon Nazca

Sasha, daughter of U.S. first lady Michelle Obama, bathes in the Mediterranean Sea in Estepona during their vacation in southern Spain. Picture: Reuters/Jon Nazca

Just last month, Mrs Obama flew to the Florida panhandle, a tourist draw hit hard by the oil spill crisis, and delivered the message that for parents ''looking for things to do with their kids this summer … this is a wonderful place to visit''.

The opulence of the European trip also has drawn scrutiny. Mr Obama has urged frugality in lean economic times. He once cautioned that families saving money for college shouldn't ''blow a bunch of cash in Vegas''.

Mrs Obama is staying at the Hotel Villa Padierna, a Ritz-Carlton resort outside Marbella. It has two golf courses, a spa with Turkish baths, views of the Mediterranean and a restaurant specialising in avant-garde fare. Room rates start at $US400 ($A436.73) and rise to $US6500 for a two-bedroom villa.
Michelle Obama leaves the Spanish resort. Pictures: Reuters, AFP

Michelle Obama leaves the Spanish resort. Picture: AFP

Mrs Obama flew in on a type of aircraft used by Vice-President Joe Biden. It costs the government $US11,555 an hour to operate the plane, according to the air force. Assuming a nearly eight-hour flight to nearby Malaga, the total round-trip cost of the flight is about $US178,000.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Barack Obama: 49 Going on 12 by:John Lillipop | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010

2010-08-05T08:20:00.000-04:00

Barack Obama: 49 Going on 12 by:John Lillipop | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010:

"By John W. Lillpop

President Obama, once adored by the unwashed masses as The Omnipotent One, is now known as The Impotent One.

Things have gotten so bad for Obama that voters are no longer hesitant about challenging the president, even on his birthday which is August 4.

This year’s birthday message to Obama comes from the great state of Missouri where the people sent our fascist poser a message that roughly translates to, “Get stuffed—sir!”

At issue was ObamaCare, Democrats’ attempt to take health care out of the hands of individual citizens and deliver it as another part of life that is dictated by the government.

And why not? What with the great successes of the federal government in managing Social Security, Medicare, the federal deficit, unemployment, and other issues of great importance, why not include health care as an issue that government controls?

However, the people of Missouri beg to differ as reported at Yahoo.com, in part:

“WASHINGTON – Missouri voters' overwhelming opposition to requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance puts one of the least popular parts of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law back in the political crosshairs.

“Even if the vote sets no legally binding precedent, it will help mobilize foes of Obama's agenda in the fall midterm elections, and that could make a difference in some states with close congressional races that could decide the balance of power in Washington.

“On Tuesday, Missouri voters cast 71 percent of their ballots in favor of a state measure to bar the government from requiring people to carry health insurance, and penalizing those who don't.”

Seventy one percent, Mr. President! Who would have imagined that there were that many right-wing racists in Missouri, sir?

In any event, Happy 49th!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100804/ap_on_el_ge/us_health_overhaul_insurance_mandate

Contributor's website: http://voiceoflillpop.blogspot.com/

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Obama: The Great Appeaser - HUMAN EVENTS

2010-08-04T14:14:00.000-04:00

Obama: The Great Appeaser - HUMAN EVENTS:

"In just one month Americans will once again pause to remember a day that forever changed our country. On September 11, 2001 radical Islam attacked America. They murdered our families, friends, and co-workers. Over 3,000 died and millions suffered.

Today, President Obama continues to demonstrate that he cares more about tolerance and hand holding than defending our country from violent religious fanatics, who are born and raised to wish only “death to America.” This is not propaganda. Their hatred is well documented.

Obama has banned the use of the words “jihadist,” “Islamist” and “Islamic terrorism” from being used within his administration and instructed others to call them “a loose network of violent extremists.”

His administration was responsible for the courts martial of three Navy SEALs who valiantly captured one of the worlds most violent and disgusting Islamic terrorists’ because he claimed he was punched in the mouth.

Obama wants Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks) to be given a civilian trial in downtown New York City rather than a military tribunal.

And his administration has ignored the Pentagon’s recommendations regarding the best way to win the war in Afghanistan.

Yesterday New York City’s Landmarks Commission voted unanimously to allow the building of a 13 story, $100 million dollar mosque and Islamic center called “Cordoba House” just two blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan.

As HUMAN EVENTS explains “Throughout Islamic history, the placement of mosques has been an expression of conquest and superiority over non-Muslims…

Even the proposed name of the Ground Zero mosque, “Cordoba House,” is a clear historical reference to the Spanish city where a church was converted into a mosque after the city was conquered by a Muslim army.”

Enough is enough Mr. President. Peaceful Muslims can build mosques anywhere they want -- but to allow a million dollar mosque to be erected where American blood was spilled in the name of Allah is pledging allegiance to the wrong country.

History is written by the victors, and we are losing.

Sign the petition -- along with thousands of Americans -- to STOP THE MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO

* Today’s Daily Events column marks my last with HUMAN EVENTS. After serving as assistant managing editor since 2007, I would like to thank the HUMAN EVENTS readers who took the time to share their thoughts and feelings on my colums through the years. Keep up the good fight.

“We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.” - Winston Churchill

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Mongrels in the White House! by:Gene Lalor | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010

2010-07-31T08:17:00.000-04:00

Mongrels in the White House! by:Gene Lalor | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010: "Today, in A.D. 2010, Americans have been forbidden to use certain words and, if those words are used in conjunction with a crime, that crime becomes a thought hate crime and the penalties increase commensurately.

The word “nigger” has been deemed the worst word in the English language and some black groups are demanding it be banned, expunged from our nomenclature, never to be uttered or written or thought of again. When people get on board the word-banning train, spic, kike, guinea, dago, mick, chink, and a few others will probably be consigned to that same verbotten language scrap heap.

Mongrel, however, may escape banishment and expurgation.

According to Wikipedia, the word mongrel in botany refers to a non-hybrid species of plants, to mutts or mixed breeds in the animal kingdom, and, with humans is a “derogatory term for the mixing of ‘races’, known as miscegnation.” The Free Online Dictionary includes as part of the definition, “irregular or inferior or of dubious origin.”

America’s president, Barack Hussein Obama, used that derogatory term to refer to himself, and presumably to all blacks, semi-blacks, mulattos, and high yellows during his Thursday, non-telepromptered appearance on ”The View.”

“When asked about his background, which includes a black father and white mother, Obama said of African-Americans: ‘We are sort of a mongrel people.’ ” He elaborated, “I mean we’re all kinds of mixed up. That’s actually true of white people as well, but we just know more about it. “

He further added, “there’s still a reptilian side of our brain” that leads people to not trust others “if somebody sounds different or looks different.” http://tiny.cc/ng72i

Huh? Mongrels? Reptiles? This is the president of the United States speaking?

Those off-the-cuff remarks are notable on a number of levels.

First, they’re a further indicator that race is a prime factor if not the only factor in how this man thinks and operates. It’s what he’s all about and explains much about his policies. Also, he clearly does not consider himself in any way white. So much for the myth of post-racialism.

Second, comparing himself and all African-Americans to “a mongrel people,” much like what white racists claimed in bygone times, reflects a distinct inferiority complex.

Third, he is demeaning whites as well with the mongrel label and saying we, too, are “all kinds of mixed up,” but we’re too ignorant to realize it.

In Obama’s defense, perhaps he was unaware of the loaded connotations of the word “mongrel,” but that would imply he isn’t quite the most brilliant individual to ever occupy the Oval Office. The next thing people will say is that he believes the United States has 57 states and that the word “corps,” as in Marine Corps, is pronounced corpse.

It’s just a damned good thing that the president is half black or, as he feels, all black. Otherwise, we’d be looking at race riots coast to coast that would rival Watts and Detroit over his reference to blacks as irregular, inferior mutts!

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

UPDATE: USCIS Memo Details Obama Administration Plan for Executive Action Amnesty | NumbersUSA - For Lower Immigration Levels

2010-07-30T08:57:00.000-04:00

UPDATE: USCIS Memo Details Obama Administration Plan for Executive Action Amnesty | NumbersUSA - For Lower Immigration Levels: "A newly revealed memo, obtained by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) who is leading the fight against amnesty, shows Obama Administration officials offering a detailed plan that would offer actual or de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens without Congress ever taking a vote.

The 11-page memo, drafted by Chief of Policy and Strategy for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Denise Vanison, outlines the various ways to offer a mass amnesty to the nation's 11-18 million illegal aliens through the use of administrative actions. The stated purpose of the memo is to offer 'administrative relief options to promote family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization.'

'The memo proposes 18 different ways for the Obama Administration to essentially eliminate our borders through regulatory fiat and in clear violation of the letter and the spirit of U.S. immigration laws, which Obama swore an oath to faithfully execute,' said NumbersUSA's Director of Government Relations Rosemary Jenks.

The memo is an alternative plan to amnesty 'in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.' In addition to using deferred action and parole, which were previously identified in two separate letters drafted by Sen. Grassely and signed by 11 other Senators (read the first and second letters), the memo outlines ways that USCIS can extend benefits and protections to individuals and groups of people by lessening the standards used in 'extreme hardship' cases.

Item 4 in the memo outlines ways the Obama Administration can provide amnesty for millions of illegal aliens through the 'extreme hardship' provision. It would 'encourage many more spouses, sons, and daughters of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to seek relief without fear of removal. It would also increase the likelihood that such relief would be granted.' Section 4 reads:

Lessen the Standard for Demonstrating 'Extreme Hardship'

The Act at 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) and (II) renders inadmissible for 3 or 10 years individuals who have been unlawfully present in the U.S. for 180 days or one year respectively, and then depart. By statute, DHS has discretion to waive these grounds of inadmissibility for spouses, sons and daughters of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents if the refusal to admit such individuals would result in extreme hardship to their qualifying relatives. Generally, the 'extreme hardship' standard has been narrowly construed by USCIS.

To increase the number of individuals applying for waivers, and improve their chances of receiving them, CIS could issue guidance or a regulation specifying a lower evidentiary standard for 'extreme hardship.' This would promote family unity, and avoid the significant human and financial costs associated with waiver denial decisions born of an overly rigid standard. This revised standard would also complement expanded use of PIP as set forth in B.

In addition to lessening the standard for demonstrating 'extreme hardship', the memo details many more options that 'have the potential to result in meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action.'

Other options include: allowing aliens in the United States under Temporary Protected Status to adjust their status to Legal Permanent Resident, extending 'grace periods' to leave the country for aliens on temporary work visa, changing the distribution time line for temporary workers on the H-2B visa, and granting up to 240 additional days on applications for employment authorization when the application is filed before the work authorization expiration date.

Denise Vanison has been an immigration attorney for more than 18 years. She advised multi-national and domestic corporate clients on employment of foreign nationals in the United States, I-9 employment verification and procurement of passports, visas, green cards and U.S. citizenship.

The memo was drafted for Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas. In addition to Denise Vanison, Roxana Bacon from the Chief Councel's office, Debra Rogers from Field Operations, and Donald Neufield from Service Center Operations were also listed as authors of the memo.

UPDATE: DHS has issued the following response:

Internal draft memos do not and should not be equated with official action or policy of the Department. We will not comment on notional, pre-decisional memos. As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system. We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation’s immigration challenges.

Internal memoranda help us do the thinking that leads to important changes; some of them are adopted and others are rejected. Our goal is to implement policies wisely and well to strengthen all aspects of our mission. The choices we have made so far have strengthened both the enforcement and services sides of USCIS — nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions. To be clear, DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Roger's Rules » Thanks for the memories, Barack: Or, how to bankrupt a country in three easy steps

2010-07-26T12:43:00.000-04:00

Roger's Rules » Thanks for the memories, Barack: Or, how to bankrupt a country in three easy steps: "“Europe’s prospects brighten as U.S. fades.” Thus a headline in Reuters this morning.

“German business confidence is soaring while U.S. consumer sentiment sinks.

Britain’s second-quarter economic growth was almost twice as fast as expected, the strongest in four years.

Meanwhile, economists have steadily marked down forecasts for Friday’s U.S. gross domestic product report.”

Thanks a lot, Mr. President. And thanks to you, too, Secretary Geithner. You inherited the richest, most productive country in history. And you have set it firmly on course for economic stagnation.

It’s all part of your effort to “fundamentally transform the Untied States of America,” isn’t it, Mr. President? That’s what you promised October 2008: to change America fundamentally. Who would have predicted you were really serious? (Well, some of us did, but you know what I mean.)

You’ve made it clear that, deep down, you really don’t like the United States. In that, you are like many of your Ivy confrères, all those Harvard-Yale-Princeton types who find the spectacle of individual freedom playing itself out irredeemably vulgar. You all are beyond allegiance to anything so parochial as an individual nation. And when it comes to what (even now) is the world’s nation of nations, the United States, you are more than embarrassed: you are downright impatient.

Samuel Huntington was right to call you “deconstructionists.” He wasn’t talking about the reader-proof theories of Jancques Derrida but something much more practical. The sort of deconstructionists he had in mind were politicians and academics and policy makers who

“promoted programs to enhance that status and influence of subnational racial, ethnic, and cultural groups. They encouraged immigrants to maintain their birth-country cultures, granted them legal privileges denied to native-born Americans, and denounced the idea of Americanization as un-American. They pushed the rewriting of history syllabi and textbooks so as to refer to the “peoples” of the United States in place of the single people of the Constitution. They urged supplementing or substituting for national history the history of subnational groups. They downgraded the centrality of English in American life and pushed bilingual education and linguistic diversity. They advocated legal recognition of group rights and racial preferences over the individual rights central to the American Creed. They justified their actions by theories of multiculturalism and the idea that diversity rather than unity or community should be America’s overriding value. The combined effect of these efforts was to promote the deconstruction of the American identity that had been gradually created over three centuries.”

Taken together, Huntington concluded, “these efforts by a nation’s leaders to deconstruct the nation they governed were, quite possibly, without precedent in human history.”

Of course, you are a special case, Mr. President. Your dislike of America has the added ingredient of what, for lack of a better term, I’ll call metaphysical ambivalence. At its core, as Samuel Huntington pointed out in Who We Are, the United States is based upon certain “Anglo-Protestant values” that generations of immigrants had absorbed and made their own in the process of becoming American citizens. (Oh, how the Left hated to have that pointed out!) Your filiations lie elsewhere, which perhaps explains why you bow to Saudi princes, why you forbid the conjunction of the adjective “islamic” with the noun “terrorist,” why, to take an example from the day before yesterday, you pretended to criticize the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi — all Americans, you said, were “surprised, disappointed and angry” that the Scots released him. But then it turns out that your State Department explictly, if secretly, told British authorities that you preferred his release on “compassionate” reasons. “All Americans” — did that include you Mr. President? I’m not asking about where you were born: I am asking about where your fundamental allegiance lies.

I believe that question is going to be on the lips of more and more people as the devastating effect of your radical social and economic programs is felt by more and more ordinary Americans. Consider: You are running far and away the largest deficit in the country’s history: $1.7 trillion. “Deficit,” “$1.7 trillion”: it all sounds so abstract, so far away. What is a “deficit,” anyway? And who can make sense of that number: 1,700,000,000,000?

What we need is a new Mr. Micawber who can dramatize the prospect of want, of penury concealed in the little word “deficit.” Quoth Micaber: “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.” Who is the cannier economist, Wilkins Micawber or John Maynard Keynes? Keynes never got his big brain around the fact that as the zeros multiply, a yawning vista of impotence, of incapacity, of paralysis stretches out before us. “Misery,” indeed.

It’s quite clear — you’ve already announced — that you are going to use this mind-numbing deficit as an excuse to raise taxes—another abstract phrase worn smooth by repetition. The Power to tax, Chief Justice Marshall observed long ago, is the power to destroy. How much of the American dream are you preparing to dismantle by depriving people of the means to fulfill it? Do you want to rein in the deficit? Stop spending. But you won’t do that while you can continue depleting the substance of the country by draining away the economic life blood of its citizens. Ultimately, the issue is not the deficit but the spending. That is, the horrendous deficit is a product of incontinent spending. You won’t admit that because both spending and taxing are instruments for the consolidation of your power—no matter that the potency of the country as a whole is diminished in the process. Raising taxes diminishes revenue: that has been shown again and again.

How long before people wake up to that fact that you are only incidentally interested battling the deficit — sure, it would be nice, but how much more important to you is “spreading the wealth around.” That’s what, in an unguarded, an unscripted moment, you told Joe the Plumber. What was perhaps insufficiently appreciated at the time is the fact that there are two sides to “spreading the wealth around.” There is the open hand that distributes largess (while at the same time fostering dependence and accumulating chits for favors done). And then there is the clenched hand that fleeces other people for the money you require to make the redistribution work. On the one hand there are favors done, loyalties incurred; on the other, there are penalties exacted. I am not sure we have instruments fine enough to determine which is more gratifying to the political class of which you are so ostentatious a member.

The punitive side of your regime of “hope and change” will soon become starkly obviousl to all — all, I mean, except the nomenklatura that inhabit the corridors of power. You and your fellow politicians will not be subject to the new health laws you have imposed upon the country. You’ve made medicine a less attractive career, so there will be fewer good doctors, but still, there will be enough to serve Congress and the Executive branch. And of course, you won’t be subject to the delays the rest of us face. You won’t be told, “I’m sorry Mr. Obama, you are too old for that kidney transplant/innovative cancer treatment/cardiac procedure” as the rest of us will be. Even as Britain is dismantling large part of the disaster that was its national health service, you are saddling Americans with health care that will be 1) more expensive 2) more cumbersome, and 3) worse.

Wealth. Health. Security. America has not not only been the richest country in history, the country with the most advanced medical technologies, it has also, at least since 1945, been the mightiest. You are working hard to “fundamentally transform” that aspect of the country as well. That’s why you cancelled the F-22 fighter program even as the Russians were bringing on line a fighter they claim is its equal. The Chinese are increasing their military spending by 13 percent; how much are you cutting ours? Transforming America from a superpower to a paper tiger: that’s how Jed Babbin described it: how quickly you’ve done it, too.

Wealth. Health. Security. Freedom. “Conceived in liberty,” remember Lincoln’s words? As you stand at the helm of the Ship of Statism, is it gratifying to witness the many ways your administration has blighted the liberty and freedom of Americans? You’re in the process of making them poorer, so they will have less wherewithal with which to negotiate life’s vicissitudes. You’ve made them more subject to the state in matters large and small: when it comes to their health care, to the kinds of cars they drive, even the sorts of light bulbs they may use.

What is happening all around us is like a real-life dramatization of those pages Alexis de Tocqueville devoted to “democratic despotism.” There are two sides to this novel form of tyranny. The fundamental political question, said Lenin, is “Who-Whom?” For the “whom,” i.e., for the ruled, democratic despotism has an enervating effect. It acts to reduce energy, initiative, the spirit of derring-do entrepreneurship. If your are more dependent on the state, if your activities are more hemmed in by bureaucracy, regulation, and taxation you will be less likely to embark upon morning enterprises that require an appetite for risk, adventure, and ambition.

For the “who,” however, the fundamental effect of democratic despotism is a net increase in arrogance and unaccountability. Remember the way soon-to-be-retired Congressman Bob Etheridge treated that student who asked him whether he supported Obama’s programs? “Who are you,” he demanded as he manhandled the young man. Meaning “Who do you think you are to ask me a leading question?” Joe Biden would doubtless have called him a “smart-ass”: we little people are not meant to ask provocative questions.

You seem surprised, Mr. President, that more and more people are not only irritated but alarmed. What I suspect you do not yet fully appreciate is that they are also energized as never before. The tea-parties are not racist backwaters, notwithstanding the poisonous rhetoric spewing from the Democratic opinion factories. They are disparate grass roots movements, as different from each other as Arizona is different from Massachusetts and Georgia is different from California. Yet they are united in the common purpose of wresting back from the government control over their lives. You are the shepherd who would lead us down the road marked “to serfdom.” More and more people are waking up to the reality that serfdom is a disagreeable state. How many? We’ll make a first tally come November.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Obama’s Socialist Hammer Comes Down on the Internet! | The Silent Majority

2010-07-25T10:01:00.000-04:00

Obama’s Socialist Hammer Comes Down on the Internet! | The Silent Majority: "Obama’s Socialist Hammer Comes Down on the Internet!

