Friday, November 13, 2009
The Man Who Despises America...
from The American Spectator
By Mark Hyman
The very next paragraph is going to make the nut jobs on the far left excitable beyond belief. I am not referring to all Democrats or even a majority of liberals. I am singling out the "they've-lost-all-touch-with-reality" crowd. This includes Media Matters for America led by the admitted hit-and-run, drunk-driving serial liar. The group includes the unshaven, bathrobe-clad unemployed who live in their mother's basement and are devout followers of MoveOn.Org. It is also the bitter, aging spinster working at the New York Times, the morbidly obese documentary film maker, and cable TV news' resident drama queen who hosts MSNBC's Countdown. They are about to simultaneously suffer from brain aneurisms. So without further delay, I'll say it.
Barack Obama despises America.
When people who voted for Obama in 2008 -- including registered Democrats -- start speaking in normal conversational voices at dinner parties, neighborhood gatherings and PTA meetings that the over-inflated ego from Chicago has it "in for America," then it's clear most reasonable people have reached the same conclusion.
The central conviction of Obama's ideology is that America is guilty of limitless moral failures and is the chief architect of the world's ills. Obama has boundless enmity for America, its key institutions, and its longtime allies. Consider these facts.
The 30-years of Obama's post-adolescent life are radical by any measure. First, he grew up listening to the ramblings of committed Communist Frank Marshall Davis. It had such a profound effect on him that he wrote fondly of Davis in his first book. In fact, that book is replete with statement after statement about how the U.S. is deeply flawed. Most Americans believe in American exceptionalism. Not so with Obama.
Patriotic Americans would not have listened to the bigoted, anti-Semitic, hate-America rants of a fringe religious leader for 20 seconds let alone for 20 years. Yet, Obama who admitted he attended services at Trinity United Church at least twice a month for two decades called Jeremiah Wright his mentor and his moral sounding board.
Nor would most Americans cultivate a close friendship with an admitted domestic terrorist and his wife whose most notable life's accomplishments were to set off bombs that killed and maimed innocent people.
Joining Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright in organizing attendance at Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's 1995 march on Washington is beyond imaginable. Especially after Farrakhan demonstrated public support for Colonel Muammar Qaddafi during the Libyan Leader's most bellicose years against the U.S., which included Libyan complicity in numerous terrorist attacks.
Obama's view of America in national security and foreign affairs is profoundly disappointing to say the least.
Americans overwhelmingly view the men and women who saved Europe and the Far East during World War II as comprising the Greatest Generation. By his comments and actions, President Obama obviously thinks otherwise.
Obama did not honor American greatness on the 60th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift while on his first European trip. Instead, he accused "America [of having] shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward its European allies.
He also denigrated the accomplishments of the American G.I. during World War II in the Pacific theater when he offered a thinly veiled apology for the U.S. having dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those acts brought the war to a swift conclusion, perhaps saving hundreds of thousands of lives when it appeared Japan was prepared to wage an island-by-island battle to the last man.
Obama ordered the release of the so-called CIA "torture memos," seriously damaging delicate intelligence relations with allied nations and placing at grave risk the safety of U.S. intelligence officers working overseas. The impact of his action handcuffs the ability of U.S. intelligence officials to protect the U.S. and American interests from acts of terrorism.
In a matter of weeks last spring, Obama gave deference to a variety of belligerent leaders while stiff-arming longtime American allies. First, he called for closer relations with Cuba while ignoring that nation's long list of continuing human rights abuses. Then he warmly welcomed Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez at an Organization of American States summit.
Next, he failed to respond and set the record straight after Nicaragua's Communist leader Daniel Ortega listed alleged U.S. crimes and atrocities during a nearly one-hour rant at the OAS meeting. It is unsettling that in his own remarks Obama incorrectly claimed the OAS has 36 members rather than the actual 34. Ortega and the hemisphere's other Socialist leaders claim the OAS would include 36 members if Cuba and an independent Puerto Rico were allowed to join. Mere coincidence or Freudian slip?
There are 2 more pages
Click to read the rest of this great article
Obama Refuses to Say Bombing Hiroshima Was the 'Right Decision'....
from Weasel Zippers
November 13, 2009
Want to shudder uncontrollably? Try and imagine Barack Obama as Commander in Chief during WWII.....
(Fox Nation)- Defending the decision of the United States to drop nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII is not a comfortable thing to do when you're in Japan. But if you're President of the United States, you must do it. Diplomatically, yes. With sympathy for the civilian victims, yes. But you must do it. But when it came time today for Barack Obama to fulfill that fundamental duty, he failed
November 13, 2009
Want to shudder uncontrollably? Try and imagine Barack Obama as Commander in Chief during WWII.....
(Fox Nation)- Defending the decision of the United States to drop nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII is not a comfortable thing to do when you're in Japan. But if you're President of the United States, you must do it. Diplomatically, yes. With sympathy for the civilian victims, yes. But you must do it. But when it came time today for Barack Obama to fulfill that fundamental duty, he failed
Maddow Complains Labeling Hasan 'Terrorist' Would 'Paint the Democrats as Soft on Terror'
Could anyone be more intellectually dishonest about blatant islamic terrorism than Maddow is being? There is so much information out there right now, with I'm sure more to come, that proves these savage murders were absolutely an act by a muslim in his quest to kill infidels.
For her to continue to try and spin the situation as just a multiple homicide by someone suffering from PTSD is beyone disgusting. Would she still call it that if someone from her immediate family was one of the victims?
Rees
from New Busters
By Jeff Poor
November 13, 2009
It's one thing to avoid the "terrorist" label when reporting on Ft. Hood suspect Major Nidal Hasan. It's quite another to say that those who do use it are making a political calculation to "paint the Democrats as soft terror." Yet that's what MSNBC's Rachel Maddow insisted on her Nov. 11 broadcast.
Maddow launched into a minute-and-a-half soliloquy on why it is bad for the Democratic Party when commentators label Hasan a "terrorist." She even attempted to make the case on Hasan's behalf against a terrorism label. Who needs a legal team when you have friends like Maddow and Chris Matthews, who fretted over the legality of Hasan's al Qaeda communications?
"Remember this one? Yes, it is the old ‘paint the Democrats as soft on terror' routine," Maddow said. "But in order to play that politicizing terrorism, anti-Democratic greatest hits, the Fort Hood case has to be terrorism. Now, regardless of how you feel about the political issue of politicizing terrorism, it's worth asking was Fort Hood, technically speaking, terrorism? It's not just a political question. It's not just a judgment call. It's not just a matter of taste. It's a question to which there is an answer, a legal answer."
Hasan was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and, according to Maddow, because those charges don't indicate terrorism, the terrorism characterization should be avoided.