Conservative Bloggers: LOOK OUT!

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

CNSNews.com reports the following: “The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted on Thursday to begin the formal process of bringing the Internet under greater federal control – a move sought by both President Barack Obama and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski–even though federal law calls for an Internet ”unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” The report goes on to say: “The FCC is now trying to reclassify the Internet to broaden its authority over the Web.”

How is Obama’s FCC planning to get their mailed fist around the throat of the Internet? It is very simple, really. CNSNews informs us in their report how they will do it. The report says: “The 3-2 party-line vote on Thursday at the FCC began the formal process of reclassifying the Internet as a telecommunications service instead of an information service – its current classification. This is necessary because, as an information service, the government has little power to regulate Internet networks. But the report goes on to explain: “As a telecommunications service, such as a telephone network, the Internet would fall under a much broader regulatory scope – giving the government the power to enforce universal service requirements, making them pay into a federal universal service fund used to provide communications services to poor areas.”

Please, we URGE you read this article in its entirety. You will find it at CNSNEW.COM HERE.

If there was ever a case of the “camel’s nose under the tent,” this is most assuredly IT!

Look, I worked in the broadcast industry for nearly 30 years. I can tell, from experience, that, in my day, the broadcast industry was one of the most government-regulated industries in the country, if not THE most regulated.

To the broadcast industry, the Federal Communications industry is G O D! They say: “JUMP!” and the broadcaster says: “How high?” And he does it while jumping!

So, bloggers enjoy your freedom of speech for a few more months. Experience tells me the end is in sight.

The old soviet KGB has nothing on the agents of the FCC. Expect them to monitor the Internet much as they did the AM and FM broadcast bands. If they hear something they don’t like, you WILL get a visit. It could be a costly visit.

We are convinced that Obama’s FCC is a political machine, a club to be wielded against those who speak out against the Socialists, Marxists, Statists, Progressives, Liberals, and/or Democrats controlling the US government today. Unless the Supreme Court stops them they WILL swing that club and conservative sites, conservative bloggers, especially, will be the very first targets.

See, the Obama Regime must gain control of the communications networks in America. The broadcast networks apparently have voluntarily made a gift of their fealty to the socialist agenda of this regime, as have many in the major print media – that which we often refer to as the Mainstream Media.

As we have so often reminded our readers, Obama promised to “fundamentally change” America. He cannot do that as long as the Internet hosts conservative bloggers who insist on pointing out the socialist agenda of the Obama regime. I am convinced this administration would nationalize the broadcast and print media — and the Internet — if they thought they could get away with it. Believe me – if we give them that time, they WILL do it!

Think I am paranoid? Let me assure you, there may be times I would agree with that assessment of my scribbling – but NOT THIS TIME! I KNOW what the FCC can do when they decide to bring the hammer down.

CNSNEWS informs us: “The FCC will now begin the mandatory public comment period, where it will solicit input from private companies and citizens about whether it should reclassify the Internet and, if so, how it should do it.”

If you value a free and open Internet then let your voice be heard. Write the FCC and tell them so — and demand they back off and leave the Internet alone. Write your Congresspersons and Senators and explain your feelings on this matter to them and ask for their support of a free and open Internet.

I have warned for months, yea, years, that this was coming. I have seen no sense of alarm among fellow bloggers. Maybe it was/is there and I have somehow missed it. I sincerely hope that is the case. I fear it is not.

Believe me, t will take a MASSIVE effort to stop this particular power grab by the Obama Regime. Frankly, I don’t expect those of us who value a free and open Internet to be victorious.

But we have to try!

My close friends refer to me as the original Man of La Mancha. I have a penchant for joisting with windmills. I have been “un-horsed” and knocked on my behind so many times I cannot count them. I have learned a valuable lesson from those painful encounters. That is — you cannot hope to win, if you don’t attack, and continue to take the battle to the enemy, time and time again for as long as you have the strength to press the attack.

There is the famous story, among we descendants of Confederate soldiers, of the Confederate general who sent a dispatch to General Lee in which he declared that he was totally surrounded by the enemy, cut off from any reinforcements, his troops were decimated, out of ammunition, and their rations were gone. The brave general declared that his situation was hopeless. Therefore, he informed General Lee, he would attack at dawn!

THAT is the attitude we must have as we gear up to fight this attack on the First Amendment of the Constitution.

We must take a stand for freedom and we must do it NOW!

J. D. Longstreet

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

RealClearPolitics - An Ugly Preview of ObamaCare

2010-07-19T09:20:00.000-04:00

RealClearPolitics - An Ugly Preview of ObamaCare: "WASHINGTON -- If you want a preview of President Obama's health care 'reform,' take a look at Massachusetts. In 2006, it enacted a 'reform' that became a model for Obama. What's happened since isn't encouraging. The state did the easy part: expanding state-subsidized insurance coverage. It evaded the hard part: controlling costs and ensuring that spending improves people's health. Unfortunately, Obama has done the same.

Like Obama, Massachusetts requires most individuals to have health insurance (the 'individual mandate'). To aid middle-class families too well-off to qualify for Medicaid -- government insurance for the poor -- the state subsidizes insurance for people up to three times the federal poverty line (about $66,000 in 2008 for a family of four). Together, the mandate and subsidies have raised insurance coverage from 87.5 percent of the non-elderly population in 2006 to 95.2 percent in the fall of 2009, report Sharon Long and Karen Stockley of the Urban Institute.

People have more access to treatment, though changes are small. In 2006, 87 percent of the non-elderly had a 'usual source of care,' presumably a doctor or clinic, note Long and Stockley in the journal Health Affairs. By 2009, that was 89.9 percent. In 2006, 70.9 percent received 'preventive care'; in 2009, that was 77.7 percent. Out-of-pocket costs were less burdensome.

But much didn't change. Emergency rooms remain as crowded as ever; about a third of the non-elderly go at least once a year, and half their visits involve 'non-emergency conditions.' As for improvements in health, most probably lie in the future. 'Many of the uninsured were young and healthy,' writes Long. Their 'expected gains in health status' would be mostly long-term. Finally -- and most important -- health costs continue to soar.

Aside from squeezing take-home pay (employers provide almost 70 percent of insurance), higher costs have automatically shifted government priorities toward health care and away from everything else -- schools, police, roads, prisons, lower taxes. In 1990, health spending represented about 16 percent of the state budget, says the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. By 2000, health's share was 22 percent. In 2010, it's 35 percent. About 90 percent of the health spending is Medicaid.

State leaders have proven powerless to control these costs. Facing a tough re-election campaign, Gov. Deval Patrick effectively ordered his insurance commissioner to reject premium increases for small employers (50 workers or less) and individuals -- an unprecedented step. Commissioner Joseph Murphy then disallowed premium increases ranging from 7 percent to 34 percent. The insurers appealed; hearing examiners ruled Murphy's action illegal. Murphy has now settled with one insurer allowing premium increases, he says, of 7 percent to 11 percent. More settlements are expected.

Attacking unpopular insurance companies is easy -- and ultimately ineffectual. The trouble is that they're mostly middlemen. They collect premiums and pay providers: doctors, hospitals, clinics. Limiting premiums without controlling the costs of providers will ultimately cause insurer bankruptcies, which would then threaten providers because they won't be fully reimbursed. The state might regulate hospitals' and doctors' fees directly; but in the past, providers have often offset lower rates by performing more tests and procedures.

A year ago, a state commission urged another approach: Scrap the present 'fee-for-service' system. The commission argued that fee-for-service -- which ties reimbursement to individual services -- rewards quantity over quality and discourages coordinated care among doctors and hospitals. The commission recommended a 'global payments' system to force hospitals, doctors and clinics to create networks ('accountable care organizations'). These would receive flat per-patient payments to promote effective -- not just expensive -- care. Payments would be 'risk adjusted'; sicker patients would justify higher payments.

But the commission offered no blueprint, and efforts to craft consensus among providers, consumer groups and insurers have failed. State Senate President Therese Murray, an advocate of payment change, has given up for this year. 'Nobody is in agreement on anything,' she told The Boston Globe.

All this anticipates Obamacare. Even if its modest measures to restrain costs succeed -- which seems unlikely -- the effect on overall spending would be slight. The system's fundamental incentives won't change. The lesson from Massachusetts is that genuine cost control is avoided because it's so politically difficult. It means curbing the incomes of doctors, hospitals and other providers. They object. To encourage 'accountable care organizations' would limit consumer choice of doctors and hospitals. That's unpopular. Spending restrictions, whether imposed by regulation or 'global payments,' raise the specter of essential care denied. Also unpopular.

Obama dodged the tough issues in favor of grandstanding. Imitating Patrick, he's already denouncing insurers' rates, as if that would solve the spending problem. What's occurring in Massachusetts is the plausible future: Unchecked health spending determines government priorities and inflates budget deficits and taxes, with small health gains. And they call this 'reform'?

Copyright 2010, Washington Post Writers Group

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Opposing Views: Obama Refuses to Waive Law to Allow Foreign Help With Oil Spill

2010-07-17T16:12:00.000-04:00

Opposing Views: Obama Refuses to Waive Law to Allow Foreign Help With Oil Spill: "Crucial offers to help clean up BP’s oil spill “have come from Belgian, Dutch, and Norwegian firms that . . . possess some of the world’s most advanced oil skimming ships.” But the Obama administration wouldn’t accept the help, because doing so would require it to do something past presidents have routinely done: waive rules imposed by the Jones Act, a law backed by unions.

“The BP clean-up effort in the Gulf of Mexico is hampered by the Jones Act. This is a piece of 1920s protectionist legislation, that requires all vessels working in U.S. waters to be American-built, and American-crewed. So . . . the U.S. Coast Guard . . . can’t accept, and therefore don’t ask for, the assistance of high-tech European vessels specifically designed for the task in hand.”

The law itself permits the president to waive these requirements, and such waivers were “granted, promptly, by the Bush administration,” in the aftermath of hurricanes and other emergencies. But Obama has refused to do so, notes David Warren in the Ottawa Citizen.

“After the Obama administration refused help from the Netherlands, Geert Visser, the consul general for the Netherlands in Houston, told Loren Steffy: ‘Let’s forget about politics; let’s get it done.’” But for Obama, politics always comes first: “The explanation of Obama’s reluctance to seek this remedy is his cozy relationship with labor unions. . . ‘The unions see it [not waiving the act] as … protecting jobs. They hate when the Jones Act gets waived.’”

Ironically, even the staunchest supporters of the Jones Act are now distancing themselves from refusals to accept foreign help, saying they have “not and will not stand in the way of the use of these well-established waiver procedures to address this crisis.” Obama is being more intransigently pro-union than the unions themselves. Never mind that “each day our European allies are prevented from helping us speed up the clean up is another day that Gulf fishing and tourism jobs die.”

In April 2009, the Obama administration granted BP, a big supporter of Obama, a waiver of environmental regulations. But after the oil spill, it blocked Louisiana from protecting its coastline against the oil spill by delaying rather than expediting regulatory approval of essential protective measures. It has also chosen not to use what has been described as “the most effective method” of fighting the spill, a method successfully used in other oil spills. Democratic strategist James Carville called Obama’s handling of the oil spill “lackadaisical” and “unbelievable” in its “stupidity.”

Obama is now using BP’s oil spill to push the global-warming legislation that BP had lobbied for. Obama’s global warming legislation expands ethanol subsidies, which cause famine, starvation, and food riots in poor countries by shrinking the food supply. Ethanol makes gasoline costlier and dirtier, increases ozone pollution, and increases the death toll from smog and air pollution. Ethanol production also results in deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution. Subsidies for biofuels like ethanol are a big source of corporate welfare: “BP has lobbied for and profited from subsidies for biofuels . . . that cannot break even without government support.”

The $800 billion stimulus package is also using taxpayer subsidies to replace U.S. jobs with foreign green jobs. And its regulations destroy jobs in America’s export sector.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Townhall - Obama's "Fly Me to the Crescent Moon" Policy

2010-07-11T09:47:00.000-04:00

Townhall - Obama's "Fly Me to the Crescent Moon" Policy: "Maybe it’s the Dog Days of Summer. Perhaps it’s the heat—102 degrees in Washington—that’s getting to peoples’ heads. But President Obama’s latest policy—announced by his NASA administrator, astronaut Charles Bolden, is about to melt down.

Speaking on the Arabic language network al-Jazeera, Bolden said Mr. Obama had given him his marching orders for NASA: Get American kids re-inspired to do better in math and science. Work on international cooperation. And, perhaps most important: find ways to “reach out” to the Muslim world to affirm their strong contributions to science and engineering.

First, we have to consider that President Obama is gutting NASA’s budget. He has scrapped the Constellation Program that would take Americans back to the Moon. There are possible resources there that could help all of us on earth with our energy needs. Former Sen. Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the Moon, says we could mine the Helium-3 that is abundant beneath the lunar surface and use it for nuclear fusion. Perhaps, perhaps not, but we are unlikely to know if we’re not going back there.

Second, why should American kids be excited about math and science when Administrator Bolden confesses that the U.S. can no longer even put astronauts in low earth orbit without help from other nations? President Kennedy led this nation to the Moon, but President Obama is teaching us to look inward. Under this administration, NASA has been grounded.

Third, this “outreach” to Muslims by NASA is, well, lunacy. Telling Muslims that they once led the world in science and technology is wonderful. They did. But that was before murderous mullahs took over control of Muslim societies and threatened with death anyone who didn’t toe the line of theocratic control.

I have a simple way for Muslim-majority nations to excel in science and technology: Have everyone read a list of Jewish scientists who have won the Nobel Prize in Physics, Chemistry, or Medicine in the past century. Then, perhaps, their leaders could stop their Israel-bashing and Jew-baiting.

They might also read George Gilder’s latest book The Israel Test. Gilder, who is not Jewish, says Israel is a wonderful test for everyone. Do we envy and resent this people?

Do we covet what they have produced? Do we want to emulate their productivity and creative genius, or do we darkly ascribe their feats to a “Zionist” protocol? Gilder holds up a mirror to anti-Semites everywhere. What do you see?

The UN is filled with anti-Israel, anti-Semitic delegates who cheer Ahmadinejad from Iran and Khaddafi from Libya. These murderous despots have stayed in power by fanning the flames of resentment against the Jews. Khaddafi says he has given up his nuclear ambitions. I’d prefer Ronald Reagan’s words: Trust, but verify. Ahmadinejad is racing to complete Iran’s first nuclear weapon. He is thought to have enough fissile material for two nuclear bombs.

The UN has dragged its feet, resisted imposing sanctions on Iran. It succeeded only belatedly in approving very lax sanctions. These are far from the “sanctions that bite” and “crippling sanctions” the Obama administration have been promising for the year and a half they squandered in meaningless “outreach” to Tehran.

Charles Krauthammer, the distinguished columnist, has denounced the new NASA mission as “adolescent diplomacy.” It’s certainly that. But NASA Administrator Charles Bolden can hardly be blamed for loyally carrying out the policies put into effect by President Obama.

We can find something else interesting in this looney story: Where are the atheizers and arch-separationists on this one? Do they support “separation of church-and-state,” but go suddenly silent when the issue is “separation of mosque-and-state?”

What would they say if President Obama had appointed a religious freedom roving ambassador whose duty it would be to travel the world taking up the cause of Christians who are being persecuted in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, and, yes, Iraq and Afghanistan? We’d have heard them scream like stuck pigs. Why are they so silent now?

This latest furor should not cover up the fact that President Obama’s policy for NASA is to go nowhere and do nothing. No wonder young kids in the U.S.—and throughout the world—are not interested. It was no small part of President Kennedy’s appeal that he pledged “to get America moving again.” And he did.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Black Activists Compare Obama’s Arizona Lawsuit to Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” by: project-21 | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010

2010-07-11T08:49:00.000-04:00

Black Activists Compare Obama’s Arizona Lawsuit to Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” by: project-21 | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010: "Washington, D.C. - Lawyers for the Obama Administration recently filed a lawsuit to prohibit the enforcement of Arizona’s new immigration law. In its filing, the federal government says it is currently targeting “dangerous aliens” and that Arizona’s attempt to enforce the full scope of existing federal laws against illegal immigration will — in the words of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder — “only create more problems that it solves.”

Members of the Project 21 black leadership network are speaking out about this controversial legal move by the Obama Administration.

“In suing the State of Arizona over its new immigration law, the Obama Administration is once again putting politics over the will of the people,” said Deneen Borelli, a Project 21 fellow. “Poll after poll show that Americans nationwide support stronger enforcement of immigration laws and question their tax dollars being used to fight an earnest attempt by Arizonans to enforce the laws Obama is apparently unwilling to enforce. But, just like with the takeover of health care, President Obama seems to favor ideology over reason.”

“Obama and his supporters are engaged in their own ‘Southern Strategy’ that demonizes Arizona in a cynical attempt to court Hispanic votes. While rewarding lawlessness is by no means a popular idea among Hispanics, it is definitely something that is creating a rift between the black community and the White House,” said Project 21 member Bob Parks. “Losing even a small portion of the black electorate could be devastating for Obama’s liberal agenda, but it may teach the President that if you live by the race card you may also die by it.”

“Rhetoric against Arizona’s immigration law and now this lawsuit has made things just plain silly,” said Project 21 member R. Dozier Gray. “Bishop Desmond Tutu, for instance, further tarnished his Nobel Peace Prize by wading into our national debate to slyly imply that Arizona’s attempt to enforce and complement federal immigration law could eventually lead to something akin to the now-defunct apartheid system of his native South Africa. In what world is adherence to existing law prohibiting anyone from illegally crossing our borders like government-enforced segregation and discrimination?”

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information about the history of Project 21, visit the Project 21 website.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

If Obama Imposes the U.N. Gun Ban On America, Which Would Dissolve Our Bill Of Rights And Orders Gun Confiscation What Will You Do? : Polls

2010-07-09T15:17:00.000-04:00

If Obama Imposes the U.N. Gun Ban On America, Which Would Dissolve Our Bill Of Rights And Orders Gun Confiscation What Will You Do? : Polls: "If Obama Imposes the U.N. Gun Ban On America, Which Would Dissolve Our Bill Of Rights And Orders Gun Confiscation What Will You Do?

By admin on Jun 12, 2010 in Constitution, News, Obama

The new United Nations Treaty is being designed to disarm citizens of each nation that signs. The treaty will give all governments a free hand to do as they please. It is making headway in Washington D.C. and it is feared that President Obama may very well try to use the treaty to consolidate his power in America. The treaty specifics are now being negotiated and Obama has given the OK For the U.S. to be a part of the negotiations.
As of June 2010 Obama supports the soon to be written treaty, which would end our Bill of Rights and destroy the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment has been the crucial amendment that is there to guard against tyranny.
U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban

Once our Bill of Rights is attacked with the treaty any President can do as they please and force Americans to follow any dictates Washington D.C. would have.

If the President tries this and somehow gets it passed in the Senate it will mean war in America. We do not say this lightly. It is common knowledge that any gun confiscations will quickly escalate to full revolution. The end will not be liked by Obama as the military will see mass defections and open revolt as well. Millions of American citizens are well armed and most will not submit. Thus any attempt by Obama to impose this first step toward dictatorship in America will be met with force of arms. Will these facts be enough to prevent the treaty from coming about? Only time will tell now.

Poll Conducted: June 7 – June 9, 2010
Phone Interviews Held: 2304 (48% Female, 52% Male)
Poll Specifics: American Citizens Only (excluding Hawaii and Alaska residents). Political breakdown of those polled was 31% Republican, 34% Democratic, 31% Independents and 4% Other/Don’t Know/Refused or Avoided Answer.
Poll Conducted By: Abrams, Herzog & Filippi Analytics (Latest Press Release)

Background Facts

*
The UN and Obama Versus Gun Owners

* Gallup Poll from last year – which asked gun owners in America if they think Obama will try to ban the sale of firearms.

* Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the UN Arms Trade Treaty

* Democrats are attempting strict gun control in almost every state. Example is the latest bill right now in New York. See Senate Gun Control Bill Could Ban All Semi-Automatic Handguns in New York! As the new regulatory Czar (and Marxist) Cass Sunstein wrote in his book ‘Nudge’, it may be far easier to outlaw guns in this fashion in little steps, which has until now been successful in the United States. The American people are no longer asleep and the little steps towards dictatorship will now be met head on by the Tea Party members, conservatives and other alarmed Americans.

* The U.N. Gun Ban Treaty That Threatens Your Gun Rights

Gun Control: The Ultimate Human Rights Violation – is an excellent article explaining the point of view of keeping our Bill of Rights and Constitution intact. The left is not a friend of the Constitution and will do everything possible to destroy it in favor of their ‘living document’ propaganda.

* FactCheck has at times shown accurate and unbiased information. As of 2008 they are under increased scrutiny due to their support of more left wing pursuits and causes. In this case last year they rightly show that any treaty designed to destroy our 2nd Amendment rights needs to be approved by 2/3 of the Senate. Obama at this time simply does not have the votes to impose this still un-written treaty at this time. See FactCheck article from December 5, 2009

Other Resources On the Topic
Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime

Radicalized Leftist Dept. of Homeland Security

Irresponsible And Leftist positions of the Department of Homeland Security under Obama. They are calling most Americans ‘extremists’ for daring to support lower taxes or less government as well as 2nd Amendment rights. (link link link link) This has most law abiding American citizens who cherish the Constitution feeling under threat.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

The Perpetual Snake Oil Salesman by: rob | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010

2010-07-04T07:28:00.000-04:00

The Perpetual Snake Oil Salesman by: rob | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010:

"The Perpetual Snake Oil Salesman

Once again the huddled masses were exposed to the outright narcissism of one who believes that if you tell a lie enough times that eventually it will be perceived as a truth, over the last three years we have been continually bombarded with the twisting of the truth by this most eloquent snake oil pitchman of a president. In his latest attempt to have you believe that with his spoken word that history does not have a factual base we hear him try to pass off that the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of immigration when that statement in of itself cannot be farthest from the true symbolism of the statue.

The Statue of Liberty represents what it’s name implies and that is a beacon of liberty, I understand that this might be a hard concept for some to wrap their minds around but when the French gave Lady Liberty as a present to this nation it was in recognition of how the American Revolution inspired the French to throw off the chains of oppression cast upon them by the ruling class who inherently abhorred the concept of individual liberty and freedom just as today we have this same mindset prevailing in the so called ruling class of this nation. The true danger in allowing the falsification of the true history of the Statue of Liberty being portrayed by this president is not only in the fact that he is following the line that has been misrepresented to so much of the population in the declining school system and by the media for many generations now, but that since he holds a position of respect with the office that he holds that so many of the huddled mass will take his words verbatim and lose any hope of understanding the true symbolism and history of this iconic symbol and what it really represents to those around the world.

Ironically when the concept was hatched in France to present a monument in recognition of independence and liberty to the United States , France was under the rule of a dictator in Napoleon III and Emma Lazarus was an obscure philanthropist championing the cause of Jews trying to escape oppression in Czarist Russia where Anti-Semitism and lack of individual liberty prevailed. In a letter in 1871 Frederick Bartholdi stated “I will try to glorify the Republic and Liberty over there, in the hope that someday I will find it again here.”, once you examine Emma’s poem you can see that she was speaking about a symbol that those who were escaping from oppression could look toward at the end of their journey. The most famous lines from this poem that we hear repeated over and over has lost it’s true meaning throughout time to be misrepresented as a call for unfettered immigration when in truth it represented the essence of this great land and the fact that it was a gateway of Individual Liberty and Freedom. Two lines from this poem alone expressed the underlying meaning that she was portraying what the symbolism to what the “New Colossus” represented as the gateway to the United States and they were ; “Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”: too breath free from the bonds of tyranny and oppression, and “I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”: The golden door represented the individual opportunity to succeed or fail, it did not guarantee that you would have a golden parachute to do so and it did not guarantee that the door would be opened to all those that would not respect those who came before to guarantee the liberties and freedoms that could be found on the other side of that golden door.

Just as any good snake oil salesman would have to do to try to sell you a product that you would otherwise turn away from, President Obama once again mentioned just enough truth to entice the masses all the while glossing over the factual history and symbolism of what the Statue of Liberty represents and the meaning of the poem enshrined on a plaque inside of the pedestal of the statue. Not once did he mention when those immigrants that were coming to this country legally looking up to the statue on their way to Ellis Island knew that their chances of being turned away for one reason or another was a very real possibility, not once did he mention that Bedloe’s Island (Liberty Island) where the statue resides was a quarantine station and harbor fortification prior to the erection of the statue and that harbor fortifications and quarantine stations existed to protect this nation from the world rather than promiscuously admit it. It is understandable when you are trying to further an agenda that you will leave out some important facts but it does great shame and harm to the truth in doing so but this is what we have come to expect from the great snake oil salesman that we currently have sitting in the office of the president.

We are a land of immigrants to be sure but we are also a land of legal immigrants, we do welcome those coming to our shores looking for a better life but we also are a sovereign nation and as such it does not give the right of free passage to abuse just what makes this nation exceptional otherwise we will be no better than the nations that the masses are attempting to escape from. Because we have to ask ourselves does unrestricted immigration into a democratic country increase human liberty, or does it decrease it? Suppose the new people don’t like liberty?

Robert Rohlfing
www.thedrumbeatofliberty.com

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Barack Obama in Crisis: Zzzz - HUMAN EVENTS

2010-06-28T14:18:00.000-04:00

Barack Obama in Crisis: Zzzz

President Bush's harshest critics often described his look during moments of crisis as "deer in the headlights." After two years of Hope and Change, America has grown accustomed to President Obama's crisis face: eyes glazed over.

At his first press conference in 308 days, Obama fielded questions about the Gulf oil spill, immigration, the war in Afghanistan and the mounting outrage over Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak's job-trading allegations with a sluggishness bordering on geriatric. His aplomb was a bomb.

The commander-in-chief's mumbling, diffident tone contradicted the "I CARE" message of urgency that drifted across the teleprompter screen and rolled languidly off his tongue.

"I am angry and frustrated," he heaved. Rather unconvincingly. He was "singularly focused," he asserted. Rather distractedly. The president did manage to work up enough energy to condemn BP and then turned to a moment of obligatory self-aggrandizement:

"I'm confident that people are going to look back and say that this administration was on top of what was an unprecedented crisis."

How "on top" was he? Well, not enough to take the time on Thursday morning before his much-hyped appearance to nail down the details of how and why his Interior Department Chief of the Minerals Management Service Liz Birnbaum was no longer in office. "You're assuming it was a firing," Obama told reporters. "I don't yet know the circumstances." He explained that he was preoccupied with other matters and couldn't get ahold of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

When pressed to elaborate, he heaved again: "I don't know."

Then, addressing all the ignorant Americans who have failed to appreciate his rescue efforts, Obama mustered up a semblance of indignation: "Those who think we were either slow in our response or lacked urgency don't know the facts. This has been our highest priority since this crisis occurred."

And this is the Obama definition of accountability: blaming everyone else for lacking the Ivy League-honed comprehension skills to see the greatness of his fortitude and foresight.

How high of a priority did his administration really make the post-spill cleanup? After droning on haltingly about the federal failure to form an "oil...tracking...flow...group," Obama admitted with a shrug: "There was a lag of several weeks that shouldn't have happened."

With more self-pity than compassion, Obama wrapped up the rare press conference with a disjointed, off-script ramble:

"But look, we've gone through a difficult year and a half. This is just one more bit of difficulty. And this is going to be hard, not just right now; it's going to be hard for months to come. ...

"You know, when I woke up this morning, and I'm shaving, and Malia knocks on my bathroom door, and she peeks in her head, and she says, 'Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?' -- (soft laughter) -- because I think everybody understands that, you know, when we are fouling the Earth like this, it has concrete implications not just for this generation but for future generations. ...

"And in case anybody wonders -- in any of your reporting, in case you're wondering who's responsible, I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down.

"That doesn't mean it's going to be easy. It doesn't mean it's going to happen right away or the way I'd like it to happen. It doesn't mean that we're not going to make mistakes. But there shouldn't be any confusion here. The federal government is fully engaged, and I'm fully engaged, all right?"

Not waiting for an answer (or for any more nettlesome questions), he hurried off for a quick photo-op pit stop in the Gulf on Friday before jetting to Chicago to keep a high-priority promise to be back in his hometown for Memorial Day weekend.

The sterile performance was eerily reminiscent of his national security announcement last December from Hawaii, when he appeared before the American people in tie-less informal island wear to read a bloodless, perfunctory statement about the Christmas Day bomber. Eyes down on his notes the whole time, he described the failed attack with the weariness of a small-town sheriff's deputy, rather than as the leader of the free world.
Then it was back to the beach. This is Obama in crisis: disengaged, put upon and impatient to get back to Me Time.

Rough men stand ready to keep and defend our well-being and safety. Someone wake President Obama when it's over.

Townhall - Obama Fires McChrystal - We Can Fire Obama

2010-06-27T08:51:00.000-04:00

Townhall - Obama Fires McChrystal - We Can Fire Obama

Unless you live on the oil-saturated bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, you’re probably well aware that our President, who happens to have skin thinner than that of an Iberian Ribbed Newt, fired General Stanley McChrystal for committing the unpardonable sin: He told the ugly truth about Obama.

Now, before I get flooded with emails about the impropriety of a general criticizing the commander-in-chief, let me remind you that most of you crying “foul” said squat when active duty General Eric Shinseki and other retired generals did that to W and Rummy when they were in office. Yes, I believe instead of howling “off with their heads!” you reveled in the generals going rogue on George. I believe you hypocritical dorks called the Bush dissenters “patriotic truth tellers.”

So, why did McChrystal publicly say that Obama is dealing with things that are, how shall I say, above his pay grade, to a liberal magazine like Rolling Stone? Hell if I know. I’m not bulimic. I can’t read minds.

One possibility is that this is Stanley’s way of repenting to the nation for voting for this nabob. Or perhaps he was simply upholding his oath to protect us from enemies both foreign and domestic. Who knows?

One thing that’s for certain in the utilization of the Stones mag is that a lot of Michael Jackson and Lady Gaga fans heard from the horse’s mouth that a four-star general, one whom Obama cherry-picked for the war in Afghanistan, one who actually voted for him, now thinks the community organizer has been elevated to a level of incompetence.

Yep, if that intel didn’t go out on a wire like Rolling Stone then the real story of Barack’s ghastly mishandling of Afghanistan would go untold to the non-Fox watchers as McChrystal tumbled under the oncoming Obama bus. Providence made certain that negative info went out to Lefties, uncut … to which I say, sa-weet! That’ll have reverbs at the polls this November.

Y’know, in the grand scheme of things, the Rolling Stone interview might prove to be more strategic than tragic for McChrystal and the war in Afghanistan. McChrystal jumping on the grenade is making BHO and his paramours in the MSM sit up and take notice that they’re not taking notice in regard to this heel-draggin’ conflict in Afghanistan. In addition, I smell a Tea Party tour, a regular spot on Hannity and Bud Lime commercials for Stanley.

I’m sure Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal can empathize with McChrystal as his state’s beaches morph into a Jiffy Lube drip pan while Hussein golfs and does duos with the cute Beatle. Similarly, I’ll go out on a limb and guess that Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer can equally empathize with the general; she’s not only been blown off by Barack, but Obama’s suing her state for upholding federal laws on immigration.

So, what’re the walk away lessons for me from McChrystal’s McHiccup? Well, it goes something like this:

1. Speaking the truth can be costly.
2. We should grow a pair and speak out against Obama’s fecklessness.
3. Obama may have been able to fire the General for speaking the truth, but he can’t fire America. No, on the contrary, we can “can” his backside and those of his stripe come their respective election days, and we should for the way they have mismanaged all the major issues touching our nation.

Dozens of Americans believed to have joined terrorists - Washington Times

2010-06-26T08:12:00.000-04:00

Dozens of Americans believed to have joined terrorists - Washington Times

Dozens of Americans have joined terrorist groups and are posing a threat to the United States and its interests abroad, the president's most senior adviser on counterterrorism and homeland security said Thursday.

"There are, in my mind, dozens of U.S. persons who are in different parts of the world, and they are very concerning to us," said John O. Brennan, deputy White House national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Washington Times, Mr. Brennan said he would not talk about lists of targeted American terrorists. However, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been tracking down U.S. nationals and U.S. passport holders who pose security threats, like the Yemen-based al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, he said.

"They are concerning to us, not just because of the passport they hold, but because they understand our operational environment here, they bring with them certain skills, whether it be language skills or familiarity with potential targets, and they are very worrisome, and we are determined to take away their ability to assist with terrorist attacks," Mr. Brennan said.

The remarks came in response to questions about procedures used by the president to order lethal strikes on U.S. citizens who have joined al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.

On Feb. 3, Dennis C. Blair, then director of national intelligence, said in congressional testimony that special permission must first be obtained by military or intelligence forces before what he termed "direct action" strikes against American citizens.

The main weapon in recent CIA and U.S. military counterterrorism operations has been attacks with missile-equipped unmanned aerial vehicles in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. The administration has said it has killed dozens or perhaps scores of terrorists with these strikes over the past several years.

That practice was criticized in a report earlier this month authored by Philip Alston, the independent U.N. investigator on extrajudicial killings, who said the practice may violate international humanitarian law.

The American Civil Liberties Union in a letter to Mr. Obama on April 28 warned that the current program to kill terrorists in foreign countries would create a precedent for other countries to kill suspected terrorists all over the world.

The American-born cleric and U.S. citizen who now resides in Yemen is thought to be high on the list of those targeted for killing by the United States.

Mr. Brennan would not comment on the details of lethal operations or the procedure for targeting Americans.

"If a person is a U.S. citizen, and he is on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq trying to attack our troops, he will face the full brunt of the U.S. military response," Mr. Brennan said. "If an American person or citizen is in a Yemen or in a Pakistan or in Somalia or another place, and they are trying to carry out attacks against U.S. interests, they also will face the full brunt of a U.S. response. And it can take many forms."

Mr. Brennan added, "To me, terrorists should not be able to hide behind their passports and their citizenship, and that includes U.S. citizens, whether they are overseas or whether they are here in the United States. What we need to do is to apply the appropriate tool and the appropriate response."

Attempts by U.S. citizens at carrying out unsophisticated terrorist attacks in the United States have increased sharply in recent years. The latest example was Faisal Shahzad, who confessed in court this week that he left a vehicle rigged with explosives in New York's Times Square on the evening of May 1. In court testimony, he also admitted to having trained in bomb making with the Pakistani Taliban.

A recent Rand Corp. study of so-called "homegrown" U.S. radicalism reported a significant increase in indictments of Americans who were recruited for jihadist violence in the past two years.

The report said 81 were indicted for terrorism-related crimes between 2002 and 2008. Forty-two people were indicted for such crimes in 2009, and two more have been indicted in 2010.

The study, authored by former U.S. special-operations officer Brian Jenkins, concluded that one in 30,000 Muslim Americans is vulnerable to radicalization, a fact "suggesting an American Muslim population that remains hostile to jihadist ideology and its exhortations to violence."

In the interview Thursday, Mr. Brennan also said that the vision of Islam put forth by Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders was widely rejected by the Muslim world. Last month, Mr. Brennan drew criticism for a speech in which he said, "Jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community."

Mr. Brennan said that he opposed granting any legitimacy to what he called al Qaeda's "twisted" interpretation of Islam.

"Clearly, bin laden and al Qaeda believe they are on this very holy agenda and this jihad," he said. "However, in my view, what we cannot do is to allow them to think, and the rest of the world to think, and for the future terrorists of the world to believe al Qaeda is a legitimate representation of jihad and Islam."

Mr. Brennan also said that the U.S. law enforcement community has the means to monitor Web forums affiliated with al Qaeda that have in the past proven to be a gateway for recruitment into the terrorist organization.

But he also said that any investigations or monitoring of such sites needed to first pass a threshold of probable cause.

"There needs to be some type of predicate or premise for there to be reasonable suspicion that someone is engaged in activity that is unlawful," he said. "The mere engagement in political speech, even if it is radical, is not in itself a cause for investigation."

Mr. Brennan toward the end of the interview acknowledged that, despite some differences, there is considerable continuity between the counterterrorism policies of President Bush and President Obama.

"There has been a lot of continuity of effort here from the previous administration to this one," he said. "There are some important distinctions, but sometimes there is too much made of those distinctions. We are building upon some of the good foundational work that has been done."

The Silent Majority

2010-06-24T23:02:00.000-04:00

The Silent Majority

Obama to Grant Amnesty to Illegal Aliens by Executive Order?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

This ought to frighten every American to his/her core. Below is an excerpt from a letter sent to the President from a few republican members of the US Senate recently:

“Several Senators have learned of a possible plan by the Obama Administration that would provide a mass Amnesty for the nation’s 11-18 million illegal aliens. Led by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), eight Senators addressed a letter to the President asking for answers to questions about a plan that would allow DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to provide an amnesty if they can’t secure enough votes for a bill in the Senate.

The letter that was sent to Pres. Obama earlier today asks the President for clarification on the use of deferred action or parole for illegal aliens. The executive actions are typically used in special cases and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but if 60 votes can’t be secured in the Senate to pass a mass Amnesty, the Administration may use the discretionary actions as an alternative.” (SOURCE)

That letter was signed by: Sens. Grassley, Hatch (R-Utah), Vitter (R-La.), Bunning (R-Ky.), Chambliss (R-Ga.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Cochran (R-Miss.).

You may read the text of the letter HERE.

Rumors are flying and tempers are flaring in Washington, DC as rumors that President Obama intends to grant amnesty to nearly 20 million illegal aliens, already residing within the United States, with the stroke of his pen. It would take the form of a Presidential Executive Order. Outrage is spreading among the legal citizens of the US with the rapidity of a prairie fire in August.

Americans are concerned that by nothing more than the stroke of a pen Obama could grant the amnesty.

It was revealed recently that Obama has no intention of securing the southern border with Mexico until his Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill is passed. You know, the “Amnesty for Illegal Aliens bill.”

This certainly not something my fellow Americans can just shrug off!

It has become clear over the first few months of the Obama Regime that the American President is a socialist with strong dictatorial leanings. His sidling up to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is proof enough, for many of us, that he admires Mr. Chavez’ type government (Socialist/Marxist) and Obama’s actions have certainly led us to believe that he favors “dictating” over administering a constitutional “REPRESENTATIVE” republic.

This “amnesty by executive order” will prove, once and for all, the evolution of Obama into an American dictator.

We have been warning since the presidential campaign, back in 2008, that this is where Obama would eventually take the United States. His narcissistic personality shone through, even then, and frightened many conservative commentators who warned time and time again that an administration led by Obama would be dangerous to our constitutional republic.

Obama has shown time and again that he will brook no disagreement from anyone within his Regime. He rules with an iron fist.

The American people are as angry as I have ever seen them in my nearly seven decades on this planet. Their fuse is growing extremely short. If Obama signs the rumored executive order, granting amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens in the US today, I am convinced it will be the last straw, and it will push outraged Americans, who have seen their country go from a Constitutional Republic to a Banana Republic, much like those in South American countries, over the edge sparking the unthinkable.