"And the charges today didn't include anything related to terrorism," Maddow said. "Terrorism is not just conceptual political jargon. It's a legal term and it has interestingly changed over the past few years. In order for something to be legally considered terrorism, do you have to be taking instructions from a terrorist group? Do you have to have some sort of clear political motive behind the violence? Is it about the way that you commit the crime, what sort of weapons that you use in doing? Is it about how many people that you kill in your crime? Is it about the specific type of people you target, whether they're civilian or military?"
However, as Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Army Criminal Investigation Command, explained, these charges are not set in stone and could change, which could altogether ruin Maddow's argument against branding Hasan a terrorist. But that wasn't stopping Maddow from sanctimoniously contending that using the word terrorism is nothing more than a strategic political maneuver and that it is an indictment of those making them, not the man accused of killing 13 people and wounding 29.
"If you're interested in more than just making political hay out of the Fort Hood case, these are the sort of legitimate questions you would want to ask before labeling this or any case an instance of terrorism," Maddow said. "Those who are calling this terrorism or making their case in large part because Maj. Hasan is a Muslim and because he's alleged to have said ‘God is great' before the shootings. And while it might make for exciting politics to argue murders by committed religious Muslims are presumptively terrorist acts, those exciting political allegations actually say a lot more about the people making them than they do about the real character of the tragedy at Fort Hood and how we, as a country, should respond to it."
Click to read the article and the comments
For her to continue to try and spin the situation as just a multiple homicide by someone suffering from PTSD is beyone disgusting. Would she still call it that if someone from her immediate family was one of the victims?
Rees
from New Busters
By Jeff Poor
November 13, 2009
It's one thing to avoid the "terrorist" label when reporting on Ft. Hood suspect Major Nidal Hasan. It's quite another to say that those who do use it are making a political calculation to "paint the Democrats as soft terror." Yet that's what MSNBC's Rachel Maddow insisted on her Nov. 11 broadcast.
Maddow launched into a minute-and-a-half soliloquy on why it is bad for the Democratic Party when commentators label Hasan a "terrorist." She even attempted to make the case on Hasan's behalf against a terrorism label. Who needs a legal team when you have friends like Maddow and Chris Matthews, who fretted over the legality of Hasan's al Qaeda communications?
"Remember this one? Yes, it is the old ‘paint the Democrats as soft on terror' routine," Maddow said. "But in order to play that politicizing terrorism, anti-Democratic greatest hits, the Fort Hood case has to be terrorism. Now, regardless of how you feel about the political issue of politicizing terrorism, it's worth asking was Fort Hood, technically speaking, terrorism? It's not just a political question. It's not just a judgment call. It's not just a matter of taste. It's a question to which there is an answer, a legal answer."
Hasan was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and, according to Maddow, because those charges don't indicate terrorism, the terrorism characterization should be avoided.
"And the charges today didn't include anything related to terrorism," Maddow said. "Terrorism is not just conceptual political jargon. It's a legal term and it has interestingly changed over the past few years. In order for something to be legally considered terrorism, do you have to be taking instructions from a terrorist group? Do you have to have some sort of clear political motive behind the violence? Is it about the way that you commit the crime, what sort of weapons that you use in doing? Is it about how many people that you kill in your crime? Is it about the specific type of people you target, whether they're civilian or military?"
However, as Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Army Criminal Investigation Command, explained, these charges are not set in stone and could change, which could altogether ruin Maddow's argument against branding Hasan a terrorist. But that wasn't stopping Maddow from sanctimoniously contending that using the word terrorism is nothing more than a strategic political maneuver and that it is an indictment of those making them, not the man accused of killing 13 people and wounding 29.
"If you're interested in more than just making political hay out of the Fort Hood case, these are the sort of legitimate questions you would want to ask before labeling this or any case an instance of terrorism," Maddow said. "Those who are calling this terrorism or making their case in large part because Maj. Hasan is a Muslim and because he's alleged to have said ‘God is great' before the shootings. And while it might make for exciting politics to argue murders by committed religious Muslims are presumptively terrorist acts, those exciting political allegations actually say a lot more about the people making them than they do about the real character of the tragedy at Fort Hood and how we, as a country, should respond to it."
Click to read the article and the comments
Classmates: Hasan defended suicide bombings, held Islamist views
from CNN
November 13, 2009
Fort Hood, Texas (CNN) -- Those who knew Nidal Malik Hasan before he was a major in the Army -- and the suspect in last week's mass killing at Fort Hood -- say he was long known for militant Islamist views.
Doctors who crossed paths with Hasan in medical programs paint a picture of a subpar student who wore his religious views on his sleeve.
Several doctors who knew Hasan spoke to CNN, but only on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation of the shooting, which left 12 soldiers and one civilian dead and dozens of other people wounded.
Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who faces 13 counts of premeditated murder, "was clearly espousing Islamist ideology" during his time as a medical student at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland, one of his former classmates told CNN.
Hasan's family has revealed little about him, saying in media interviews that Hasan was a "good American" and a lifelong Muslim who complained he was harassed in the Army because of his religion.
His former classmates describe a much more militant Hasan.
His presentations for school were often laced with extremist Muslim views, one source said.
"Is your allegiance to Sharia law or the United States?" students once challenged Hasan, the source said.
"Sharia law," Hasan responded, according to the source.
The incident was corroborated by another doctor who was present.
The source recalled another instance in which Hasan was asked if the U.S. Constitution was a brilliant document. Hasan replied, "No, not particularly," according to the source.
The former classmate told CNN that he voiced concerns about Hasan to supervisors at the school.
A second former medical school colleague of Hasan said several people raised concerns about Hasan's overall competence.
Even though Hasan earned his medical degree and residency, some of his fellow students believed Hasan "didn't have the intellect" to be in the program and was not academically rigorous in his coursework.
Hasan "was not fit to be in the military, let alone in the mental health profession," this classmate told CNN. "No one in class would ever have referred a patient to him or trusted him with anything."
The first classmate echoed this sentiment.
Hasan was "coddled, accommodated and pushed through that masters of public health despite substandard performance," the classmate said. He was "put in the fellowship program because they didn't know what to do with him."
The second classmate said he witnessed at least two of Hasan's PowerPoint discussions that included what he described as extremist views.
In these presentations, which were supposed to be about health, Hasan justified suicide bombings and spoke about the persecution of Muslims in the Middle East, in the United States and in the U.S. military, the source said.
Some in the crowd rolled their eyes or muttered under their breath, he said, and others were clearly uncomfortable.
Those in the audience, which included program supervisors, did not loudly object to Hasan's presentations, but did complain to their higher-ups afterward.
The supervisors expressed "appreciation, understanding and agreement" that the complaints would be discussed, but it was unclear what action, if any, came, the source said.
When the classmate challenged Hasan personally, Hasan dodged the questions, the source said.
Despite the controversy that his schoolwork created, classmates did not view Hasan as mentally unstable or psychotic, the source said.
Questions remain over how much Hasan's behavior and actions in school were reflected in his personnel files.
Col. Kimberly Kesling, deputy commander of Clinical Services for Darnell Medical Center at Fort Hood and Hasan's supervisor at the post, told reporters last week that Hasan was doing a good job in Texas.
"As a supervisor, I am aware of the job performance of people coming into our organization, that is part of our credentialing process," Kesling said. "The types of things that were reported to me via his evaluation report were things that concerned me, but did not raise red flags toward this [the shootings] in any way, shape, or form."
"His evaluation reports said that he had some difficulties in his residency, fitting into his residency, and we worked very hard to integrate him into our practice and into our organization, and he adapted very well, was doing a really good job for us," she said.
Prompted by reports of former classmates, however, Army investigators would like to speak with people who have had contact with Hasan and who may have information about his activities and behavior, Maj. Gen Kevin Bergner, head of U.S. Army public affairs, said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates weighed in on the information surfacing about Hasan.
"I deplore the leaks that have taken place," he said on a trip to Oshkosh, Wisconsin. People are talking about "what they know, which is one small piece of the puzzle."
"They don't know whether or not what they're leaking might jeopardize a potential criminal investigation and trial," he said.
"People who have a piece of this, frankly, ought to keep quiet and let the authorities go forward on this in an organized and comprehensive way," Gates said.
Hasan came under investigation last year when his contacts with radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki were intercepted by terrorism investigators monitoring the cleric's communications, a federal law enforcement official told CNN.
An employee of the Defense Department's Criminal Investigative Services, assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, decided to drop the investigation after reviewing the intercepted communications and Hasan's personnel files.
Hasan remained hospitalized Thursday from gunshot wounds he received from two police officers who responded to last week's shooting.
CNN's Brian Todd and Ed Lavandera contributed to this report.
Click to read the article and the comments
November 13, 2009
Fort Hood, Texas (CNN) -- Those who knew Nidal Malik Hasan before he was a major in the Army -- and the suspect in last week's mass killing at Fort Hood -- say he was long known for militant Islamist views.
Doctors who crossed paths with Hasan in medical programs paint a picture of a subpar student who wore his religious views on his sleeve.
Several doctors who knew Hasan spoke to CNN, but only on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation of the shooting, which left 12 soldiers and one civilian dead and dozens of other people wounded.
Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who faces 13 counts of premeditated murder, "was clearly espousing Islamist ideology" during his time as a medical student at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland, one of his former classmates told CNN.
Hasan's family has revealed little about him, saying in media interviews that Hasan was a "good American" and a lifelong Muslim who complained he was harassed in the Army because of his religion.
His former classmates describe a much more militant Hasan.
His presentations for school were often laced with extremist Muslim views, one source said.
"Is your allegiance to Sharia law or the United States?" students once challenged Hasan, the source said.
"Sharia law," Hasan responded, according to the source.
The incident was corroborated by another doctor who was present.
The source recalled another instance in which Hasan was asked if the U.S. Constitution was a brilliant document. Hasan replied, "No, not particularly," according to the source.
The former classmate told CNN that he voiced concerns about Hasan to supervisors at the school.
A second former medical school colleague of Hasan said several people raised concerns about Hasan's overall competence.
Even though Hasan earned his medical degree and residency, some of his fellow students believed Hasan "didn't have the intellect" to be in the program and was not academically rigorous in his coursework.
Hasan "was not fit to be in the military, let alone in the mental health profession," this classmate told CNN. "No one in class would ever have referred a patient to him or trusted him with anything."
The first classmate echoed this sentiment.
Hasan was "coddled, accommodated and pushed through that masters of public health despite substandard performance," the classmate said. He was "put in the fellowship program because they didn't know what to do with him."
The second classmate said he witnessed at least two of Hasan's PowerPoint discussions that included what he described as extremist views.
In these presentations, which were supposed to be about health, Hasan justified suicide bombings and spoke about the persecution of Muslims in the Middle East, in the United States and in the U.S. military, the source said.
Some in the crowd rolled their eyes or muttered under their breath, he said, and others were clearly uncomfortable.
Those in the audience, which included program supervisors, did not loudly object to Hasan's presentations, but did complain to their higher-ups afterward.
The supervisors expressed "appreciation, understanding and agreement" that the complaints would be discussed, but it was unclear what action, if any, came, the source said.
When the classmate challenged Hasan personally, Hasan dodged the questions, the source said.
Despite the controversy that his schoolwork created, classmates did not view Hasan as mentally unstable or psychotic, the source said.
Questions remain over how much Hasan's behavior and actions in school were reflected in his personnel files.
Col. Kimberly Kesling, deputy commander of Clinical Services for Darnell Medical Center at Fort Hood and Hasan's supervisor at the post, told reporters last week that Hasan was doing a good job in Texas.
"As a supervisor, I am aware of the job performance of people coming into our organization, that is part of our credentialing process," Kesling said. "The types of things that were reported to me via his evaluation report were things that concerned me, but did not raise red flags toward this [the shootings] in any way, shape, or form."
"His evaluation reports said that he had some difficulties in his residency, fitting into his residency, and we worked very hard to integrate him into our practice and into our organization, and he adapted very well, was doing a really good job for us," she said.
Prompted by reports of former classmates, however, Army investigators would like to speak with people who have had contact with Hasan and who may have information about his activities and behavior, Maj. Gen Kevin Bergner, head of U.S. Army public affairs, said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates weighed in on the information surfacing about Hasan.
"I deplore the leaks that have taken place," he said on a trip to Oshkosh, Wisconsin. People are talking about "what they know, which is one small piece of the puzzle."
"They don't know whether or not what they're leaking might jeopardize a potential criminal investigation and trial," he said.
"People who have a piece of this, frankly, ought to keep quiet and let the authorities go forward on this in an organized and comprehensive way," Gates said.
Hasan came under investigation last year when his contacts with radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki were intercepted by terrorism investigators monitoring the cleric's communications, a federal law enforcement official told CNN.
An employee of the Defense Department's Criminal Investigative Services, assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, decided to drop the investigation after reviewing the intercepted communications and Hasan's personnel files.
Hasan remained hospitalized Thursday from gunshot wounds he received from two police officers who responded to last week's shooting.
CNN's Brian Todd and Ed Lavandera contributed to this report.
Click to read the article and the comments
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Deadly denial - Fudging the facts on Fort Hood
by Ralph Peters
from The New York Post
As President Obama belatedly appears at Fort Hood today, will he dare to speak the word "terror?"
He won't use the word "Islamist." If he mentions Islam at all, it'll be to sing its praises yet again.
We've already learned that Islamist terrorist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan attended the Northern Virginia mosque of Imam Anwar al-Aulaqi, a fiery al Qaeda supporter who later fled the United States. We know that Hasan's peers, subordinates and patients repeatedly raised red flags that his superiors suppressed. We know he was a player on Islamist-extremist Web sites. The FBI's uncovering one extremist link after another.
But to call this an act of terrorism, the White House would need an autographed photo of Osama bin Laden helping Hasan buy weapons in downtown Killeen, Texas. Even that might not suffice.