IF Obama goes through with this Amnesty by Executive Order, it is almost certain there will be attempts in the Congress to impeach him. But with Obama’s minions in charge of the Congress there is little chance impeachment proceedings would ever see the light of day. Should this happen, it is all but certain there will be an uprising, of some sort, by the American people.

The US is a country founded through revolution. As a direct descendant of a number of Confederate soldiers, I am not unfamiliar with the dangers to the citizens when a government uses it’s mailed fist to do whatever it pleases, the law not withstanding.

Look, those of us who are sentient beings are aware that the US has reached something of a “tipping point.” We have reached that apex of stress and fear at which anything is possible. Somehow, our so-called leadership does not see it, nor feel it, insulated as they are from those they supposedly represent. THAT is what makes this point in our history such an extremely dangerous time.

Something is about to happen. You can feel it.

Americans will not abide an oppressive government one second longer than it must. We are headed toward an event, on this continent, the likes of which the world has not seen since the 1770’s.

America is divided into two camps and we are rushing toward each other like two run-away locomotives. The inevitable crash will change things, not just in America, but planet-wide.

Divine intervention would be greatly appreciated just now.

Congress Races to Destroy Country Before 2012 Deadline | U.S.

2010-06-24T11:59:00.000-04:00

Congress Races to Destroy Country Before 2012 Deadline | U.S.

Congress plans extra-stupid legislation to destroy country and *cross fingers* planet.

Congress is planning to rush through enough legislation to destroy the nation before the strict December 2012 end-of-the-world deadline set by the Mayan calendar and Obama's Armageddon Czar.

"We will work with the President every way possible to ensure that his legacy as an American president is the last such legacy in human history," said Speaker of the House Representative Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi said that a series of misguided financial reforms, increased spending, and "killer" taxes should suffice to destroy the country, if a more practical world-ending event is not forthcoming.

"We just can't sit around and wait for an asteroid," said Pelosi. "As much as the History Channel wants that to happen. The American people expect us to be proactive."

Obama said that he will work with Congress to make sure the legislation passes in a timely fashion.

"I have destroying the world penciled in right after the Stevie Wonder tribute at Ford Theater and my golf tee time," said Obama. "Hey, did you hear there was some kind of leak in the Gulf of Mexico, or something? Kick ass, right?"

Hot Air » Obama WH to illegals: We’ll help you get paid fairly

2010-06-24T10:16:00.000-04:00

Hot Air » Obama WH to illegals: We’ll help you get paid fairly

Via FoxNation, behold the most tone-deaf public-service announcement — yet — from the Obama administration. The US government occasionally conducts raids on employers who hire illegal immigrants as workers, even during Barack Obama’s term of office. Now suddenly Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis has established a hotline number, not for people to tip the government to employers breaking the law, but to act as an agent for illegals to make sure they get paid “fairly”:

Does it occur to the White House at all that “undocumented” workers are breaking the law themselves? They shouldn’t be exploited, but then again, they shouldn’t be here to be exploited, either. At the same time that the Obama administration contemplates a lawsuit against Arizona to stop them from enforcing immigration law, they’re working on a program that supports the people breaking that law, all while unemployment continues at a high rate long after their stimulus plans have run aground. Instead of enforcing the law – which is, after all, the raison d’être of the executive branch — they’re conspiring to help people break it, and with our tax dollars, no less.

Of course, this could be an elaborate ruse to find new sites to raid. The political fallout from that would be fun to watch, but alas, it seems that despite the cheesy graphics and extraordinarily bad concept, Obama and his team are serious about helping illegal immigrants get paid more for their work.

Update: Stephen Gutowski reports that this is a work-around for a Supreme Court decision that ruled that illegal immigrants don’t have standing to fight wage issues:

Basically they know that they’re violating the intention of the supreme court’s ruling in Hoffman Plastics but they don’t give a damn. They throw up the weak argument the ruling only applied to the specific law that was addressed in the case. However, I think the court is clearly saying that the government can’t force employers to pay wages that couldn’t have been legally earned in the first place.

This all makes me wonder if Obama’s DOL is going to make sure that drug dealers are paid a “fair” wage by the gangs that employ them? I mean is that not the same situation? An employer which knowingly illegally employs someone and exploits them?

Will Obama’s DOL make sure all people illegally employed are paid a “fair” wage or just the ones whose political cause they support? And even if they do try to help all people employed illegally does that make it any better? How can anybody justify any of this as a good idea?

The only interest that the government should have is enforcing the border and immigration laws.

Obama: America's Deadbeat Dad - HUMAN EVENTS

2010-06-22T15:08:00.000-04:00

Obama: America's Deadbeat Dad - HUMAN EVENTS

Barack tells us he wants to engage in a “national conversation” on parenting, coming off the heels of Father’s Day. Okay, brother, let’s have it: You suck as a dad. Yea, yea, I know we’re told that you spend time with your daughters, Sasha and Malia – shooting hoops with them on weekends and arranging tween celebs such as the Jonas Brothers to make surprise appearances at the White House. And you even boast that your regime is implementing a new initiative “to re-engage absent fathers with their families.” Fine: We’ll give you a vintage copy of the Communist Manifesto for stating the obvious – that dads should take care of their children. But fathering goes much deeper than that.

Barack, you are America’s Deadbeat Dad: And here’s why:

It’s incumbent upon fathers to leave their kids with a better tomorrow, to ensure that their children’s lives are more prosperous and rewarding than their lives were. No loving parent would intentionally saddle his offspring with an anvil of debt and liabilities, splurging profligately for the pleasures of today at the expense of his family’s future wellbeing. But Barack, that’s exactly what you have done. Your administration has single-handedly set this nation on a course where, not only will Sasha and Malia be drowning in wealth-destroying debt, but every child of their generation as well. To be sure, you have spent wealth that hasn’t even been created yet. As Sen. Jim DeMint observers in an exclusive op-ed on the pages today’s HUMAN EVENTS, “The federal government will soon be paying more in interest on the national debt than we spend on national defense.”

But that matters not to you. Under your control, America continues to nosedive into the bottomless abyss of government spending. Currently, our national debt hovers at 93% of this country’s gross domestic product. In other words, we are only seven percentage points away from our entire economic output as a country being wiped out by the amount of money we owe—money that must largely be repaid to foreign and hostile governments, including China.

And yet, you, Barack, are pushing Congress to allocate another $50 billion to fund local bureaucracies and extend unemployment benefits, even though we are currently facing mind-blogging deficits in the trillions, each year, as far as the eye can see. Moreover, your political party has refused to pass a budget and has even indicated they will not do so, an abnegation of the most basic and rudimentary duty of governing.

Barack, what you’re doing to this country is child abuse. In warp speed, you’re institutionalizing a system in America where it is public policy for parents and grandparents to raid the wallets and purses of their children and children’s children.

Perhaps your economic illiteracy and leadership void are the result of your own daddy issues. It really is unfortunate that your father walked out on your mom. No one showed you manhood. No one taught you leadership.

Sen. DeMint is right when he says: “Surely, one of the world’s greatest debtors cannot remain the world’s greatest superpower for long.” Dear Leader Barack, if you truly cared about the world in which your daughters will grow up in, take the Senator’s advice and urge your colleagues to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment and restore fiscal sanity to this great land.

What's wrong with states' rights? - Bennington Banner

2010-06-22T14:02:00.000-04:00

What's wrong with states' rights? - Bennington Banner

First there were "Truthers" andthen "Birthers," and now there are "Tenthers." To be accurate, the "Tenthers" actually came first, since this newly coined term (which is supposed to denote a "fringe" position and is therefore derogatory) refers to those who believe the 10th Amendment to the Constitution actually means what it says, that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

By this definition, today's "Tenthers" may consider themselves in good company since we can assume many, if not all, of the founders themselves agreed with this concept.

The history of the "Tenthers" dates back to 1789, when the Constitution was being considered for ratification throughout the former colonies. Though the enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution seemed concise enough to limit federal power, Americans were still wary of government's tendency to grow and liberty to yield.

This concern was a central theme at the state ratifying conventions and as a compromise the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were added to the Constitution in 1791. Amendments IX and X briefly encapsulated the two-fold theory of the Constitution: that its purpose was to protect our natural rights, which are not granted by government but are inherent by virtue of our humanity; and, in keeping with this idea, the powers of the national government are limited by the Constitution to only those

enumerated therein.

Among the early "Tenthers" was Thomas Jefferson, who, while considering the constitutionality of a national bank in 1791, quoted the tenth amendment verbatim: "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people,'" Jefferson said, then declared prophetically: "To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition."

This idea of limited federal authority is a cornerstone of federalism, a governing philosophy which James Madison, principle author of the Constitution, helped develop.

"The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined," he said. "Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people."

The powers of the federal government today can hardly be called "few and defined." Far too much of our news and our lives seem to revolve around Washington, D.C. With nearly 2 million civilian employees the federal government is the nation's largest employer after the Postal Service, itself a semi-independent government agency.

Many federal agencies and departments -- Health and Human Services, Education, Housing -- do not even come close to being required under Constitutional authority. Most scholars trace this power grab to the 1930s and the Roosevelt administration, when the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce was suddenly interpreted to mean Congress could regulate anything and everything. With this decision the Supreme Court essentially declared "No holds barred!"

But finally the states are starting to fight back against this encroachment on their rights to create a governing atmosphere in accordance with the will and the character of their residents. As of today more than 20 states have either introduced, passed or signed non-binding resolutions or binding legislation which basically warns the federal government to "cease and desist" from any and all activities outside the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.

For the states' declarations of sovereignty to have any teeth, however, they must be willing to exercise the principle of nullification with regards to federal laws. Through nullification a state declares a federal law null and void within that state's boundaries. There are currently nullifications efforts underway against such diverse federal laws as those concerning Real ID, firearms, medical marijuana, health care and more.

Why is the reemergence of states' right an important step on the road toward restoring liberty? State governments, though still powerful, are in theory closer to and thus more responsive to their citizens. Also, allowing states to create varied and diverse societies within the larger society of the United States allows people to choose the one that best answers their desires and needs. In a society where choice is abundant, from the shelves of our local food stores to the multitude of apps for our iPhones, can we really tolerate a government that comes in only one size -- XXL?

VIDEO Sen. Kyl: Obama Says No Border Security without Amnesty - HUMAN EVENTS

2010-06-22T09:30:00.000-04:00

VIDEO Sen. Kyl: Obama Says No Border Security without Amnesty - HUMAN EVENTS

In a stunning revelation at an Arizona town hall meeting this past Friday, Republican Senator Jon Kyl told his constituents that President Obama privately insisted that he will not secure the border until amnesty for illegal aliens passes first. According to Kyl, Obama argued that Democrats would lose their bargaining chips for any type of amnesty if the government beefs up its presence on the chaotic border. “The problem is,” Obama allegedly told Kyl, "If we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.”

SEN. JON KYL: I met with the president in the Oval Office, just the two of us… Here’s what the president said. “The problem is,” he said, "If we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.”

[gasps from the audience]

KYL: In other words they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform. I explained, “You and I have an obligation to secure the border. That’s an obligation. It also has some potentially positive benefits. You don’t have to have comprehensive immigration to secure the border, but you have to have a secure border to get comprehensive immigration reform. You may be surprised, maybe you don’t think that there’d be any more incentive, but I’m not so sure that that’s true. In any event, it doesn’t matter we’re supposed to secure the border.”

That’s why this is being done. They want to get something in return for doing their duty. And that’s—

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Chicago politics.

KYL: Yeah.

H/T: Scott McKay, The Hayride

Obama’s Simmering Summer of Discontent by: berlet98 | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010

2010-06-20T07:30:00.000-04:00

Obama’s Simmering Summer of Discontent by: berlet98 | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010

It never made any sense in the first place, the nomination and election of Barack Hussein Obama to the presidency of the United States, that is.

I mean, seriously, liberals, did you really believe Obama was the best man for the job, an over-achieving, inexperienced, unproven Chicago-style, politico as president? Or was it the fact that he was the Un-Bush, the fact he was a “clean” African American, as Joe Biden called him, the fact that half his bloodline was white, the fact that his only “executive experience” was organizing communities on the mean streets of the Windy City?

Good grief! Even Biden or Hillary would have been a better choice!

Whatever the reasons, I have to agree the scheme to elect this poseur worked. Obviously.

Also obvious is that Obama was in deep over his head from the get-go, which only reinforced the rumors in some quarters that he was the product of fixers, a pre-programmed manchurian candidate not necessarily literally brainwashed but manipulated by unseen forces such as George Soros and his ilk.

In any event, Obama’s election wasn’t a popular-vote landslide, (53%-46%), winning against a pleasant, aging war hero who never really took the gloves off in the campaign. Yet, the overseas reaction to his election was nothing short of phenomenal even as his domestic reception was temperate.

Bestriding the narrow world like a twenty first century Colossus, Obama was hailed as little short of the Second Coming, the Obamassiah, feted in world capitals from Berlin to Riyadh to Accra, worshipped by massive crowds in the streets, idolized by the international press.

Like a too-bright comet, like Icarus flying too near the sun, the deflation was bound to happen.

Obama’s return to Earth didn’t start on Earth Day, April 20, 2010 since there were rumblings the world over that this Colossus was less than colossal long before that fateful day when Deepwater Horizon exploded in murderous flames in the Gulf of Mexico.

What also exploded that day was what remained of the Myth of Obama.

His dithering and sputtering went on for 8 weeks as this president’s Katrina unfolded and as he went into a modified Carteresque mode. He still hasn’t declared a state of national malaise but he doesn’t have to. That state of confusion, indecision, ineptness hasn’t been declared but has been transparent since April and Obama’s Oval Office speech to the nation only confirmed it.

It’s said that we should keep our friends close, and keep our enemies closer. Obama must have difficulty nowadays distinguishing which is which.

When friends such as Chris (Thrill-Up-My-Leg-in-Obama’s-Presence) Matthews turn on you and calls the speech you intended to be a speech of reassurance to the American people that the Gulf eruption crisis was in control says, “I don’t sense executive command,” the former Colossus is crumbling.

When Germany’s Der Spiegel derisively headlines the question, “Will Obama Be ‘The Jimmy Carter of the 21st Century’?” http://tiny.cc/j0no2, Obama has to know the handwriting is on the wall for his administration.

This may be the summer of discontent for the president but that discontent originated with the American people and now has spread to Europe.

In all seriousness, even though I can’t stand the man, I hope he recovers, somewhat, at least a semblance of that “executive command.” I hope that because his job is too important, the nation and the world need a leader, and the Gulf Coast will never recover if Obama continues on his path of rudderless insipidity.

Contributor's website: http://www.genelalor.com/

Is Obama’s Detached Arrogance toward the Gulf Spill Based on Racism? by: john-lillipop | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010

2010-06-20T07:26:00.000-04:00

Is Obama’s Detached Arrogance toward the Gulf Spill Based on Racism? by: john-lillipop | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010

During and after hurricane Katrina ,moon bats on the left, inspired by the liberal-biased mainstream media, were relentless in denouncing President Bush and his administration for allegedly acting with insufficient urgency in dealing with the crisis.

Driven by their searing hatred for Bush originating with the 2000 election, the left made Katrina a personal vendetta against W., while essentially ignoring the miserable incompetence of Louisiana Governor Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Nagin, both, coincidentally, card-carrying Democrats.

More sinister cynics even used the race card in implying that FEMA, at the direction of W., deliberately dragged their feet because so many of the victims were poor, old black folks.

Night after night, the media would show videos of suffering blacks sloshing around muddy, vile waters where their homes used to be. The message: This is happening because W. hates black people!

This blatant ignorance and the hatred it proliferated against a sitting U.S. president will be remembered as one of the greatest forfeitures of objectivity and integrity in the history of American journalism.

To illustrate the absurdity of the un-American lynching of W. during the Katrina days, imagine the reaction that would ensue if conservative media were to suggest that President Obama’s tepid response to the Gulf oil spill was based on his inner hatred of all things Caucasian (especially British)?

After all, the offending enterprise is British Petroleum, comprised of mostly white males, is it not?

Would Obama have moved more decisively and with greater efficiency, if BP was run by a black CEO?

Would the president have acted before fifty days had lapsed if the victims of the oil spill had been poor old black folks, rather than white people who had their pretty beaches sullied, and white business owners driven into the abyss by gobs of crude muck?

The overall question might be: Is Obama’s detached arrogance toward the Gulf Spill based on racism?

Just asking.

Worst President, Ever! … Alan Caruba by: longstreet | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010

2010-06-18T07:24:00.001-04:00

Worst President, Ever! … Alan Caruba by: longstreet | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010

Worst President, EVER!
By Alan Caruba
******************

Does anyone recall the first weeks of Barack Obama’s presidency? He was everywhere on the media all the time. His constant use of TelePrompters became an instant joke, suggesting he could not say anything unless it was scripted. Indeed, listening to him try to speak without them is a painful process of a very slow selection of words and very long pauses in between.

After his first press conference he stopped holding them until 309 days later when he addressed the oil spill in the Gulf. It was such a lame performance that his advisors apparently thought a speech from the Oval Office, his first, would make up for that. It didn’t.

In this age of 24/7 news coverage, Barack Obama has managed to make himself ubiquitous to the point of complete inanity. So, I have a bit of advice for him: Shut up, Barack.

The seas have not ceased to rise because you were elected (as promised) and the Earth has not “healed itself.” Indeed, it is bleeding oil at a prodigious rate, confounding BP’s engineers, all graduates no doubt of the Acme School of Oil Drilling.

What have we learned about Barack Hussein Obama? If George W. Bush was considered an amiable dunce, Obama has demonstrated to everyone he is the worst kind of ideologue, totally tone deaf to the Voice of the People. When nearly a million Americans showed up in Washington, D.C. on September 12th last year to protest Obamacare, his communications advisor, David Axelrod dismissed them saying, “They’re wrong.”

Axelrod was on all the network and cable news shows the day following his Oval Office appearance defending a speech that essentially said we don’t know what we’re doing, but we blame BP. The good news is that the president has finally found someone else to blame other than George W. Bush for his own ineptitude and incompetence.

In case you haven’t noticed, Obama’s approval ratings in the polls are in the low 40s and heading south. There is a hard core of about 30% who support Obama no matter what he does or doesn’t do. In an article by the Editor-in-Chief of CNSnews, Terence P. Jeffrey, he noted that “The middle class is abandoning President Barack Obama, according to data released by the Gallup Poll. The only income bracket among which a majority still says they approve of the job he is doing as president are those earning $2,000 per month or less.”

Anyone still making a living comparable to achieving the American Dream has long since abandoned the great Community Organizer with the exception of union members. When you lose the middle class, you have lost the great engine of the American economy.

With the exception of the growing legion of government workers, the unions had been losing members for years. They were held in generally low esteem and their destruction of General Motors and Chrysler bears out their parasitic relationship with business and industry. Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s support from teacher’s unions suggests why our educational system has been in the toilet for decades.

Every time Obama opens his mouth, his approval falls. It began with his great Apology Tour to the Middle East at the beginning of his presidency, continued with his acceptance of a Nobel Peace Prize for having done nothing notable, and plunged with his advocacy of the much-hated Obamacare shoved down the throats of all Americans.

In addition to advocating a Cap-and-Trade bill that is a huge tax on energy use, he is now babbling about a “clean energy future” that apparently involves paving over America with millions of acres of solar farms and coast-to-coast wind turbines.

Obama doesn’t like coal that provides fifty percent of all the electricity we use every day and, of course, oil that fuels our cars, trucks, tractors, et cetera.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

Barack Hussein Obama is living proof of that.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

Usurpation: The Weapon By Which Free Governments Are Destroyed | Tenth Amendment Center

2010-06-17T11:22:00.000-04:00

Usurpation: The Weapon By Which Free Governments Are Destroyed | Tenth Amendment Center

What is Usurpation?

If there is a term that I wish would become a household word to be used again by every American in their daily political discussions, it would be the word “usurpation”. Yes, I would love it even more if average Americans would add to that list the words: “Nullification“, “interposition” and the phrase, “the principles of ‘98“. However, in order to understand the meaning of those words in their political context, you have to understand usurpation. Before you can discover an effective solution, you have to correctly identify and understand the problem.

Usurpation is the unauthorized, unlawful exercise of power. Whenever a person, department or branch of the government (federal, state, or local) usurps, they assume undelegated powers and are therefore acting outside the law.

Our Constitution (the supreme law of the land), created a federal government of strictly limited, enumerated powers when it was ratified by the people’s delegates in their respective state conventions. These states were not created by the Constitution, beacuse they already existed.

As part of this new constitutional contract between the people of the several states, their respective state governments and the federal government, the people of each state (as opposed to one American people as a whole), delegated a few, carefully defined powers to the new federal government. They did so with the understanding that these powers could be revoked if necessary. Furthermore, all the other powers which they did not loan to the federal government, they either retained for themselves or delegated back to their state governments. Each state’s constitution differs slightly, but all of them guarantee their citizens a republican form of government.

Whenever the people who make up the federal government, either as individuals, as departments or as branches, exercise power not expressly delegated to them as specified in the Constitution, they are usurping the authority of either the states or the people. Why? Because as the 10th Amendment makes it clear:

“All powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.”

The Bane of Free Governments

George Washington warned against the dangers of usurpation. He called it ‘the weapon by which free governments are destroyed”. He urged Americans to guard against it and reject it for the evil that it is. In his farewell address, he wrote:

“If in the opinion of the People the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong,let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

As Obama likes to say, “Let me be clear”. When the federal government steps beyond the boundaries that are specifically drawn around it by the Constitution and its amendments, it isn’t abusing powers that it does have, it’s usurping powers that it doesn’t have.

Question: What should the people of the several states’ reaction to federal usurpation be?

Answer: Swift and resolute action in the form of nullification and/or interposition by, with and through our state governments and their county and local subordinates.

In such cases, we must not exercise patience and wait to “Vote the bums out” in 2012 or even as soon as 2010! We should do that when the time comes, yes. But in the meantime, to allow our state governments to wait until the usurpers are removed from office through elections would be to consent to a dangerous dereliction of their duty to protect our constitutional rights.

What is Nullification?

In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which was one of the federal government’s earliest acts of usurpation. An early draft of it began:

“The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government”

and

“where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them”

Nullification is a state’s decision to render a particular federal law that it deems unconstitutional void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state. It is a process which can unfold in a variety of ways. It may involve formal legislation, or it may not. I could include court battles, but not necessarily. Interposition by state and local officials, such as your state’s Attorney General or elected county sheriff might be required, but not always. A few times in the past, state nullification conventions have even been convened, but this has been the exception, not the rule.

The process of nullification will look different in each state, according to the particular issue and the social and political culture of that state’s people. But understand, although it’s not a ’silver bullet”, nullification does work! Don’t let anyone feed you a bunch of phony historical narratives. Do your own study of the history of nullification and see for yourself.

Finally, as George Washington wrote, let there be no change by usurpation! Instead, let us work with our elected state officials to nullify acts of federal usurpation and reclaim the sovereignty that is every American’s birthright.

Derek J. Sheriff [send him email] is the state chapter coordinator for the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center. His blog and podcast “Principles of ‘98″ can be found at www.PrinciplesOfNinetyEight.Com

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

If you cross the US border illegally: JACKPOT!!! or God Bless America

2010-06-17T08:18:00.000-04:00

If you cross the US border illegally: JACKPOT!!! or God Bless America

If You Are Going To Be An Illegal Alien, The US Is Definitely The Place To Do It (Thanks to MA for pointing this out)

In no other country on earth is it considered to be anything but against the law to cross a sovereign border illegally. In the United States it is considered to be okay. If you happen to oppose it, you are branded a racist and worse, no matter how many terrorists or potential terrorists may be coming along for the ride.

LET ME SEE IF I'VE GOT THIS RIGHT....

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED IMMEDIATELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOU ARE IMPRISONED FOREVER.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT UNTIL YOU DIE.

IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET...
1 - A JOB WITHOUT PAYING TAXES
2 - A DRIVERS LICENSE
3 - A SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
4 - WELFARE
5 - FOOD STAMPS
6 - CREDIT CARDS
7 - SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE
8 - FREE EDUCATION
9 - FREE HEALTH CARE
10 - A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON FOR YOUR SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP
11 - BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR
LANGUAGE
12 - THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR FOREIGN COUNTRY'S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH RESPECT IN AMERICA!

Radical Islam: How can you fight an enemy when you can't even call it by name?

2010-06-17T08:14:00.000-04:00

Radical Islam: How can you fight an enemy when you can't even call it by name?

he Obama National Security Strategy

Remember the old "war on terror" that became the Obama administrations "overseas contingency operations"? This, in an effort to either deny the fact that a problem exists in the United States or the hope that it would become out of sight, out of mind. Events of the recent past at Fort Hood and Times Square in New York to name just two show that that was simply not the case.

In another effort by President Obama, either through naivete or worse, to deny who the main enemy of the United States is, one need only look at the new National Security Strategy released last month. In it, the phrase "“exploit the proud religion of Islam to serve a violent political vision" has been removed along with the term “violent Islamist extremism." In their place is the term "violent extremism" which is broad, vague and as such much to the liking of President Obama.

Says Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, “Defining the enemy by reference to al-Qaida implies that this war in primarily about destroying an organization, rather than defeating a broader political ideology. This war will not end when al-Qaida has been vanquished . . . but only when the ideology of violent Islamist extremism that inspires and predates it is decisively rejected. That ideology motivates many other groups and individuals . . ."

When will the Obama administration get our national security right? Hopefully before it is too late!

Transparency From the Oval Office | LooseKannon.com

2010-06-16T08:05:00.000-04:00

Transparency From the Oval Office | LooseKannon.com

As cries for transparency have increased exponentially over the past 6 weeks, there’s no doubt that tonight’s Oval Office address by President Obama will closely resemble the following:

My Fellow Americans:

I don’t know what’s going to be more difficult: me getting my head out of the clouds and speaking the clear, simple truth to you, or you pulling yourselves away from your Xboxes and Dancing With the Idols long enough to pay attention. I was going to give this speech tomorrow night, but my advisers suggested that it’d be a good idea for me to appear so very concerned about the issues I’m about to address that I’d make the major sacrifice of skipping the first quarter of the Lakers-Celtics game.

As an aside, I asked if I could tape my Oval Office address, have it shown to the nation at 9PM EST, and watch the game live, but it was strongly recommended that we DVR the game in the residence, and catch it after I’m done speaking here. So don’t anyone dare send me final scores or highlight snippets on the BlackBerry.

That said, let’s move on.

We’ve been treating the Gulf spill like it’s simply a tricky bastard to plug up. Well, it’s that alright, but it may be far worse. We may have gone past the limits of what modern technology and human cooperation can control. The Federal government-BP coalition, yes, you heard right, the Federal government-BP coalition, has been feeding you a series of false hopes, much like a series of cliffhangers in a soap opera, or a professional wrestling story arc. We’ve been ratcheting up the blame game rhetoric and distracting you with 24/7 access to the live SpewCam, while nervously investigating far graver possibilities.

There are unconfirmed but credible reports of toxic gases and volatile organic compounds coming out of the seabed along with the oil, and when you stop and think about it, how could there not be? If nothing but light, sweet crude was down there we wouldn’t have this mess on our hands. Meanwhile, we’ll state that such claims are under investigation, as we work up the courage to fill you in on the details.

While we continue our hapless, but labor and capital intensive efforts to contain the oil, corral the slicks, barricade the marshlands, and clean the wildlife, we’re continuing to drill and align relief wells that damn well should have been put in place before anyone hit the on button. And, in case we can’t thread that subterranean needle, we’re consulting with our good friends the Russians to get what no doubt will be sincere and well intentioned counsel as to how they’ve successfully shut down some of their runaway gushers with the aid of nuclear weapons.

Of course, they’ve never done it in a deepwater environment as far as we know, so it’s possible that this potential solution will create an even darker and more unmanageable quagmire.

Transparency’s a bitch.

Good night, and may God Bless America.

'10,000' throng to stop Ground Zero mosque

2010-06-15T07:41:00.000-04:00

'10,000' throng to stop Ground Zero mosque

As many as 10,000 protesters from across the country – including family members who lost loved ones on Sept. 11, 2001 – took to the streets in New York City Sunday to fight construction of a 13-story Islamic mosque to be built just steps from Ground Zero where Muslim terrorists murdered 2,751 people in the name of Allah.

Now the organizers plan to sue the federal government to designate the site as a war memorial.

The following are some photos of the protest posted by various blogs:

(Photo: Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs)

(photo: El Marco, LookingatTheLeft.com)

(photo: Urban Infidel)

(Photo: Urban Infidel)

(Photo: Urban Infidel)

(Photo: TheConservativeMonster.com)

As WND reported, the new Islamic mosque plans to open its doors on Sept. 11, 2011 – the 10th anniversary of that fateful day when time stood still as millions of Americans grieved the loss of loved ones, friends, family members, co-workers and strangers.

Find out what Islam has planned for you: Get "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America."

The group Stop Islamization of America, or SIOA, led by Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs blogger and columnist, hosted a "No 9/11 Mosque" rally at Ground Zero June 6 to protest the mosque construction. Geller hosted the event with SIOA Associate Director Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

"The only Muslim center that should be built in the shadow of the World Trade Center is one that is devoted to expunging the Quran and all Islamic teachings of the violent jihad that they prescribe, as well as all hateful texts and incitement to violence," Geller said in a release announcing the protest.

They noted that thousands of protesters came from Washington state, California, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, South Carolina, Florida and elsewhere.

"They were Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, atheists, Muslims of conscience," Spencer wrote. "They were lovers of freedom."

He added, "Police estimated that 5,000 people were there, and other estimates ranged as high as 10,000. The crowd carried signs expressing their love for freedom, their contempt for Shariah, and their anger at Islamic supremacism and insult to the memories of those murdered on 9/11 that this mosque represents."

Spencer, author of "Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs" and "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades," said speakers included 9/11 family members, Egyptian ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish, Sudanese ex-slave Simon Deng, Hindu human-rights activist Babu Suseelan and 9/11 first responders.

Spencer said despite the crowd's size and the presence of media outlets from around the world, the U.S. mainstream media failed to show.

"ABC? NBC? CBS? CNN? Even FOX?" he wrote. "AWOL."

(Story continues below)

(Photo: Urban Infidel)

Known as the Cordoba House, the mosque is the creation of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, or ASMA. As WND reported, the building at Park Place, just blocks north of the former World Trade Center site, was the site of a Burlington Coat Factory until a plane's landing-gear assembly crashed through the roof on the day 19 Muslim terrorists hijacked the airliners and flew them into the Twin Towers.

The building was purchased last July by real-estate company Soho Properties, a business run by Muslims. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Kuwait-born founder of ASMA, was an investor in that transaction. Pajamas Media reporter Alyssa Lappen noted that Rauf's father was Mohammed Abdul Rauf (1917-2004), an Egyptian contemporary of Hassan al-Banna, founder of Muslim Brotherhood – parent organization of al-Qaida, Hamas and other front-line terror groups.

Lappen also reported that ASMA received large international donations in fiscal year 2009 – including $576,312 from Qatar, a nation known to harbor terror financiers and the location of Muslim Brotherhood spiritual chief Yusuf al-Qaradawi. She noted that ASMA also received $481,942 from Holland's Millenial Development Goals Fund, $144,752 from New York's Carnegie Corporation, $53,664 from the U.N. Population Fund and additional donations from the Rockefeller Brothers and Hunt Alternatives funds.

Rauf has announced his plans to turn the building into a complete Islamic cultural center, with a mosque, a museum, "merchandising options," and room for seminars to reconcile religions, "to counteract the backlash against Muslims in general, " Speigel reported. The project may cost as much as $150 million. Plans for the facility also include a 500-seat performing arts theater, fitness center, swimming pool, library, public conference rooms, basketball courts and restaurants, according to the Tribeca Tribune.

Rauf said the mosque is expected to be a major step forward in the Americanization of the Muslim community and that if everything is done correctly, his group intends to franchise the concept and build more Cordoba Houses in other American cities and around the globe.

The Cordoba Initiative website states:

Cordoba Initiative aims to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relation within the next decade, bringing back that atmosphere of interfaith tolerance and respect that we have longed for since Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in harmony and prosperity eight hundred years ago.

Solving some of the most intractable conflicts in the world today requires innovative strategies for cross-cultural engagement. Cordoba Initiative tackles this mandate with forethought, expertise and the ability to leverage contacts in influential positions within the Muslim World and the West. ... [Bold in original text.]

He told the New York Times that purchasing the building "where a piece of the wreckage fell sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11."

"It was almost obvious that something like this had to arise from the ashes of 9/11," Daisy Khan, the Cordoba Initiative executive director, told Spiegel. "In some way, this has the hand of the divine written over it. It's almost as if God wanted to be involved."

The Manhattan Community Board 1's Financial District Committee gave the plans a round of applause during a May 5 presentation, according to the Tribeca Tribune. The committee voted unanimously in favor of the center's construction.

In its list of business associations, Community Board 1 includes Masjid al-Farah, another mosque located at 245 West Broadway, where Rauf is spiritual leader. The mosque near Ground Zero, and future site of the Cordoba House, currently serves as an overflow building for Masjid al-Farah.

The mayor's director of the Office of Immigrant Affairs, Fatima Shama, told the Times just last year, "We as New York Muslims have as much of a commitment to rebuilding New York as anybody."

Aerial photo of World Trade Center Ground Zero following Sept. 11 attacks. Red square to right of Ground Zero marks former Burlington Coat Factory and proposed location of Cordoba House.

Imam Rauf, born in Egypt, has written three books: "What's Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West," "Islam: A Sacred Law" and "Islam: A Search for Meaning."

WND reported in 2003 when, at least four times that year, the FBI's New York field office held all-day sensitivity training sessions, not far from Ground Zero, featuring Rauf.

Speaking for about two hours each session, "he gave an overview of Islamic culture and some of the differences between what fundamentalist terrorist groups say are the teachings of the Quran and what he believes, as a student of religion, the Quran actually says," said special agent James Margolin, spokesman for the FBI New York office.

Rauf asserted that the Quran "certainly doesn't counsel terrorism, murder or mayhem," Margolin said. And he said terrorists have misinterpreted the Quranic term "jihad" to mean violent, or armed, struggle against nonbelievers. Rauf claims it means internal struggle.

Rauf was invited to speak in Sydney, Australia, by Premier Bob Carr in 2004. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, he said the U.S. and the West must acknowledge the harm they've done to Muslims before terrorism can end.

He said the West must understand the terrorists' point of view – and he blamed Christians for starting mass attacks on civilians.

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets," he said.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (center) poses in a photo with attendees at a 2006 Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. On the far left is Sultan Muhammad, communications coordinator for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Chicago. (photo: CAIR Chicago)

According to the report, Rauf said there would be little progress until the U.S. acknowledged backing dictators and the U.S. president gave an "America Culpa" speech to the Muslim world.

On June 4, 2009, President Obama gave a speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, in which he stated:

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. … So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

Rauf praised Obama for "embracing Islam in the peacemaking process" in his speech. He wrote in the Washington Post:

The historic significance of President Obama's speech to the Muslim world in Cairo cannot be overstated. Never before has an American president spoken to the global Muslim community. His speech marked a major shift in American foreign policy. … In just a few sentences he demolished the phony theory of the 'Clash of Civilizations,' which insists that Islam and the West must always be in conflict. Instead, he declared the United States is not at war with Islam and outlined a plan for how the conflict can be resolved. … He captured the attention of Muslims because, unlike most politicians, he was willing to critique both his own country and Muslims where they fell short of their ideals.

(Photo: Urban Infidel)

In an interview with BeliefNet on Islam and America, a reporter asked Rauf, "Some Islamic charities are being investigated for terrorist ties. Have you seen what you consider to be reputable Islamic charities being financially damaged?"

"We believe that a certain portion of every charity has been legitimate," he responded. "To say that you have connections with terrorism is a very gray area. It's like the accusation that Saddam Hussein had links to Osama bin Laden. Well, America had links to Osama bin Laden – does that mean that America is a terrorist country or has ties to terrorism?"

In 2004, Rauf participated in a 30-second advertisement, broadcast on Arabic television, in which he apologized for alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

The Times reported Rauf said he believes "Islamic terrorists do not come from another moral universe – that they arise from oppressive societies that he feels Washington had a hand in creating."

(Photo: Urban Infidel)

(Photo: Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs)

Protesters are planning to rally again in September and also when construction begins. Geller and Spenser say they plan to sue the federal government to designate the building as a historic landmark and war memorial.

"We will be filing suit against the federal government, asking that the Burlington Coat Factory site where the mega-mosque is going to be built be designated a war memorial, a la Pearl Harbor, Gettysburg, etc., because of the part of one of the 9/11 airplanes that crashed into the roof there, and that is in the makeshift mosque that Muslims are using there now," Spencer wrote. "And above all: we will never give up."

Geller added, "There is a large piece of an airplane in that building. That is a war memorial. Instead of a mega mosque at Ground Zero, let's build a 9/11 war memorial to the victims. … We will protest again in September and stage sit-ins in front of the mosque should they try to break ground. Three thousand good and decent Americans did not die in vain."

Meanwhile, hundreds of WND readers have been sharing their thoughts on the Ground Zero mosque. Some comments include the following:

* Please, please, someone tell me this is a very, very sick joke. Please? My stomach is turning, my head is spinning, and the souls of the dead and the cries of the families are screaming in my ears.

* Over my dead body.

* Will we see an Aryan Nation office next door to the Holocaust museum?

* Wake up. Turn off "American Idol." Start paying attention to what we are allowing both state and federal governments to do to the greatest nation the world has ever known. A U.S. Marine in Iraq stated, "America's not at war. The Marines are at war. America's at the mall!"

* To put a mosque at Ground Zero would be as bad as putting a flag with a rising sun at Pearl Harbor.

* The Muslims want to say to families: We killed 3,000 of your people, and now we will build a monument to Muslims who were martyrs. These people are totally evil, and New York is setting itself up for another attack!

* We will never be safe because our government will not admit that we are at war with Islam, and it will not stop until one of us wins.

* Maybe this will keep them from bombing the area again. After all, they don't want to blow up a mosque when killing Americans.

* I think the "zero" in Ground Zero stands for the amount of respect our government has for this country they are running and the nearly 3,000 lives massacred by this peaceful Islamic religion. ... If the Muslims want to put a symbol of peace where the largest terrorist attack in the history of our country has occurred, how about a cross? The cross symbolizes Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for those 3,000 innocent lives and even for the ones flying the planes and the ones planning their next attack on American soil! That's the greatest symbol of peace you could ask for. God bless America.

Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com

2010-06-14T15:53:00.001-04:00

Obama dies and finds himself before the Pearly Gates. He is very excited;
all his life he's had a secret wish and longed to meet the Prophet
Mohammed.

Having arrived at the Gates of Heaven, Barack meets a man with a beard.
'Are you Mohammed?' he asks.

'No, my son. I am Peter. Mohammed is higher up.' Peter then points to a
ladder that rises into the clouds.
Delighted that Mohammed should be higher than Peter, Obama climbs the
ladder in great strides, climbs through the clouds coming to a room where
he meets another bearded man. He asks again, 'Are you Mohammed?'

'No, I am Moses. Mohammed is higher still.'
Exhausted, but with a heart full of joy he climbs the ladder yet again, he
discovers an even larger room where he meets another man with a beard.
Full of hope, he asks again, 'Are you Mohammed?'

'No, I am Jesus . . . You will find Mohammed higher up.'
Mohammed higher than Jesus! Man! Obama can hardly contain his delight and
climbs and climbs, ever higher. Once again, he reaches a larger room where
he meets a man with a beard and repeats his question: 'Are you Mohammed?'
he gasps as he is, by now, totally out of breath from all his climbing.