Islamist terrorists don't all have al Qaeda union cards in their wallets. Terrorism's increasingly the domain of entrepreneurs and independent contractors. Under Muslim jurisprudence, jihad's an individual responsibility. Hasan was a self-appointed jihadi.
Yet we're told he was just having a bad day.
Our politically correct Army plays along. Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey won't utter the word "terrorism." The Forces Command Public Affairs Office guidance for officers never mentions "Islam" or "terror," leaving you unsure whether there was a traffic accident down at Fort Hood, or maybe an outbreak of swine flu.
Meanwhile, the media try to turn Hasan into a victim. A sickening (and amateurish) Washington Post article portrayed him as a poor, impoverished minority living in a $320-a-month rathole apartment and driving a down-market car -- as if the squalor made him a terrorist.
Squalor he chose to live in, by the way: As a major drawing added professional pay for his medical credentials, plus his benefits, Hasan made a six-figure income. And he was single, without college loans or medical bills. Has anybody asked where the money went? I'll bet a chunk of it disappeared in cash donations to hard-core Islamist causes. Will a single journalist track the missing bucks?
It gets worse: On Sunday evening, a ranking officer in Hasan's medical chain of command raced to cover her butt. Asked why the killer was promoted to major after receiving career-killer performance reviews at Walter Reed, the officer claimed that Hasan faced the same promotion board requirements as everyone else.
Liar, liar, uniform on fire: A dirty big secret in our Army has been that officers' promotion boards have quotas for minorities. We don't call them quotas, of course. But if a board doesn't hit the floor numbers, its results are held up until the list has been corrected. It's almost impossible for the Army's politically correct promotion system to pass over a Muslim physician.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, one of the few lawmakers willing to whisper the word "terrorism," needs to call the officers who sat on Hasan's promotion board before the Senate, put them under oath, then ask if Hasan made major because of minority-quota requirements.
This corrupt (and now deadly) affirmative-action system does a severe disservice to the bulk of minority officers, who make the grade on quality and professionalism. It leaves other officers wondering if the new guy who just showed up in the unit is a "real" officer or an affirmative-action baby.
Ditto for our government's unwillingness to take on Muslim extremists on US soil. Blathering about freedom of religion, we foster hate speech. By protecting the fanatics, we betray the peaceful majority of our Muslim citizens, leaving them afraid to speak out, since the feds shield the fanatics in charge of their mosques and communities.
Let's be clear: Maj. Hasan's terrorism should not result in a witch hunt against Muslim service members. But soldiers who happen to be Muslims must be subject to the same level of scrutiny and discipline as those of other faiths.
Just as we'd expect the Army to get rid of a disruptive white supremacist, we need to cashier anyone who espouses violent Islamist extremism -- as Maj. Hasan did, again and again.
We won't. Because Islamist terrorism doesn't exist. Just ignore the dead and ask our president.
Click to read the article and the comments
from The New York Post
As President Obama belatedly appears at Fort Hood today, will he dare to speak the word "terror?"
He won't use the word "Islamist." If he mentions Islam at all, it'll be to sing its praises yet again.
We've already learned that Islamist terrorist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan attended the Northern Virginia mosque of Imam Anwar al-Aulaqi, a fiery al Qaeda supporter who later fled the United States. We know that Hasan's peers, subordinates and patients repeatedly raised red flags that his superiors suppressed. We know he was a player on Islamist-extremist Web sites. The FBI's uncovering one extremist link after another.
But to call this an act of terrorism, the White House would need an autographed photo of Osama bin Laden helping Hasan buy weapons in downtown Killeen, Texas. Even that might not suffice.
Islamist terrorists don't all have al Qaeda union cards in their wallets. Terrorism's increasingly the domain of entrepreneurs and independent contractors. Under Muslim jurisprudence, jihad's an individual responsibility. Hasan was a self-appointed jihadi.
Yet we're told he was just having a bad day.
Our politically correct Army plays along. Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey won't utter the word "terrorism." The Forces Command Public Affairs Office guidance for officers never mentions "Islam" or "terror," leaving you unsure whether there was a traffic accident down at Fort Hood, or maybe an outbreak of swine flu.
Meanwhile, the media try to turn Hasan into a victim. A sickening (and amateurish) Washington Post article portrayed him as a poor, impoverished minority living in a $320-a-month rathole apartment and driving a down-market car -- as if the squalor made him a terrorist.
Squalor he chose to live in, by the way: As a major drawing added professional pay for his medical credentials, plus his benefits, Hasan made a six-figure income. And he was single, without college loans or medical bills. Has anybody asked where the money went? I'll bet a chunk of it disappeared in cash donations to hard-core Islamist causes. Will a single journalist track the missing bucks?
It gets worse: On Sunday evening, a ranking officer in Hasan's medical chain of command raced to cover her butt. Asked why the killer was promoted to major after receiving career-killer performance reviews at Walter Reed, the officer claimed that Hasan faced the same promotion board requirements as everyone else.
Liar, liar, uniform on fire: A dirty big secret in our Army has been that officers' promotion boards have quotas for minorities. We don't call them quotas, of course. But if a board doesn't hit the floor numbers, its results are held up until the list has been corrected. It's almost impossible for the Army's politically correct promotion system to pass over a Muslim physician.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, one of the few lawmakers willing to whisper the word "terrorism," needs to call the officers who sat on Hasan's promotion board before the Senate, put them under oath, then ask if Hasan made major because of minority-quota requirements.
This corrupt (and now deadly) affirmative-action system does a severe disservice to the bulk of minority officers, who make the grade on quality and professionalism. It leaves other officers wondering if the new guy who just showed up in the unit is a "real" officer or an affirmative-action baby.
Ditto for our government's unwillingness to take on Muslim extremists on US soil. Blathering about freedom of religion, we foster hate speech. By protecting the fanatics, we betray the peaceful majority of our Muslim citizens, leaving them afraid to speak out, since the feds shield the fanatics in charge of their mosques and communities.
Let's be clear: Maj. Hasan's terrorism should not result in a witch hunt against Muslim service members. But soldiers who happen to be Muslims must be subject to the same level of scrutiny and discipline as those of other faiths.
Just as we'd expect the Army to get rid of a disruptive white supremacist, we need to cashier anyone who espouses violent Islamist extremism -- as Maj. Hasan did, again and again.
We won't. Because Islamist terrorism doesn't exist. Just ignore the dead and ask our president.
Click to read the article and the comments
Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer
from the Wall Street Journal
A liberal explains the political calculus.
The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."
Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."
Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.
This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."
No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.
Click to read the article and the comments
A liberal explains the political calculus.
The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."
Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."
Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.
This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."
No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.
Click to read the article and the comments
NOAA: Third Coldest October On Record - so much for global warming!
National Overview: Temperature Highlights - October
The average October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20th Century average and ranked as the 3rd coolest based on preliminary data.
For the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on record. The month was marked by an active weather pattern that reinforced unseasonably cold air behind a series of cold fronts. Temperatures were below normal in eight of the nation's nine climate regions, and of the nine, five were much below normal. Only the Southeast climate region had near normal temperatures for October.
Statewide temperatures coincided with the regional values as all but six states had below normal temperatures. Oklahoma had its coolest October on record and ten other states had their top five coolest such months.
The average October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20th Century average and ranked as the 3rd coolest based on preliminary data.
For the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on record. The month was marked by an active weather pattern that reinforced unseasonably cold air behind a series of cold fronts. Temperatures were below normal in eight of the nation's nine climate regions, and of the nine, five were much below normal. Only the Southeast climate region had near normal temperatures for October.
Statewide temperatures coincided with the regional values as all but six states had below normal temperatures. Oklahoma had its coolest October on record and ten other states had their top five coolest such months.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Ralph Peters Examines the Political Correctness That Killed 13 Americans at Fort Hood
from Flopping Aces
November 9, 2009
Why is the Obama Administration so reluctant to call Islamist terror by it’s name?
Obama can’t be bothered by Islamic terrorism
By Ralph Peters
New York Post
Nov. 8, 2009
…A Muslim fanatic, known to the FBI as a fan of suicide bombers and to colleagues as an opponent of our government, coolly buys weapons, heads to a military facility he knows will be packed with unsuspecting soldiers, waits for the crowd to thicken, then shouts, “Allah is great!” and guns down 51 patriots, calmly reloading among the dead and dying.
But don’t rush to judgment.
Imagine if, instead of Fort Hood, the massacre had gone down at a mosque in Detroit — carried out by a maddened Christian or Jew. Obama would’ve been aboard Air Force One before the pilots had time to file a flight plan and he would’ve been on site before the gun smoke cleared, hugging and boo-hooing and dispensing stirring rhetoric for the evening news.
But go out of his way to rally our butchered troops? Not a chance. It’s not like they’re real human beings with Ivy League degrees. When Obama got word of the attack, he didn’t even lose his fabled cool.
…Of course, this act of Islamist terrorism has been an inconvenience to a president whose administration insists there’s no such thing. Those dead and wounded soldiers are such an embarrassment. If only a Baptist or Lutheran had been the shooter, things would’ve been so much tidier.
What’s next? The White House is going to bring heavy pressure on the FBI, through Attorney General Eric Holder, to play down investigative results confirming that Maj. Nidal Hasan was motivated by his Muslim beliefs.
Instead, we’ll hear even more about the “harassment” Hasan suffered as the media toe the line laid down by the vile lead editorial in Saturday’s New York Times and how this calculating terrorist contracted PTSD from his patients.
Let me kill the harassment myth right now: Political correctness rules in today’s Army. We even protect our enemies these days. Had any soldier harassed Hasan because of his Islamist nuttiness, that soldier would’ve disappeared faster than a Franklin on a Times Square sidewalk.
Far from being harassed himself, this creep was allowed to harass the soldiers he treated for stress disorders. According to colleagues, Hasan not only argued with his patients about our wars, but preached Islam to those under his care. (Just what troubled vets needed, no doubt.)
Prejudice? You bet. In this terrorist’s favor. Nobody in Hasan’s chain of command had the sense of duty to weed this pervert out. Why? Hasan would’ve accused them of discrimination. And the officer who brought charges against Hasan would’ve been the one whose career suffered.
Since writing on this travesty in the Post and speaking out on Fox News, I’ve been deluged with supportive messages — many from soldiers outraged at the politically correct treatment of this terrorist by the media, by senior military leaders — and by the president.
How many more Americans have to die, at home and in war, before our president admits that there is, indeed, such a thing as Islamist terror? Will he ever admit that it played a role in the tragedy at Fort Hood?
Not a chance. Islam’s a religion of peace. America’s the problem. And don’t you forget it.
Many of us have scratched our heads wondering how a fine American like Flopping Aces contributor Maj. Chris Galloway could commit suicide after tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, we learn that one of the men whose job it was to help returning troops deal with the reality of their deployments was an Islamist nut case. Heads should roll here and let’s start with the apparent indifference by the Obama Administration to the problem of Islamic extremists permitted to remain at their jobs in the U.S. military.
Click to read the article and the comments
November 9, 2009
Why is the Obama Administration so reluctant to call Islamist terror by it’s name?
Obama can’t be bothered by Islamic terrorism
By Ralph Peters
New York Post
Nov. 8, 2009
…A Muslim fanatic, known to the FBI as a fan of suicide bombers and to colleagues as an opponent of our government, coolly buys weapons, heads to a military facility he knows will be packed with unsuspecting soldiers, waits for the crowd to thicken, then shouts, “Allah is great!” and guns down 51 patriots, calmly reloading among the dead and dying.
But don’t rush to judgment.
Imagine if, instead of Fort Hood, the massacre had gone down at a mosque in Detroit — carried out by a maddened Christian or Jew. Obama would’ve been aboard Air Force One before the pilots had time to file a flight plan and he would’ve been on site before the gun smoke cleared, hugging and boo-hooing and dispensing stirring rhetoric for the evening news.
But go out of his way to rally our butchered troops? Not a chance. It’s not like they’re real human beings with Ivy League degrees. When Obama got word of the attack, he didn’t even lose his fabled cool.
…Of course, this act of Islamist terrorism has been an inconvenience to a president whose administration insists there’s no such thing. Those dead and wounded soldiers are such an embarrassment. If only a Baptist or Lutheran had been the shooter, things would’ve been so much tidier.
What’s next? The White House is going to bring heavy pressure on the FBI, through Attorney General Eric Holder, to play down investigative results confirming that Maj. Nidal Hasan was motivated by his Muslim beliefs.
Instead, we’ll hear even more about the “harassment” Hasan suffered as the media toe the line laid down by the vile lead editorial in Saturday’s New York Times and how this calculating terrorist contracted PTSD from his patients.
Let me kill the harassment myth right now: Political correctness rules in today’s Army. We even protect our enemies these days. Had any soldier harassed Hasan because of his Islamist nuttiness, that soldier would’ve disappeared faster than a Franklin on a Times Square sidewalk.
Far from being harassed himself, this creep was allowed to harass the soldiers he treated for stress disorders. According to colleagues, Hasan not only argued with his patients about our wars, but preached Islam to those under his care. (Just what troubled vets needed, no doubt.)
Prejudice? You bet. In this terrorist’s favor. Nobody in Hasan’s chain of command had the sense of duty to weed this pervert out. Why? Hasan would’ve accused them of discrimination. And the officer who brought charges against Hasan would’ve been the one whose career suffered.
Since writing on this travesty in the Post and speaking out on Fox News, I’ve been deluged with supportive messages — many from soldiers outraged at the politically correct treatment of this terrorist by the media, by senior military leaders — and by the president.
How many more Americans have to die, at home and in war, before our president admits that there is, indeed, such a thing as Islamist terror? Will he ever admit that it played a role in the tragedy at Fort Hood?