'No, my son . . . . I am Almighty God. But you look exhausted. Would you
like a cup of coffee?'

'Yes! Please, my Lord.'

God looks behind him, claps his hands and yells out: 'Hey Mohammed - -
two coffees!'

Keep your trust in God; Your government has failed you miserably.

Muslims Against Sharia Blog

2010-06-13T08:35:00.000-04:00

Hasan

It can by now come as no surprise that the Fort Hood massacre yielded an instant flow of exculpatory media meditations on the stresses that must have weighed on the killer who mowed down 13 Americans and wounded 29 others. Still, the intense drive to wrap this clear case in a fog of mystery is eminently worthy of notice.

The tide of pronouncements and ruminations pointing to every cause for this event other than the one obvious to everyone in the rational world continues apace. Commentators, reporters, psychologists and, indeed, army spokesmen continue to warn portentously, "We don't yet know the motive for the shootings."

What a puzzle this piece of vacuity must be to audiences hearing it, some, no doubt, with outrage. To those not terrorized by fear of offending Muslim sensitivities, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's motive was instantly clear: It was an act of terrorism by a man with a record of expressing virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments. All were conspicuous signs of danger his Army superiors chose to ignore.

What is hard to ignore, now, is the growing derangement on all matters involving terrorism and Muslim sensitivities. Its chief symptoms: a palpitating fear of discomfiting facts and a willingness to discard those facts and embrace the richest possible variety of ludicrous theories as to the motives behind an act of Islamic terrorism. All this we have seen before but never in such naked form. The days following the Fort Hood rampage have told us more than we want to know, perhaps, about the depth and reach of this epidemic.

Dr. Phil
One of the first outbreaks of these fevers, the night of the shootings, featured television's star psychologist, Dr. Phil, who was outraged when fellow panelist and former JAG officer Tom Kenniff observed that he had been listening to a lot of psychobabble and evasions about Maj. Hasan's motives.

A shocked Dr. Phil, appalled that the guest had publicly mentioned Maj. Hasan's Islamic identity, went on to present what was, in essence, the case for Maj. Hasan as victim. Victim of deployment, of the Army, of the stresses of a new kind of terrible war unlike any other we have known. Unlike, can he have meant, the kind endured by those lucky Americans who fought and died at Iwo Jima, say, or the Ardennes?

It was the same case to be presented, in varying forms, by guest psychologists, the media, and a representative or two from the military, for days on end.

The quality and thrust of this argument was best captured by the impassioned Dr. Phil, who asked us to consider, "how far out of touch with reality do you have to be to kill your fellow Americans . . . this is not a well act." And how far out of touch with reality is such a question, one asks in return—not only of Dr. Phil, but of the legions of commentators like him immersed in the labyrinths of motive hunting even as the details of Maj. Hasan's proclivities became ever clearer and more ominous.

To kill your fellow Americans—as many as possible, unarmed and in the most helpless of circumstances, while shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is great), requires, of course, only murderous hatred—the sort of mindset that regularly eludes the Dr. Phils of our world as the motive for mass murder of this kind.

As the meditations on Maj. Hasan's motives rolled on, "fear of deployment" has served as a major theme—one announced as fact in the headline for the New York Times's front-page story: "Told of War Horror, Gunman Feared Deployment." The authority for this intelligence? The perpetrator's cousin. No story could have better suited that newspaper's ongoing preoccupation with the theme of madness in our fighting men, and the deadly horrors of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, than this story of a victim of war pressures gone berserk. The one fly in the ointment—Maj. Hasan had of course seen no war, and no combat.

Still, with a bit of stretching, adherents of Maj. Hasan-as-war-victim theme found a substitute of sorts—namely the fears allegedly provoked in him by his exposure, as an army psychiatrist, to the stories of men who had been deployed. The thesis then: Maj. Hasan's mental stress, provoked by the suffering of Americans who had been in combat, caused him to go out and butcher as many of these soldiers as he could. Let's try putting that one before a jury.

Casey
By Sunday morning, Gen. George Casey Jr., Army chief of staff, confronted questions put to him by ABC's George Stephanopolous—among them the matter of the complaints about Maj. Hasan's anti-American tirades that were made by fellow students in military classes, as well as other danger signs ignored by officials when they were reported, apparently for fear of offense to a Muslim member of the military.

These were speculations, Gen. Casey repeatedly cautioned. We need to be very careful, he explained, "We are a very diverse army." Mr. Stephanopolous then helpfully summarized matters: This case then was either a case of premeditated terror—or the man just snapped.

The general was not about to address such questions. He was there to recite the required pieties, and describe the military priorities . . . which are, it appears, a concern above all for the sensitivities of a diverse army, a concern so great as to render even the mention of salient facts out of order, as "speculation.'" "This terrible event," Gen. Casey noted, "would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty."

To hear this, and numerous other such pronouncements of recent days, was to be reminded of all those witnesses to the suspicious behavior of the 9/11 hijackers who held their tongues for fear of being charged with discrimination. It has taken Maj. Hasan, and the fantastic efforts to explain away his act of bloody hatred, to bring home how much less capable we are of recognizing the dangers confronting us than we were even before September 11.

American Thinker- Print Article

2010-06-12T16:43:00.000-04:00

American Thinker- Print Article

So what is the matter with Obama? Conservatives have been asking this question for some time. I've written a number of articles trying to solve the mystery.

Even some liberals are starting to wonder. James Carville railed about Obama's blasé attitude after the catastrophic oil spill. The New York Times' Maureen Dowd revamped Obama's "Yes We Can" motto into "Will We Ever?"

The liberal women of the TV show "The View" have expressed sympathy for Michelle Obama's living with a man so out of touch. Peggy Noonan, hardly a vehement Obama foe, recently pronounced him disconnected.

Obama's odd mannerisms intrigue a psychotherapist like me. He also presents a serious diagnostic challenge.

For one, Obama's teleprompter and the men behind the Blackberry keep him well-scripted. We know so little about the facts of his life.

But it's more than just a lack of information. Obama himself is a strange bird. He doesn't fit easily into any diagnostic category.

Many people attribute Obama's oddness to his narcissism. True, Obama has a gargantuan ego, and he is notoriously thin-skinned.

Yet a personality disorder like narcissism does not explain Obama's strangeness: his giggling while being asked about the economy; his continuing a shout-out rather than announcing the Ft. Hood shootings; or his vacations, golfing, partying and fundraising during the calamitous oil spill.

Take also Obama's declaring on the "Today Show" that he wants to know whose ass to kick. Consummate narcissists would never stoop to this vulgar display of adolescent machismo.

Obama is flat when passion is needed; he's aggressive when savvy is required. What's most worrisome is that Obama doesn't even realize that his behavior is inappropriate.

So if it's not just simple narcissism, what is wrong with Obama? Since I've never evaluated him, I can't say for sure. But I can hazard some educated guesses.

If I saw a client as disconnected as him, the first thing I would wonder: Is something wrong with his brain? And I'd consider the following theoretical diagnostic possibilities.

--Physical problems: There are a multitude of physiological conditions that can cause people to act strangely. For instance: head injuries, endocrine disturbances, epilepsy, and toxic chemical exposure.

It makes me wonder: Did Obama ever have a head injury? His stepfather in Indonesia was purportedly an alcoholic abuser. Was Obama subject to any physical abuse?

-- Drugs and alcohol: Damage to the brain from drugs and alcohol can also cause significant cognitive impairments. Obama once said that there were 57 states -- and didn't correct himself. Memory problems can be caused by both illicit and prescription drug use.

Obama admits to a history of drug use in his youth. Did his usage cause some damage? Does Obama still use?

--Asperger's Syndrome: Also known as high-functioning autism, Asperger's causes deficits in social skills. A person with Asperger's can't read social cues. Consequently, he can be insensitive and hurtful without even knowing it.

Could Obama have Asperger's? He might have some mild traits, but certainly not the full-blown disorder. In contrast to Obama, those with Asperger's get fixated on some behavior, like programming computers. Obama lacks this kind of passion and zeal.

--Mental Illness: Obama's family tree is replete with the unbalanced. His maternal great-grandmother committed suicide. His grandfather, Stanley Dunham, was particularly unhinged: He was expelled from high school for punching his principal; named his daughter Stanley because he wanted a boy; and exposed young Barry to not just drunken trash talk, but unrestricted visits with alleged pedophile Frank Marshall Davis (who might or might not be Obama's biological father). Barack Sr. was an abusive, alcoholic bigamist.
Since mental illness runs in the family, does Obama have any signs? Yes and no. No, he is not a schizophrenic babbling about Martians. But there are red flags for some other conditions.

While Obama doesn't appear to hallucinate, he seems to have delusions. His believing he has a Messiah-like special gift smacks of grandiose delusions. His externalizing all blame to conservatives, George W. Bush, or the "racist" bogeyman hints at persecutory delusions.

Along with a delusional disorder, Obama may fit for a mild psychotic disorder called schizotypal disorder. It may explain some of Obama's oddness.

People with schizotypal disorder hold bizarre beliefs, are suspicious and paranoid, and have inappropriate and constricted affect. They have few close friends and are socially awkward. A schizotypal is someone like your strange cousin Becky who is addicted to astrology, believes she is psychic, and is the oddball at social gatherings.

Schizotypal Disorder does ring some bells vis-à-vis Obama. One way the diagnosis doesn't fit, however, is that schizotypals are generally harmless, odd ducks. Not so with Obama.

--Trauma: My gut tells me that Obama was seriously traumatized in childhood. His mother disregarded his basic needs, dragged him all over the place, and ultimately abandoned him.

But I think there may be something even more insidious in his family background. While I can't prove it, the degree of Obama's disconnect reminds me of my sexually abused clients.

With serious sexual abuse, the brain chemistry may change. The child dissociates -- that is, disconnects from his being -- in order to cope. Many adult survivors still dissociate, from occasional trances to the most extreme cases of multiple personality disorder.

Apparently, young Barry was left in the care of Communist Frank Marshall Davis, who admitted to molesting a 13-year-old girl. As a teenager, Obama wrote a disturbing poem, "Pop," that evoked images of sexual abuse -- for instance, describing dual amber stains on both his and "Pop's" shorts.

Would trauma explain Obama's disconnect? In many ways, yes. A damaged and unattached child may develop a "false self." To compensate for the enormous deficits in identity and attachment, the child invents his own personality. For Obama, it may have been as a special, gifted person.

Let's return now to my original question: What is wrong with Obama? My guess is a great deal. The answer is complex and likely includes some combination of the above.

Along with the brain issues are personality disorders: narcissism, paranoia, passive-aggressiveness. There's even the possibility of the most destructive character defect of all, an antisocial personality. Untreated abuse can foster antisocial traits, especially among boys.

If my assessment is accurate, what does this mean?

It means that liberals need to wake up and spit out the Kool-Aid...and that conservatives should put aside differences, band together, and elect as many Republicans as possible.

Because Obama will not change. He will not learn from his mistakes. He will not grow and mature from on-the-job experience. In fact, over time, Obama will likely become a more ferocious version of who he is today.

Why? Because this is a damaged person. Obama's fate was sealed years ago growing up in his strange and poisonous family. Later on, his empty vessel was filled with the hateful bile of men like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.

Obama will not evolve; he will not rise to the occasion; he will not become the man he was meant to be. This is for one reason and one reason alone:

He is not capable of it.

Protest Liberalism And Get Punched by: admin | American Conservative Daily (c) 2010

2010-06-11T08:14:00.000-04:00

Protest Liberalism And Get Punched by: admin

Governor Spencer, a radical black nationalist, socialist union organizer thug with a chip on his shoulder according to BigGovernment.com’s Jim Hoft, decided that he would do what black nationalist, socialist union organizing thugs always do and beat up people that don’t agree with his black nationalist, socialist union thug agenda. A group of citizens were protesting corporate bailouts outside of Rep. Mel Watt’s (D-NC) office when Governor Spencer decided to start wailing on Nathan Tabor, a contributor to our sister site The Land of the Free.

A report on the incident of the event and the eventual assault which occured according to reports after Mr. Spencer shoved Mr. Tabor and then his wife. And yes, there is video too!

Well, cannot really expect much more than this from Mr. Spencer can we? He knows which side his bread is buttered on and God help you if you try to take away his government butter or even his government bread.

The thugocracy continues …

Dear Obama: 5 Ways to Look Tough Without Being Lame - HUMAN EVENTS

2010-06-10T14:52:00.000-04:00

Dear Obama: 5 Ways to Look Tough Without Being Lame

I couldn’t help but grin when I read World Cup referees are studying English swear words so that they can hand out yellow cards if needed.

All they need to do is YouTube the current administration for a crash course in what not to say.

We’ve got President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who is to the swear word what Webster was to the dictionary.

Of the three, actually, I find Obama’s gaffe most offensive, though his word choice was milder than the others. He tells Matt Lauer in a broadcast interview that he’s figuring out “whose a%$ to kick” on the BP oil spill. You could tell he was conscious of his word choice when he said it. Pause the video after the words come out of his mouth. No remorse.

But seriously, this is his idea of appearing tough? Using a semi-curse word on a morning show? If he wants to look tough, here are a few suggestions…

1. Watch some hockey (like your Stanley Cup Champion Chicago Blackhawks). Maybe play some hockey. Take a blow near the mouth and go pull some of your own teeth out on the bench. Then go talk to the Iranians.

2. Stop by an NRA event. Better yet, take some target practice at the NRA headquarters nearby.

3. Attend the Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington Cemetery. Don’t just call the honor quits after one year.

4. Work on your fastball. You can’t curse like a professional athlete, and you can’t throw like one, either. I’m sure there are more first pitches in your future. You’ll get a lot more respect if you fix that second problem.

5. As Jimmy Kimmel told you, don’t ever wear these jeans again.

With Emanuel, what you see is what you get. He’s made cursing part of his image. Offensive as it is, he’s consistent. Biden was the culprit of a hot mic when he told Obama that this a big “f-*%&*$” deal when the health care bill was passed. Guilty as charged, but at least he didn’t use bad language in a political, calculating move.

And don’t try to blame this on George W. Bush, either. There’s a difference between Obama using “a$%” in a broadcast interview to appear tough and George W. Bush getting picked up by a hot mic a few times. It’s not presidential, but at least Bush didn’t have to use semi-curse words to appear tough.

Newsmax Columnist Suggests Military Coup to 'Resolve the Obama Problem'

2010-06-09T09:01:00.000-04:00

Newsmax Columnist Suggests Military Coup to 'Resolve the Obama Problem'

The conservative magazine Newsmax published a column suggesting a "peaceful" military coup might be necessary to save the United States from President Obama's "radical ideal" for the country, Talking Points Memo (TPM) reported Wednesday. The column, written by John L. Perry, was removed from the magazine's Web site shortly after it was posted Tuesday. (The full text can be read here.) Perry noted in the column that "describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it."

"Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation," Perry wrote. "Skilled, military-trained nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making."

Perry also said Obama is turning the U.S. into a "Marxist state" and that the president's agenda is inviting the imaginary coup Perry helpfully envisions in his column. "Don't dismiss it as unrealistic," he warns.

John Glenn's Response to Howard Metzenbaum

2010-06-09T07:57:00.000-04:00

John Glenn's Response to Howard Metzenbaum

This exchange between Senators Glenn and Metzenbaum is worth reading. Pretty impressive impromptu speech! Next time someone accuses you or any veteran of not having a "job" because you're in the military, quote Sen Glenn.

Howard Metzenbaum to John Glenn:

"How can you run for Senate when you've never held a 'job'?"

John Glenn's Response:

"I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I was through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions."

"I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, it was my life that was on the line. This was not a 9-to-5 job where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank."

"I ask you to go with me, as I went the other day to a Veterans Hospital, and look those men with their mangled bodies in the eye and tell them they didn't hold a job."

"You go with me to any Gold Star mother, and you look her in the eye and tell her that her son did not hold a job."

"You go with me to the space program, and you go as I have gone to the widows and the orphans of Ed White and Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee, and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their dad didn't hold a job."

"You go with me on Memorial Day coming up, and you stand on Arlington National Cemetery--where I have more friends than I like to remember--and you watch those waving flags, and you stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell me that those people didn't have a job."

"I tell you, Howard Metzenbaum, you should be on your knees every day of your life thanking God that there were some men--SOME MEN--who held a job. And they required a dedication to purpose and a love of country and a dedication to duty that was more important than life itself."

"And their self-sacrifice is what has made this country possible."

"I HAVE HELD A JOB, HOWARD!"

Can We Coexist With The Left? | The Brussels Journal

2010-06-08T16:50:00.000-04:00

Since it is generally accepted, even by the leftist lame stream media, that obamao is a monumental failure, I've begun to post other conservative musings. This one is very well done and thought provoking.

Can We Coexist With The Left?

The American writer Lawrence Auster had a debate with his readers regarding the possibility of splitting the USA along ideological lines. According to reader Tim W, modern Left liberalism is a universal totalitarian ideology, not a “live and let live” concept. The goal of its adherents is a world government from which no one can escape. Leftists “need conservatives but conservatives don’t need leftists. To be blunt, they can’t let us go. We’d be happy to be rid of them, because to us they’re nothing but parasites and/or oppressors. But they can’t get rid of us because we do most of the work, pay most of the taxes, provide the stability and morality that allow their depravity to thrive with less damaging results. Furthermore, the white conservative population is the buffer protecting white liberals from the minorities.”

A number of commentators questioned the viability of such a political division. Muslims believe not only that Islam is the best religion, but that it is the only true religion and that all people must be brought into its fold. Likewise, Leftists sincerely believe that Leftism is the only valid ideology, and that the whole world must be brought under its heel. Just like the very existence of self-governed communities outside of Islamic rule is considered an intolerable act of aggression by devout Muslims, so the existence of self-governed non-Leftist communities anywhere, at least if they happen to be white, is unacceptable to Leftist True Believers. They don’t just want to rule themselves; they want to rule everybody else as well.

Good arguments were presented in favor of secession, but opponents point out that attempted partition would likely trigger coercion and force when the ruling oligarchs fear losing control. If the Left sees everything it has promoted for generations about to be overturned it might resort to violence. Above all, opponents questioned whether the whole idea of “just wanting to be left alone” is defeatist and leaves the opponents with the initiative. Perhaps the battle cannot be won until we go on the offensive and take the ideological war to the enemy.

As reality is now, whites are considered potential extremists merely for existing, whereas the most revolting non-white organizations imaginable go free. For example, groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which has the stated goal of destroying Western civilization, are labeled “moderates,” whereas whites who want an immigration policy that prevents such people from settling in their countries are demonized as “racist extremists” by the media.

As Lawrence Auster says, white Leftists show “absolute moral disgust and horror against white non-liberals for their (almost always falsely imagined) discriminatory attitudes toward nonwhites. The only two moral actors in this script are the white liberals, who are good, and the white non-liberals, who are evil. The nonwhites are not moral actors in the script. They are the passive, sacred objects around whom the moral drama between good whites and evil whites is played out.”

In April 2010, the former left-wing US President Bill Clinton warned commentators to tone down their anti-government rhetoric for fear of inflaming hate groups, as polls suggested that public trust in the US government was at its lowest point for half a century. Clinton tried to conflate the anti-tax Tea Party movement with the 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist bombing, and implicitly voiced support for limiting certain forms of speech that might challenge the left-wing ruling regime. In an interview with The New York Times newspaper, Mr. Clinton was worried about the fact that “Because of the Internet, there is this vast echo chamber and our advocacy reaches into corners that never would have been possible before.” He warned against those who were too negative regarding the policies of Leftist politicians.