Not a chance. Islam’s a religion of peace. America’s the problem. And don’t you forget it.
Many of us have scratched our heads wondering how a fine American like Flopping Aces contributor Maj. Chris Galloway could commit suicide after tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, we learn that one of the men whose job it was to help returning troops deal with the reality of their deployments was an Islamist nut case. Heads should roll here and let’s start with the apparent indifference by the Obama Administration to the problem of Islamic extremists permitted to remain at their jobs in the U.S. military.
Click to read the article and the comments
Nidal Hasan’s business card explained
By Michelle Malkin November 9, 2009 12:50 PM
SOA” stands for Soldiers of Allah. “SWT” is a related Muslim acronym: Pamela Geller explains another red flag ignored.
Related: David Horowitz diagnoses Gen. Casey’s p.c. debilitation.
You have to view this segment of the Meet the Press interview with Army chief of staff General George Casey to believe it — to believe that our army could be led by someone as incompetent in national security matters as this man showed he was, first by claiming that the army hadn’t “missed anything” in regard to the in-your-face warning signs exhibited by Major Hasan that he was a fanatical Muslim jihadist and an imminent threat to massacre our troops, by admitting that the army’s diversity policies had trumped its security policies, and worst of all by making this statement: ‘As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.’”
Once again: Political correctness is the handmaiden of terror.
Click to read the article and the comments
ABC: FBI knew Hasan tried to contact Al-Qaeda
posted at 9:30 am
on November 9, 2009
by Ed Morrissey
from Hot Air
Would it normally be considered a national-security problem if a high-ranking military officer had tried to contact an enemy of the United States during wartime? ABC News reports that the FBI knew that Major Nidal Hasan had attempted to contact al-Qaeda and its associates months before Hasan went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, killing 13 people. Did the FBI tell the Army about it? That gets rather murky:
Meanwhile, the imam with whom Hasan associated — with his own ties to the 9/11 terrorists — has issued a statement calling Hasan a “hero,” a “man of conscience” who successfully resolved the conflict of being Muslim and a member of the American armed forces. Anwar al-Awlaki now lives in Yemen, but he used to run mosques in Denver, San Diego, and Falls Church before beating feet after the 9/11 attacks. ABC reports that Awlaki runs a jihadist web site, which is where he posted his support of Hasan.
Did Hasan commit his act of terror alone or under instructions from Awlaki and his AQ associates? That’s what investigators want to know, but either way it seems that a 9/10 attitude has re-entered national-security considerations. Anyone attempting to contact al-Qaeda should have been arrested, or at the least kept away from military bases. Why did our counter-terrorist efforts leave Nidal Hasan in position to actually deploy into a combat theater if the FBI knew or even suspected these attempts to contact the enemy?
It sounds a lot like the law-enforcement model of counterterrorism that failed us so spectacularly from 1993 to 2001.
Update (AP): In case you missed WaPo’s story on Hasan over the weekend, note what he told a neighbor on the morning of the murders after handing her a Koran: “I’m going to do good work for God.”
Update (Ed): Verum Serum has more on al-Awliki and Hasan’s “heroism”.
Update II: Joe Gandelman asks the right question: “If American intelligence agencies missed the signs pre-911 and they missed a big hint pre-Foot Hood, exactly what are they missing now, as you read this post?” I would also add this: “And why are they missing it?” Because in this case, it seems as though political correctness over the feelings of Muslims has played a part in hamstringing action — and that could be the case with other potential threats, too.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments
on November 9, 2009
by Ed Morrissey
from Hot Air
Would it normally be considered a national-security problem if a high-ranking military officer had tried to contact an enemy of the United States during wartime? ABC News reports that the FBI knew that Major Nidal Hasan had attempted to contact al-Qaeda and its associates months before Hasan went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, killing 13 people. Did the FBI tell the Army about it? That gets rather murky:
U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.However, the Army certainly had enough information to know that Hasan was a problem:
It is not known whether the intelligence agencies informed the Army that one of its officers was seeking to connect with suspected al Qaeda figures, the officials said.
One senior lawmaker said the CIA had, so far, refused to brief the intelligence committees on what, if any, knowledge they had about Hasan’s efforts.
A fellow Army doctor who studied with Hasan, Val Finell, told ABC News, “We would frequently say he was a Muslim first and an American second. And that came out in just about everything he did at the University.
Finell said he and other Army doctors complained to superiors about Hasan’s statements.
“And we questioned how somebody could take an oath of office…be an officer in the military and swear allegiance to the constitution and to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic and have that type of conflict,” Finell told ABC News.
Meanwhile, the imam with whom Hasan associated — with his own ties to the 9/11 terrorists — has issued a statement calling Hasan a “hero,” a “man of conscience” who successfully resolved the conflict of being Muslim and a member of the American armed forces. Anwar al-Awlaki now lives in Yemen, but he used to run mosques in Denver, San Diego, and Falls Church before beating feet after the 9/11 attacks. ABC reports that Awlaki runs a jihadist web site, which is where he posted his support of Hasan.
Did Hasan commit his act of terror alone or under instructions from Awlaki and his AQ associates? That’s what investigators want to know, but either way it seems that a 9/10 attitude has re-entered national-security considerations. Anyone attempting to contact al-Qaeda should have been arrested, or at the least kept away from military bases. Why did our counter-terrorist efforts leave Nidal Hasan in position to actually deploy into a combat theater if the FBI knew or even suspected these attempts to contact the enemy?
It sounds a lot like the law-enforcement model of counterterrorism that failed us so spectacularly from 1993 to 2001.
Update (AP): In case you missed WaPo’s story on Hasan over the weekend, note what he told a neighbor on the morning of the murders after handing her a Koran: “I’m going to do good work for God.”
Update (Ed): Verum Serum has more on al-Awliki and Hasan’s “heroism”.
Update II: Joe Gandelman asks the right question: “If American intelligence agencies missed the signs pre-911 and they missed a big hint pre-Foot Hood, exactly what are they missing now, as you read this post?” I would also add this: “And why are they missing it?” Because in this case, it seems as though political correctness over the feelings of Muslims has played a part in hamstringing action — and that could be the case with other potential threats, too.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments
Friday, September 11, 2009
Betraying our dead...Forgetting the vows we made
from The New York Post
by Ralph Peters
9/11/2009
Eight years ago today, our homeland was attacked by fanatical Muslims inspired by Saudi Arabian bigotry. Three thousand American citizens and residents died.
We resolved that we, the People, would never forget. Then we forgot.
We've learned nothing.
Instead of cracking down on Islamist extremism, we've excused it.
Instead of killing terrorists, we free them.
Instead of relentlessly hunting Islamist madmen, we seek to appease them.
Instead of acknowledging that radical Islam is the problem, we elected a president who blames America, whose idea of freedom is the right for women to suffer in silence behind a veil -- and who counts among his mentors and friends those who damn our country or believe that our own government staged the tragedy of September 11, 2001.
Instead of insisting that freedom will not be infringed by terrorist threats, we censor works that might offend mass murderers. Radical Muslims around the world can indulge in viral lies about us, but we dare not even publish cartoons mocking them.
Instead of protecting law-abiding Americans, we reject profiling to avoid offending terrorists. So we confiscate granny's shampoo at the airport because the half-empty container could hold 3.5 ounces of liquid.
Instead of insisting that Islamist hatred and religious apartheid have no place in our country, we permit the Saudis to continue funding mosques and madrassahs where hating Jews and Christians is preached as essential to Islam.
Instead of confronting Saudi hate-mongers, our president bows down to the Saudi king.
Instead of recognizing the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi cult as the core of the problem, our president blames Israel.
Instead of asking why Middle Eastern civilization has failed so abjectly, our president suggests that we're the failures.
Instead of taking every effective measure to cull information from terrorists, the current administration threatens CIA agents with prosecution for keeping us safe.
Instead of proudly and promptly rebuilding on the site of the Twin Towers, we've committed ourselves to the hopeless, useless task of rebuilding Afghanistan. (Perhaps we should have built a mosque at Ground Zero -- the Saudis would've funded it.)
Instead of taking a firm stand against Islamist fanaticism, we've made a cult of negotiations -- as our enemies pursue nuclear weapons; sponsor terrorism; torture, imprison, rape and murder their own citizens -- and laugh at us.
Instead of insisting that Islam must become a religion of responsibility, our leaders in both parties continue to bleat that "Islam's a religion of peace," ignoring the curious absence of Baptist suicide bombers.
Instead of requiring new immigrants to integrate into our society and conform to its public values, we encourage and subsidize anti-American, woman-hating, freedom-denying bigotry in the name of toleration.
Instead of pursuing our enemies to the ends of the earth, we help them sue us.
We've dishonored our dead and whitewashed our enemies. A distinctly unholy alliance between fanatical Islamists abroad and a politically correct "elite" in the US has reduced 9/11 to the status of a non-event, a day for politicians to preen about how little they've done.
We've forgotten the shock and the patriotic fury Americans felt on that bright September morning eight years ago. We've forgotten our identification with fellow citizens leaping from doomed skyscrapers. We've forgotten the courage of airline passengers who would not surrender to terror.
We've forgotten the men and women who burned to death or suffocated in the Pentagon. We've forgotten our promises, our vows, our commitments.
We've forgotten what we owe our dead and what we owe our children. We've even forgotten who attacked us.
We have betrayed the memory of our dead. In doing so, we betrayed ourselves and our country. Our troops continue to fight -- when they're allowed to do so -- but our politicians have surrendered.
Are we willing to let the terrorists win?
Ralph Peters' new thriller, "The War After Armageddon," goes on sale next Tuesday.
Click to read the article and the comments
by Ralph Peters
9/11/2009
Eight years ago today, our homeland was attacked by fanatical Muslims inspired by Saudi Arabian bigotry. Three thousand American citizens and residents died.
We resolved that we, the People, would never forget. Then we forgot.
We've learned nothing.
Instead of cracking down on Islamist extremism, we've excused it.
Instead of killing terrorists, we free them.
Instead of relentlessly hunting Islamist madmen, we seek to appease them.
Instead of acknowledging that radical Islam is the problem, we elected a president who blames America, whose idea of freedom is the right for women to suffer in silence behind a veil -- and who counts among his mentors and friends those who damn our country or believe that our own government staged the tragedy of September 11, 2001.
Instead of insisting that freedom will not be infringed by terrorist threats, we censor works that might offend mass murderers. Radical Muslims around the world can indulge in viral lies about us, but we dare not even publish cartoons mocking them.
Instead of protecting law-abiding Americans, we reject profiling to avoid offending terrorists. So we confiscate granny's shampoo at the airport because the half-empty container could hold 3.5 ounces of liquid.
Instead of insisting that Islamist hatred and religious apartheid have no place in our country, we permit the Saudis to continue funding mosques and madrassahs where hating Jews and Christians is preached as essential to Islam.
Instead of confronting Saudi hate-mongers, our president bows down to the Saudi king.
Instead of recognizing the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi cult as the core of the problem, our president blames Israel.
Instead of asking why Middle Eastern civilization has failed so abjectly, our president suggests that we're the failures.
Instead of taking every effective measure to cull information from terrorists, the current administration threatens CIA agents with prosecution for keeping us safe.
Instead of proudly and promptly rebuilding on the site of the Twin Towers, we've committed ourselves to the hopeless, useless task of rebuilding Afghanistan. (Perhaps we should have built a mosque at Ground Zero -- the Saudis would've funded it.)
Instead of taking a firm stand against Islamist fanaticism, we've made a cult of negotiations -- as our enemies pursue nuclear weapons; sponsor terrorism; torture, imprison, rape and murder their own citizens -- and laugh at us.
Instead of insisting that Islam must become a religion of responsibility, our leaders in both parties continue to bleat that "Islam's a religion of peace," ignoring the curious absence of Baptist suicide bombers.
Instead of requiring new immigrants to integrate into our society and conform to its public values, we encourage and subsidize anti-American, woman-hating, freedom-denying bigotry in the name of toleration.
Instead of pursuing our enemies to the ends of the earth, we help them sue us.
We've dishonored our dead and whitewashed our enemies. A distinctly unholy alliance between fanatical Islamists abroad and a politically correct "elite" in the US has reduced 9/11 to the status of a non-event, a day for politicians to preen about how little they've done.
We've forgotten the shock and the patriotic fury Americans felt on that bright September morning eight years ago. We've forgotten our identification with fellow citizens leaping from doomed skyscrapers. We've forgotten the courage of airline passengers who would not surrender to terror.
We've forgotten the men and women who burned to death or suffocated in the Pentagon. We've forgotten our promises, our vows, our commitments.
We've forgotten what we owe our dead and what we owe our children. We've even forgotten who attacked us.
We have betrayed the memory of our dead. In doing so, we betrayed ourselves and our country. Our troops continue to fight -- when they're allowed to do so -- but our politicians have surrendered.
Are we willing to let the terrorists win?
Ralph Peters' new thriller, "The War After Armageddon," goes on sale next Tuesday.
Click to read the article and the comments
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
America, Canada , all Europe Needs a President like this!
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - Australia
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.
Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It.
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians'.
'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'. 'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!'
'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'
'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'
'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,
'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'
Maybe American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths. And the same goes for other groups of people that do not embrace the “American Way of Life”
Brainwashing you can believe in...
September 09, 2009
By Neil Braithwaite
from American Thinker
When Barack Obama told a Missouri crowd last November, "We are five days from fundamentally changing the Unites States of America," he meant exactly what he said and had a plan to do just that.
What is so striking about that statement is that in order to "fundamentally change" America, Obama will have to destroy the foundation laid by the founding fathers and replace it with one that serves his socialist ideology.