In 2009, the same Bill Clinton said that Americans should be mindful of their nation’s changing demographics, which led to the 2008 election of Obama as president. He told an Arab-American audience that by 2050 the U.S. will no longer have a majority of people with a European heritage and stated that “this is a very positive thing.” This was merely eight years after Arab Muslim terrorists staged the deadliest attack against the US mainland in peacetime, killing thousands of US citizens. Yet a dramatic increase in the number of Arab Muslims in his country does not worry Mr. Clinton at all. The only “terrorism” he is concerned about might be protests from people of European origins who oppose their own dispossession.

Bertha Lewis, the chief executive officer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now or ACORN, spoke in March 2010 before the Young Democratic Socialists conference. There she predicted a USA headed toward violence that will “dwarf the internments during World War II.” Curiously, this statement was hardly reported in the mass media. She said that immigration is a big battle. “And the reason this is so important is, you know, here’s the secret: (whispering) We’re getting ready to be a majority, minority country. Shhhh. We’ll be like South Africa. More black people than white people. Don’t tell anybody.”

Lewis encouraged people, based solely on the color of their skin, to “get yourselves together, get strong, get big, and get into this battle,” the battle here just defined as the dispossession of whites. She’s the head of an organization that’s been a good friend of the current President Barack Hussein Obama. ACORN was a political issue in the 2008 United States Presidential Election over allegations of voter registration fraud. As President, Obama has repeatedly insulted staunch friends and allies of his country while openly siding with its Islamic enemies.

In April 2010 US President Obama, with unusual frankness regarding his anti-white coalition, appealed to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again” for continued “change,” essentially the manifestation of an intifada on European Americans. Notice that his message was essentially the same as that of the radical Bertha Lewis of ACORN, only slightly less openly militant. A few days later, the same Mr. Obama with astounding hypocrisy in an address urged both sides in the political debate to tone down their rhetoric. This because using phrases like “Socialists” in his view “closes the door to the possibility of compromise” and “can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.”

The problem is that extremist left-wing elements have received tacit approval for carrying out violence and intimidation for years. This trend is escalating because of thugs such as the Antifa groups in Western Europe. These Leftist vandals get away with what they do because they know they have the quiet backing of the media and the political elites. Also in 2010, the University of Ottawa in Canada cancelled a speech by the U.S. conservative writer Ann Coulter because organizers feared left-wing protesters would turn violent. The American Renaissance conference that same year met with extreme harassment, including death threats. Yet as AR leader Jared Taylor lamented, the story received virtually no coverage from the mainstream Western media, nor from Democratic Presidents Obama or Clinton. The question here is not whether you agree with the people at American Renaissance, the question is why a legal, white political organization cannot meet peacefully when Communists or organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood can do so.

In her book A God Who Hates, the Syrian-born ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan comments on the Islamic “culture of shouting and raiding.” She states that “My experience has been that two Muslims cannot talk together without their conversation turning into shouts within minutes, especially when they disagree with each other, and no good can come of that. When you talk to a Muslim, rationally, in a low calm voice, he has trouble understanding your point of view. He thinks you have lost the argument. A Muslim conversing with anyone else – Muslim or non-Muslim – cannot remember a single word the other person has said, any more than my mother could remember a single word of what the preacher in our local mosque said.”

Former Muslim Ali Sina notes that “there is very little difference between the Left and Islam. What is lacking in both these creeds is the adherence to the Golden Rule. Just as for Muslims, everything Islamic is a priori right and good and everything un-Islamic is a priori wrong and evil, for the Left, everything leftist is a priori oppressed and good.” Facts don’t matter. Lying about opponents and their intentions is so widespread “that it is considered to be normal.”

After it was revealed that much of the data regarding alleged man-made global warming was deliberately fabricated, which constitutes one of the largest and most expensive anti-scientific frauds in history, most of its Leftist backers continued as if nothing had happened. The fact that they had promoted outright lies and slimed their opponents based on these lies mattered little. They believe they had the right to do so, as long as their intentions were right. Muslims, too, are allowed to lie to further the spread of their ideology. This strategy is called taqiyya.

Just like Muslims, both national Socialists and international Socialists totally lack respect for Socratic Dialogue, the reasoned search for truth which has been a hallmark of Western culture at its best. This is why such a large percentage of Western converts to Islam are either neo-Nazis or Marxists: These groups already think a great deal like Muslims. Their creed is the Absolute Truth, which should rule the world and must be imposed on others by brute force if necessary. They consequently have no need for reasoned debate. Others should submit to their rule or be violently squashed. End of story. People of European origins who stick to their cultural heritage constitute the embodiment of evil for Leftists, just like the infidels do for Muslims. Since white Westerners invented capitalism, some radical Socialists apparently believe that a “Final Solution” to the Capitalist Problem involves the annihilation of whites.

Terms such as “ethnic cleansing” should not be used lightly, but the writer Paul Weston is unfortunately correct here: What is happening with the native population throughout Western Europe is a state-sponsored campaign of ethnic cleansing. The only thing that’s unique about Britain is that Andrew Neather from the ruling Labour Party admitted this openly, in writing.

NATO, led by the USA, bombed the Serbs for “ethnic cleansing” back in 1999, thereby facilitating the Islamic ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Balkans. So, if the Western Multicultural oligarchs are against ethnic cleansing, I guess they must now bomb Britain, where the authorities have publicly admitted that they are deliberately displacing the native white population of their country. So why isn’t that happening? Could it be because very similar anti-white policies are currently followed in all Western nations without exception?

Let me add that I don’t think all Leftists have a well-thought-out plan to destroy the West. I have some in my immediate family, and they don’t think like this at all. They sincerely believe that what they are doing is the right thing. The hardcore ones who deliberately want to kill the West might be a minority, but at the end of the day this distinction matters little.

In many cases you can compromise, but in others you cannot. If somebody tries to poison you then you have to resist. It doesn’t matter in the long run whether those who do this do so because they deliberately want to kill you or because they are fools who accidentally kill you while intending to do something noble. The bottom line is: You die. You cannot be slightly dead, just like you cannot be slightly pregnant. If the Leftists and the Globalists have their way then our civilization will die, plain and simple. That’s why this ongoing struggle is likely to get ugly, because no compromise is possible. Since similar ideological struggles are taking place throughout the Western world, this situation could trigger a pan-Western Civil War.

95 Year Old WWII Veteran Tells Obama To “Shape up and start acting like an American” at Ironic Surrealism v3.0

2010-06-08T10:41:00.000-04:00

Everyday it becomes clearer who the true enemy of America really is.

95 Year Old WWII Veteran Tells Obama To “Shape up and start acting like an American” at Ironic Surrealism v3.0

“Do your job”

Dear President Obama,
My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don’t believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.
I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos’n Mate. Now I live in a “rest home” located on the western end of Pearl Harbor allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.
One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.
So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.
I can’t figure out what country you are the president of. You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
” We’re no longer a Christian nation”
” America is arrogant” – (Your wife even announced to the world,”America is mean-spirited. ” Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I’d say shame on the both of you but I don’t think you like America nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said,” America hasn’t lived up to her ideals.”
Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British ? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War ? I hope you didn’t mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers,husbands,and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around because we stand for freedom.
I don’t think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man. Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don’t, I’ll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue .You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don’t want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts who was putting up a fight ? You don’t mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don’t want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life but you’re the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you’re not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you’re thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president. You’re not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That’s not our greatest threat.

Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

And I sure as hell don’t want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. : EarthFrisk Blog

2010-06-08T08:23:00.000-04:00

It's scary how this article has turned out to be so accurate.
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.

By admin on Aug 2, 2008 in Blogging, Offbeat, Politics, Social Media

I was just finishing up on Atlas Shrugged. It is my third read of Ayn Rand’s classic. This is book that can bring a lover of freedom to tears especially in context of what is now going on in the United States. Specifically I speak of a candidate for the Presidency that is actually taking positions that no politician that is to ever be taken seriously, could even think to take. I am speaking of Obama’s call to steal or loot the profits of Exxon/Mobil and other oil companies in order to ‘redistribute’ the wealth to those that would vote for him. See either article here, or here

It’s time to pay attention to politics

I sincerely hope that there are other regular folks out there of like mind who understands what we are in for if this man, becomes the President. Ayn Rand’s greatest fears spelled out in Atlas Shrugged actually coming true as America descends into third world status. Like Venezuela’s Dictator Chavez, who just nationalized yet another bank. All in the name of the masses that he is actually hurting more than anything with each act of theft. Obama is promising to follow in his footsteps to ‘help the masses’. Are we all ready to start saying Who is John Galt?

It is a looters code born out of a failed socialist or collectivist doctrine.

Is there anyone reading this who doesn’t understand that it is wrong to steal from any group on principle. It is a looters code born out of a failed socialist or collectivist doctrine. Just think what happens when he decides banks make too much money, and the entire country’s production is at Barack and his ilk’s whim.

Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2009 | Judicial Watch

2010-06-07T16:47:00.000-04:00

Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2009 | Judicial Watch

During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House. Consider just a few Obama administration "lowlights" from year one: Even before President Obama was sworn into office, he was interviewed by the FBI for a criminal investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's scheme to sell the President's former Senate seat to the highest bidder. (Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and slumlord Valerie Jarrett, both from Chicago, are also tangled up in the Blagojevich scandal.) Moreover, the Obama administration made the startling claim that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House. The Obama White House believes it can violate the privacy rights of American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability. President Obama boldly proclaimed that "transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," but his administration is addicted to secrecy, stonewalling far too many of Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act requests and is refusing to make public White House visitor logs as federal law requires. The Obama administration turned the National Endowment of the Arts (as well as the agency that runs the AmeriCorps program) into propaganda machines, using tax dollars to persuade "artists" to promote the Obama agenda. According to documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the idea emerged as a direct result of the Obama campaign and enjoyed White House approval and participation. President Obama has installed a record number of "czars" in positions of power. Too many of these individuals are leftist radicals who answer to no one but the president. And too many of the czars are not subject to Senate confirmation (which raises serious constitutional questions). Under the President's bailout schemes, the federal government continues to appropriate or control — through fiat and threats — large sectors of the private economy, prompting conservative columnist George Will to write: "The administration's central activity — the political allocation of wealth and opportunity — is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption." Government-run healthcare and car companies, White House coercion, uninvestigated ACORN corruption, debasing his office to help Chicago cronies, attacks on conservative media and the private sector, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors — this is Obama's "ethics" record — and we haven't even gotten through the first year of his presidency.

The Robot Bartender from Planck's Constant

2010-06-06T21:36:00.000-04:00

The Robot Bartender from Planck's Constant

A popular bar had a new robotic bartender installed. A man enters and orders a martini. The robot serves him a perfectly prepared cocktail, and then asks him, "What's your IQ?"
The man replies "150" and the robot proceeds to make conversation about quantum physics, string theory, and advanced medical technology.

The customer is very impressed and thinks, "This is really cool." He decides to test the robot. He walks out of the bar, turns around, and comes back in for another drink. Again, the robot serves him the drink and asks him, "What's your IQ?"

This time the guy responds, "100."

Immediately the robot starts talking about football, NASCAR, Budweiser and John Deere tractors.

Really impressed, the man leaves the bar and decides to give the robot one more test. He goes back in, the robot serves him and asks, "What's your IQ?"

The man replies, "uh ... 50."

The robot leans in real close and slowly says, "So... you people still happy you voted for Obama?"

Some rye comments from the Irish

2010-06-06T15:32:00.000-04:00

The senior politician could not have been more direct with me.

"President Obama never thinks of addressing the ordinary guy, the intellectual exercise is what it is about, not what is in people's hearts."

"What he needs is some Lyndon Johnson about him, some down and dirty horsetrading to get the work done."

18 months into his term , President Obama seems becalmed, unsure of what to do next. The fact that he had such a rapid rise to the pinnacle is coming back to haunt him.

In the end of the day he does not have the necessary experience it seems to be a great president.

There's a lot of on the job training going on. The great orator has become a muted voice, the daredevil candidate who capsized the stars has become an introspective halting leader.

He seeks bipartisan support where none exists and seemingly is unable to maneuver and bring it about.

Where has the great orator who inspired a generation gone now that he has the bully pulpit?

Imageshack - islam.jpg

2010-06-06T09:56:00.000-04:00

Pajamas Media » Laughing at the Contradictions of Socialism in America

2010-06-06T08:37:00.000-04:00

Pajamas Media » Laughing at the Contradictions of Socialism in America

There was a time in recent American history when certain Soviet jokes didn’t work in translation — not so much because of the language differences, but because of the lack of common sociopolitical context. But that is changing. As President Obama is preparing us for a great leap towards collectivism, I find myself recollecting forgotten political jokes I shared with comrades while living in the old country under Brezhnev, Andropov, and Gorbachev. (I was too young to remember the Khrushchev times, but I still remember the Khrushchev jokes.) I also noticed that the further America “advances” back to the Soviet model, the more translatable the old Soviet jokes become. Not all Soviet advancements have metastasized here yet, but we have four more glorious years to make it happen.

One of my favorite political jokes is this:

The six dialectical contradictions of socialism in the USSR:

There is full employment — yet no one is working.
No one is working — yet the factory quotas are fulfilled.
The factory quotas are fulfilled — yet the stores have nothing to sell.
The stores have nothing to sell — yet people got all the stuff at home.
People got all the stuff at home — yet everyone is complaining.
Everyone is complaining — yet the voting is always unanimous.

It reads like a poem — only instead of the rhythm of syllables and rhyming sounds, it’s the rhythm of logic and rhyming meanings. If I could replicate it, I might start a whole new genre of “contradictory six-liners.” It would be extremely difficult to keep it real and funny at the same time, but I’ll try anyway.

Dialectical contradictions are one of the pillars in Marxist philosophy, which states that contradictions eventually lead to a unity of opposites as the result of a struggle. This gave a convenient “scientific” excuse for the existence of contradictions in a socialist society, where opposites were nice and agreeable — unlike the wild and crazy opposites of capitalism that could never be reconciled. Hence the joke.

Then I moved to America, where wild and crazy opposites of capitalism were supposedly at their worst. Until recently, however, the only contradictions that struck me as irreconcilable were these:

Economic justice:

America is capitalist and greedy — yet half of the population is subsidized.
Half of the population is subsidized — yet they think they are victims.
They think they are victims — yet their representatives run the government.
Their representatives run the government — yet the poor keep getting poorer.
The poor keep getting poorer — yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
They have things that people in other countries only dream about — yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

Hollywood cliches:

Without capitalism there’d be no Hollywood — yet filmmakers hate capitalism.
Filmmakers hate capitalism — yet they sue for unauthorized copying of their movies.
They sue for unauthorized copying — yet on screen they teach us to share.
On screen they teach us to share — yet they keep their millions to themselves.
They keep their millions to themselves — yet they revel in stories of American misery and depravity.
They revel in stories of American misery and depravity — yet they blame the resulting anti-American sentiment on conservatism.
They blame the anti-American sentiment on conservatism — yet conservatism ensures the continuation of a system that makes Hollywood possible.

I never thought I would see socialist contradictions in America, let alone write about them. But somehow all attempts to organize life according to “progressive” principles always result in such contradictions. And in the areas where “progressives” have assumed positions of leadership — education, news media, or the entertainment industry — contradictions become “historically inevitable.”

If one were accidentally to open his eyes and compare the “progressive” narrative with facts on the ground, one might start asking questions. Why, for instance, if the war on terror breeds more terrorists, haven’t there been attacks on the U.S. soil since 2001? Why, if George W. Bush had removed our freedom of speech, was nobody ever arrested for saying anything? And if Obama has returned us our freedoms, why was a man harassed by police in Oklahoma for having an anti-Obama sign in his car? Why would anyone who supports free speech want to silence talk radio? And why is silencing the opposition called the “Fairness Doctrine”?

After the number of “caring,” bleeding-heart politicians in Washington reached a critical mass, it was only a matter of time before the government started ordering banks to help the poor by giving them risky home loans through community organizers. Which resulted in a bigger demand, which resulted in rising prices, which resulted in slimmer chances of repaying the loans, which resulted in more pressure on the banks, which resulted in repackaging of bad loans, which resulted in a collapse of the banks, which resulted in a recession, which resulted in many borrowers losing their jobs, which resulted in no further mortgage payments, which resulted in a financial disaster, which resulted in a worldwide crisis, with billions of poor people overseas — who had never seen a community organizer, nor applied for a bad loan — becoming even poorer than they had been before the “progressives” in the U.S. government decided to help the poor.

As if that were not enough, the same bleeding hearts are now trying to fix this by nationalizing the banks so that they can keep issuing risky loans through community organizers. In other words, to prevent the toast from landing buttered side down, they’re planning to butter the toast on both sides and hope that it will hover in mid-air. Which also seems like a sensible alternative energy initiative.

If that doesn’t fix the problem, there’s always the last resort of a liberal: blame capitalism. It’s always a win-win. Today government regulators may be blaming capitalism for the crisis caused by their dilettantish tampering with the economy, but who do you think they will credit after market forces resuscitate the economy?

Years ago, living in America made me feel as though I had traveled in a time machine from the past. But after the recent “revolutionary” changes have turned reality on its head — which is what “revolution” literally means — I’m getting an uneasy feeling I had come from your future.

As your comrade from the future, I also feel a social obligation to help my less advanced comrades in the American community, and prepare them for the transition to the glorious world of underground literature, half-whispered jokes, and the useful habit of looking over your shoulder. Don’t become a nation of cowards — but watch who might be listening.

Let’s start with these few.

People’s power:

Liberals believe they’re advancing people’s power — yet they don’t believe people can do anything right without their guidance.
People can’t do anything right — yet the government bureaucracy can do everything.
The government bureaucracy can do everything — yet liberals don’t like it when the government takes control of their lives.
Liberals don’t like it when the government takes control of their lives — yet they vote for programs that increase people’s dependency on the government.
They vote for programs that increase people’s dependency on the government — yet they believe they’re advancing people’s power.

Bush and the media:

The media said Bush was dumb — yet he won over two intelligent Democrats.
He won over two intelligent Democrats — yet the media said his ratings were hopeless.
The media said his ratings were hopeless — yet the 2004 electoral map was red.
The 2004 electoral map was red — yet the media said his policies failed.
The media said his policies failed — yet the economy grew and the war was won.
The economy grew and the war was won — yet the media said we needed “change.”

Public education:

Liberals have been in charge of education for 50 years — yet education is out of control.
Education is out of control — yet liberal teaching methods prevail.
Liberal teaching methods prevail — yet public schools are failing.
Public schools are failing — yet their funding keeps growing.
Their funding keeps growing — yet public schools are always underfunded.
Public schools are always underfunded — yet private schools yield better results for less.
Private schools yield better results for less — yet public education is the only way out of the crisis.

Foreign radicals*:

Foreign radicals hate America — yet they’re all wearing American blue jeans.
They’re all wearing American blue jeans — yet they disdain American culture.
They disdain American culture — yet they play American music, movies, and video games.
They play American music, movies, and video games — yet they call Americans uncivilized.
They call Americans uncivilized — yet they expect Americans to defend their civilization.
They expect Americans to defend their civilization — yet they think American capitalism is outdated.
They think American capitalism is outdated — yet most of their countries require American handouts.

(* Some Democrat politicians have similar opinions about their redneck constituents — yet they won’t shut up about how proud they are to have their mandate.)

Liberals and taxes:

Liberals want to help the poor — yet they won’t give money to charities.
They won’t give money to charities — yet they’d like the government to become a gigantic charity.
They’d like the government to become a gigantic charity — yet the money has to be taken from people by force.
The money has to be taken from people by force — yet they call it welfare.
They call it welfare — yet higher taxes make everyone poorer.
Higher taxes make everyone poorer — yet liberals find ways not to pay taxes.
Liberals find ways not to pay taxes — yet they get to be chosen to run the government.

Liberals and the CIA:

The CIA is a reactionary institution — yet its agents always leak information that helps liberals politically.
CIA agents always leak information that helps liberals politically — yet liberals say the CIA is clueless.
Liberals say the CIA is clueless — yet in their movies the CIA is running the world.
In their movies the CIA is running the world — yet they tell us that better intelligence could have prevented the war.
Better intelligence could have prevented the war — yet “enhanced interrogations” of captured terrorists must not be allowed.

Love and marriage:

Sex differences are the result of social conditioning — yet homosexuality is biological.
Homosexuality is biological — yet everybody is encouraged to experiment with it.
Everybody is encouraged to experiment with it — yet venereal diseases are treated at the taxpayers’ expense.
Venereal diseases are treated at the taxpayers’ expense — yet taxpayers have no right to impose standards since there are no moral absolutes.
There are no moral absolutes — yet gay marriage is an absolute must.
Gay marriage is an absolute must — yet family is an antiquated tool of bourgeois oppression.

Obama: America's Gorbachev

2010-06-04T09:46:00.000-04:00

Obama: America's Gorbachev

After their previous president, an American puppet, was defeated in elections with a mind-boggling 3% approval rating, Ukrainians elected a Russian puppet. Immediately, he renounced Ukraine’s plans to join NATO and leased the Black Sea naval base to Russia for another 25 years, even though the Russian fleet long ago fell into disrepair. Since the new totalitarian president will assuredly rig the next elections, Ukraine has returned into the Russian orbit for at least the next ten years. By re-acquiring Ukraine, Russia has reestablished itself as a European superpower.

Left with a choice of energy dependence either on Russia or Iran, Western Europe chose both. Eastern Europe was bought off by Russian oligarchs and state companies even before that.

Iran received Obama’s approval to appropriate Lebanon, where pro-Western corruptioneer Hariri was told to accept Hezbollah’s veto power in his government, as we predicted before the elections.

Obama has abandoned his attempts to woo Syria away from Iran. Instead, he has accepted Syria as his official moderator in talks with Iran. Syria’s position with Obama greatly improved after it brokered Iran’s abandonment of Houti insurgents in Yemen. We’ve yet to find out what Obama offered the ayatollahs in return.

Obama downgraded his ambition from destroying Iran’s nuclear program to merely containing it. Saudi Arabia and Egypt were forced to bring their own nuclear programs into the open to counter Iran’s growing influence. For political reasons, Israel cannot bomb the Egyptian and Saudi nuclear facilities, and soon every sheikh will be sitting on his own nuclear bombs. Some will be curious enough to press the red button.

The winner of the Iraqi elections could not form a government without paying a vassal visit to Iran. Only Iran’s blessing, rather than America’s, allowed him to form the coalition.

North Korea defies sanctions and sells nuclear technologies. Forced to support US actions against Muslims in Afghanistan, the Pakistani regime is crumbling, and the Taliban have captured a town wherein some of Pakistan’s disassembled nukes have been stored. In Afghanistan, Karzai is trying to change sides and support the Taliban and Ahmadinejad.

In 1986, no one expected that one man, Gorbachev, could bring down the Soviet empire during his term in the office. We may see the same thing happen with Obama.

Top 10 dumbest things said about the Arizona immigration law | inthrutheoutdoor.com

2010-06-02T15:31:00.000-04:00

Top 10 dumbest things said about the Arizona immigration law | inthrutheoutdoor.com

Written on May 1, 2010 at 8:13 am by jo

YORK:Top 10 dumbest things said about the Arizona immigration law

Filed under illegal immigrants 3 comments

Byron York
Top 10 dumbest things said about the Arizona immigration law

The last few days have seen an extraordinary outburst of criticism of Arizona’s new immigration law. In the nation’s elite media outlets, its most respected commentators are portraying the law as an act of police-state repression. Many, if not all, of the specific criticisms can be refuted simply by reading the law itself, but others are more generalized criticisms of immigration enforcement. In any event, it’s hard to choose the most over-the-top and wrongheaded commentary on the law, but here are ten choices, in no particular order. (If you don’t know why a particular statement is wrong, you can check here, and here, and here, and here.)

1. “The statute requires police officers to stop and question anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant.”

– New York Times editorial

2. “As the Arizona abomination makes clear, there is a desperate need for federal immigration action to stop the country from turning into a nation of vigilantes suspicious of anybody with dark skin.”

– Dana Milbank, Washington Post

3. “I can’t imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation.”

– Cardinal Roger Mahony

4. “This law creates a suspect class, based in part on ethnicity, considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent. It makes it harder for illegal immigrants to live without scrutiny — but it also makes it harder for some American citizens to live without suspicion and humiliation. Americans are not accustomed to the command ‘Your papers, please,’ however politely delivered. The distinctly American response to such a request would be ‘Go to hell,’ and then ‘See you in court.’”

– Michael Gerson, Washington Post

5. “In case the phrase ‘lawful contact’ makes it appear as if the police are authorized to act only if they observe an undocumented-looking person actually committing a crime, another section strips the statute of even that fig leaf of reassurance. ‘A person is guilty of trespassing,’ the law provides, by being ‘present on any public or private land in this state’ while lacking authorization to be in the United States — a new crime of breathing while undocumented.”

– Linda Greenhouse, New York Times

(Greenhouse’s “trespassing” allegation was based on an early version of the Arizona bill that was not the bill that became law. Her mistake was later removed from the Times site, but you can see original version here.)

6. “Federal law treats illegal immigration as a civil violation; Arizona law criminalizes it by using the legally dubious mechanism of equating the mere presence of undocumented immigrants with trespassing.”

– Washington Post editorial

(This editorial makes the same mistake as Linda Greenhouse’s “trespassing” column above.)

7. “I am saddened today at the prospect of a young Hispanic immigrant in Arizona going to the grocery store and forgetting to bring her passport and immigration documents with her. I cannot be dispassionate about the fact that the very act of her being in the grocery store will soon be a crime in the state she lives in…An immigrant who is charged with the crime of trespassing for simply being in a community without his papers on him is being told he is committing a crime by simply being.”

– Bishop Desmond Tutu, Huffington Post

(Tutu is perhaps relying on the erroneous information in the New York Times and Washington Post above.)

8. “It harkens back to apartheid where all black people in South Africa were required to carry documents in order to move from one part of town to another.”

– Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, on ABC’s “This Week”

9. “You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona…suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.”

– President Barack Obama

10. “This week, Arizona signed the toughest illegal immigration law in the country which will allow police to demand identification papers from anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. I know there’s some people in Arizona worried that Obama is acting like Hitler, but could we all agree that there’s nothing more Nazi than saying ‘Show me your papers?’ There’s never been a World War II movie that didn’t include the line ’show me your papers.’ It’s their catchphrase. Every time someone says ’show me your papers,’ Hitler’s family gets a residual check. So heads up, Arizona; that’s fascism. I know, I know, it’s a dry fascism, but it’s still fascism.”

– Seth Myers, “Saturday Night Live”

Weasel Zippers » Blog Archive » NJ Gov. Chris Christie to Teacher: If You Don’t Like Your Pay, Go Find Another Job…

2010-05-27T07:52:00.000-04:00

Weasel Zippers » Blog Archive » NJ Gov. Chris Christie to Teacher: If You Don’t Like Your Pay, Go Find Another Job…

NJ Gov. Chris Christie to Teacher: If You Don’t Like Your Pay, Go Find Another Job…

Christie’s getting dangerously close to Superman status. Note: These teachers try and paint him as the bad guy when in fact the Dems have bankrupted the state so he’s forced to take drastic measures…

RUTHERFORD — Governor Christie on Tuesday told a borough teacher to find another job if she did not feel she was compensated enough as he defended his state budget cuts and promoted a plan to cap annual growth in property tax collections.

….He then opened the floor to questions. A few were softballs, including the declaration by Clara Nebot of Bergenfield that Christie is “a god” to her relatives in Florida.

But borough teacher Rita Wilson, a Kearny resident, argued that if she were paid $3 an hour for the 30 children in her class, she’d be earning $83,000, and she makes nothing near that.

“You’re getting more than that if you include the cost of your benefits,” Christie interrupted.

When Wilson, who has a master’s degree, said she was not being compensated for her education and experience, Christie said:

“Well, you know then that you don’t have to do it.” Some in the audience applauded…

“Your union said that is the greatest assault on public education in the history of the state,” Christie said. “That’s why the union has no credibility, stupid statements like that.”

Creative Minority Report: Palin Makes Media Donate To Pro-Life Cause

2010-05-25T15:40:00.000-04:00

Creative Minority Report: Palin Makes Media Donate To Pro-Life Cause

You gotta hand it to Sarah Palin, she has learned an awful lot about handling the media in the past two years.

The media follows her relentlessly attempting to find one slip of the tongue that they can use against her. They video tape every public appearance in hope that this time she will slip up and they will have the video to prove it.

Sarah knows this and has decided to use it for advantage. Not her own advantage, mind you, but to the advantage of the unborn.

Palin was giving a speech to a pro-life group. She and the group decided if the media wanted to tape her speech in their perpetual pursuit of the soundbyte o'death, they would have to support life to do it.

Palin made the media purchase tickets to the event and the proceeds went to the pro-life cause. That is sweet.

The lefties are losing what is left of their little minds.

This goes in the dictionary as the definition of win-win.

Gun control vs. The right to bear arms | The Alliance 13

2010-05-24T18:29:00.000-04:00

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information..

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

With Guns…………We Are ‘Citizens’.
Without Them………We Are ‘Subjects’..

During W.W..II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED !

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.

It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends!

-UNKNOWN AUTHOR-

Arizona House OKs Bill Requiring Presidential Candidates to Provide Birth Certificate | momlogic.com

2010-05-24T08:49:00.001-04:00

Arizona House OKs Bill Requiring Presidential Candidates to Provide Birth Certificate | momlogic.com

The Arizona House approved a bill Wednesday that would require presidential candidates to show his or her birth certificate in order to be on the state's ballot.

Getty Images

The Arizona House approved a bill Wednesday that would require presidential candidates to show his or her birth certificate in order to be on the state's ballot.
The House approved the measure on a 31-29 vote after four Republicans joined all of the Democrats in opposing it. The measure still faces a Senate vote.
It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the Arizona ballot to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

From Banning Books to Banning Blogs - Reason Magazine

2010-05-20T12:20:00.000-04:00

From Banning Books to Banning Blogs - Reason Magazine

The Obama administration has announced plans to regulate the Internet through the Federal Communications Commission, extending its authority over broadband providers to police web traffic, enforcing “net neutrality.”

Last week, a congressional hearing exposed an effort to give another agency—the Federal Election Commission—unprecedented power to regulate political speech online. At a House Administration Committee hearing last Tuesday, Patton Boggs attorney William McGinley explained that the sloppy statutory language in the “DISCLOSE Act” would extend the FEC’s control over broadcast communications to all “covered communications,” including the blogosphere.

The DISCLOSE Act’s purpose, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Chris Van Hollen and other “reformers,” is simply to require disclosure of corporate and union political speech after the Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that the government could not ban political expenditures by companies, nonprofit groups, and labor unions.

The bill, however, would radically redefine how the FEC regulates political commentary. A section of the DISCLOSE Act would exempt traditional media outlets from coordination regulations, but the exemption does not include bloggers, only “a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication…”

Ann Coulter : Obama National Security Policy: Hope Their Bombs Don't Work - Townhall.com

2010-05-16T16:12:00.000-04:00

Ann Coulter : Obama National Security Policy: Hope Their Bombs Don't Work - Townhall.com

It took Faisal Shahzad trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square to get President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to finally use the word "terrorism." (And not to refer to Tea Party activists!)

This is a major policy shift for a president who spent a month telling Americans not to "jump to conclusions" after Army doctor Nidal Malik Hasan reportedly jumped on a desk, shouted "Allahu Akbar!" and began shooting up Fort Hood.

After last weekend, now Obama is even threatening to pronounce it "Pack-i-stan" instead of "Pahk-i-stahn." We know Obama is taking terrorism seriously because he took a break from his "Hope, Change & Chuckles" tour on the comedy circuit to denounce terrorists.

In a bit of macho posturing this week, Obama declared that -- contrary to the terrorists' wishes -- Americans "will not be terrorized, we will not cower in fear, we will not be intimidated."

First of all, having the Transportation Security Administration wanding infants, taking applesauce away from 93-year-old dementia patients, and forcing all Americans to produce their shoes, computers and containers with up to 3 ounces of liquid in Ziploc bags for special screening pretty much blows that "not intimidated" look Obama wants America to adopt.

"Intimidated"? How about "absolutely terrified"?

Second, it would be a little easier for the rest of us not to live in fear if the president's entire national security strategy didn't depend on average citizens happening to notice a smoldering SUV in Times Square or smoke coming from a fellow airline passenger's crotch.

But after the car bomber and the diaper bomber, it has become increasingly clear that Obama's only national defense strategy is: Let's hope their bombs don't work!

Only the New York Police Department, a New York street vendor and Shahzad's Rube Goldberg bomb (I do hope he's not offended by how Jewish that sounds -- Obama can apologize) prevented a major explosion in Times Square.

Even after the NYPD de-wired the smoking car bomb, produced enough information to identify the bomb-maker, and handed it all to federal law enforcement authorities tied up in a bow, the federal government's crack "no-fly" list failed to stop Shahzad from boarding a plane to Dubai.

To be fair, at Emirates Airlines, being on a "no-fly" list makes you eligible for pre-boarding.

Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security should consider creating a "Really, REALLY No-Fly" list.

Contrary to the wild excuses being made for the federal government on all the TV networks Monday night, it's now clear that this was not a wily plan of federal investigators to allow Shahzad to board the plane in order to nab his co-conspirators. It was a flub that nearly allowed Shahzad to escape.

Meanwhile, on that same Monday at JFK airport, approximately 100,000 passengers took off their shoes, coats, belts and sunglasses for airport security.

But the "highly trained federal force" The New York Times promised us on Oct. 28, 2001, when the paper demanded that airport security be federalized, failed to stop the only guy they needed to stop at JFK last Monday -- the one who planted a bomb in the middle of Times Square days earlier.

So why were 100,000 other passengers harassed and annoyed by the TSA?

The federal government didn't stop the diaper bomber from nearly detonating a bomb over Detroit. It didn't stop a guy on the "No Fly" list from boarding a plane and coming minutes away from getting out of the country.

If our only defense to terrorism is counting on alert civilians, how about not bothering them before they board airplanes, instead of harassing them with useless airport "security" procedures?

Both of the attempted bombers who sailed through airport security, I note, were young males of Middle Eastern descent. I wonder if we could develop a security plan based on that information?

And speaking of a "highly trained federal force," who's working at the INS these days? Who on earth made the decision to allow Shahzad the unparalleled privilege of becoming a U.S. citizen in April 2009?

Our "Europeans Need Not Apply" immigration policies were absurd enough before 9/11. But after 19 foreign-born Muslims, legally admitted to the U.S., murdered 3,000 Americans in New York and Washington in a single day, couldn't we tighten up our admission policies toward people from countries still performing stonings and clitorectomies?

The NYPD can't be everyplace.

If only Dr. Hasan's gun had jammed at Fort Hood, that could have been another huge foreign policy success for Obama.

The administration's fingers-crossed strategy is a follow-up to Obama's earlier and less successful "Let's Make Them Love Us!" plan.

In the past year, Obama has repeatedly apologized to Muslims for America's "mistakes."

He has apologized to Iran for President Eisenhower's taking out loon Mohammad Mossadegh, before Mossadegh turned a comparatively civilized country into a Third World hellhole. You know, like the Ayatollah has.

He has apologized to the entire Muslim world for the French and English colonizing them -- i.e. building them flush toilets.

He promised to shut down Guantanamo. And he ordered the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to be tried in the same courthouse that tried Martha Stewart.

There was also Obama's 90-degree-bow tour of the East and Middle East. For his next visit, he plans to roll on his back and have his belly scratched like Fido.

Despite favorable reviews in The New York Times, none of this put an end to Islamic terrorism.

So now, I gather, our only strategy is to hope the terrorists' bombs keep fizzling.

There's no other line of defense. In the case of the Times Square car bomber, the Department of Homeland Security failed, the Immigration and Naturalization Service failed, the CIA failed and the TSA failed. (However, the Department of Alert T-Shirt Vendors came through with flying colors, as it always does.)

The Silent Majority: Socialist America

2010-05-16T16:09:00.000-04:00

The Silent Majority: Socialist America

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
********************

Winston Churchill said: “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” In these few words Churchill summed up for us exactly what Obama and the Democratic Party of America are ramming down the throats of the citizens of the United States today.

We watched over the years as the US Democratic Party adopted more and more of the Marxist agenda and slowly transformed themselves from a freedom loving political party to a Socialist/Marxist party. I first became aware of this transformation in the 1960’s. Since then I have watched as the Democratic Party has slowly shed it’s façade until they now proudly proclaim their socialist agenda.

I understand that many Americans STILL have no idea what socialism is and, unfortunately, they have even less understanding of capitalism. At least two generations of Americans have been taught in the government indoctrination centers, we laughingly refer to as the Public School System, and in our institutions of higher learning, that being liberal, being progressive, is the accepted norm for Americans. They bought it. Apparently, nobody told them that words like “liberal” and “progressive” were cover words for “collectivism,” “socialism”, and “communism”.

Well, I have news for you. Socialism is not “American” by any stretch of the imagination. If fact, it is anti-American.

How was this deception introduced into American government? It was a Democrat President by the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who introduced socialism to America and embedded it in our government. He said: "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle." --Franklin D. Roosevelt .

American, my Aunt Fanny! That’s PURE socialism!

Thomas Jefferson said: "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Now, THAT is American!

We have warned of socialist Incrementalism time and time again. We have warned that Incrementalism was being used to advance the socialist agenda in America -- only to be slapped down again and again by left-wingers.

Let’s see what Nikita Khrushchev, former premier of the Soviet Union had to say about America and socialism. Mr. Khrushchev said: “We can’t expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.”

Aha! So, there WAS a conspiracy! So, let’s look a bit farther. Mr. Norman Thomas, a former Socialist Party Presidential Candidate said: “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Well, SOME of us know how it happened. Heck we literally SCREAMED at America that it WAS happening.

So, now that America is Socialist, what do freedom loving Americans do about it? We PURGE or government of as many socialists as we can including those who hide behind titles such as “Liberal,” Progressive,” and, yes, Democrat.”

We do it at the polls this coming November and in November of 2012. The only other option is just too horrible to consider. I am convinced that unless we rescue America from the clutches of the Socialists, Marxists, Progressives, and Communists, America, as we know it today -- a country consisting of 50 united states -- will cease to exist as a 50 state entity in less than two decades. The anger and rage you see publicly demonstrated today is just the tip of the Iceberg. It runs much, much, deeper.

America has been hi-jacked and she must be rescued for the sake of freedom.

Specter Slime “Desperate” | The TIW Blog

2010-05-16T08:03:00.000-04:00

Specter Slime “Desperate” | The TIW Blog

Leading up to Tuesday’s Democrat primary in Pennsylvania, Former RINO Arlen Specter is said to be desperate as he faces mounting odds against his re-election. Trying to save his political power and his cushy job, Specter jumped to the Democrat Party to give it the 60-seat majority it enjoyed for nearly a year. Faced with a Conservative challenger in the Republican primary and with increasing voter frustration with the political elite ruling class, Specter had hoped that his handing the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate would guarantee his re-election. He was wrong.

Rather than giving Specter a free ride, the Democrats have put Democrat Representative Joe Sestak, a former Navy Vice Admiral, to challenge the old weasel.Sestak has pummeled Specter over his party switch, portraying the piece of human sludge as a self-serving, crook. Of course, that is exactly what Specter is. Of course, that’s what Sestak is too, but who’s asking?

Although some watching the race would like to see Specter humiliated in a landslide defeat by the Republicans in November, I’m just as willing to see his sorry treacherous a$$ torpedoed in the primary. If the Republicans aren’t strong enough to run against Sestak, so be it. The important thing is to get rid of Specter.