Candidate Obama subtly prepared the American people for that fundamental change by using the campaign slogan, "Change we can believe in." However, when you take a closer look at President Obama's policies, that slogan would be better interpreted as, "Change what you believe in." Take "change what you believe in" a step further to its logical and more accurate definition and you come up with the term brainwashed.
A close look at the top two definitions of brainwashed, clearly illustrates how well the term actually defines what the Obama administration is trying to do to Americans.
1."Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a persons basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs."
2."The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation."
In light of that definition, it's really not that much of a stretch to call it brainwashing, considering a majority of Americans still believe in hard work, capitalism, low taxes, less government spending, and less government intervention into every aspect of their daily lives. The majority also doesn't believe in "man-made" global warming or that the government can efficiently administer a healthcare system without having to ration care and raise taxes to pay for it. So given that the majority of Americans don't actually believe in the socialist policies President Obama is pushing, brainwashing is the most accurate definition.
If using the term brainwashed seems over to top, then feel free to substitute "thought reform" or "re-educate," which was the English term used before the 1950's. They both elicit a less ominous tone but mean the same thing as brainwashed.
History shows that dictators, despots and rulers have been using brainwashing techniques for thousands of years. They used brainwashing techniques to try and maintain power, control populations, and ultimately, change and transform the behaviors and beliefs of select groups of people and even entire societies.
In the 1950's, Psychologist, Robert Jay Lifton, performed a most interesting study of Brainwashing on former Korean War and Chinese war camp prisoners.
Lifton's brainwashing study took place in a "controlled and threatening environment" devoid of "normal social reference points" designed to "add to the targets difficulty in thinking critically and independently." Our current economic condition more than qualifies as a "threatening environment," when you take into account this is the worst financial recession since the great depression, we have a President that is heaping trillions of dollars in debt on a virtually bankrupt system, and an economy with millions of people out of work and thousands more losing their jobs every day with no end in sight.
In his study, Lifton defined three stages involved in brainwashing used by the captors, beginning with an "attack" on a prisoner's sense of self and ending with what appeared to be "a change in beliefs." Lifton defined the three stages as, "breaking down the self, the possibility of salvation," and "rebuilding the self." There are strong parallels between Lifton's stages and President Obama's incremental political strategies to, in his own words, "fundamentally change" America.
The "breaking down the self" stage is being fulfilled by President Obama, his administration, all his surrogates and the liberal media as they continue hammering the idea that people who oppose his policies are un-American, evil doers, racists, hate mongers, and anti-environment. This stage also involves trying to elicit guilt, shame and doubt from his opponents by intimating that their core beliefs are harmful to the country and the planet. Obama is even eliciting religion by saying that those who oppose his health care reform plans are "bearing false witness."
The "possibility of salvation" stage is being accomplished mostly through President Obama's many nationally televised news briefings and speeches where he personally reiterates that the country is in an economic recession because of old ideas and past policies. He offers to help resolve the crisis while assuring his opponents that they are not intrinsically bad -- just their ideas. He then offers the American people kind words of healing, togetherness, and salvation if they will embrace his solutions to the problem.
The final "rebuilding the self" stage will prove to be the toughest test for the Obama administration to complete the brainwashing process. In this stage, President Obama must get his opposition to reject their old belief system and accept his. He must clearly define the choice between going back to the "old' way of doing things and having the same bad results, or choosing to move ahead by embracing the "change" he is offering which will not only bring relief to the current economic crisis, but instill a sense of individual pride, renewal, responsibility and patriotism.
What President Obama is trying to do to America is a very serious thing. It was evidenced when Rahm Emanuel said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." He was clearly referring to the current economic environment and how it could prepare millions of people to be receptive to Obama's socialist policies. When asked to elaborate on his "serious crisis" statement, Obama's Chief of Staff said, "This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do the things you could not do before."
In order to succeed in doing "things you could not do before," and "fundamentally changing the Unites States of America," into a socialist state, President Obama knows there must be an environment conducive for his radical strategies to work. However, keeping America in a recession while incrementally brainwashing Americans to embrace his socialist ideology may prove much harder than even "the one" expected.
Americans are a proud and resilient people who, in difficult times, stick to their principles and always seem to bounce back and forge ahead -- stronger than before.
American pride is now showing itself through a huge groundswell of grassroots opposition to President Obama's socialist agenda through the Tea Party movement, mass participation in town hall meetings and other public protests around the country.
As long as Americans stay focused on the true foundations of this great country and not its radical socialist leader, they will never be brainwashed -- and America will continue to be the "Shining city on a hill" President Ronald Reagan spoke of in his farewell address to the nation.
By Neil Braithwaite
from American Thinker
When Barack Obama told a Missouri crowd last November, "We are five days from fundamentally changing the Unites States of America," he meant exactly what he said and had a plan to do just that.
What is so striking about that statement is that in order to "fundamentally change" America, Obama will have to destroy the foundation laid by the founding fathers and replace it with one that serves his socialist ideology.
Candidate Obama subtly prepared the American people for that fundamental change by using the campaign slogan, "Change we can believe in." However, when you take a closer look at President Obama's policies, that slogan would be better interpreted as, "Change what you believe in." Take "change what you believe in" a step further to its logical and more accurate definition and you come up with the term brainwashed.
A close look at the top two definitions of brainwashed, clearly illustrates how well the term actually defines what the Obama administration is trying to do to Americans.
1."Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a persons basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs."
2."The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation."
In light of that definition, it's really not that much of a stretch to call it brainwashing, considering a majority of Americans still believe in hard work, capitalism, low taxes, less government spending, and less government intervention into every aspect of their daily lives. The majority also doesn't believe in "man-made" global warming or that the government can efficiently administer a healthcare system without having to ration care and raise taxes to pay for it. So given that the majority of Americans don't actually believe in the socialist policies President Obama is pushing, brainwashing is the most accurate definition.
If using the term brainwashed seems over to top, then feel free to substitute "thought reform" or "re-educate," which was the English term used before the 1950's. They both elicit a less ominous tone but mean the same thing as brainwashed.
History shows that dictators, despots and rulers have been using brainwashing techniques for thousands of years. They used brainwashing techniques to try and maintain power, control populations, and ultimately, change and transform the behaviors and beliefs of select groups of people and even entire societies.
In the 1950's, Psychologist, Robert Jay Lifton, performed a most interesting study of Brainwashing on former Korean War and Chinese war camp prisoners.
Lifton's brainwashing study took place in a "controlled and threatening environment" devoid of "normal social reference points" designed to "add to the targets difficulty in thinking critically and independently." Our current economic condition more than qualifies as a "threatening environment," when you take into account this is the worst financial recession since the great depression, we have a President that is heaping trillions of dollars in debt on a virtually bankrupt system, and an economy with millions of people out of work and thousands more losing their jobs every day with no end in sight.
In his study, Lifton defined three stages involved in brainwashing used by the captors, beginning with an "attack" on a prisoner's sense of self and ending with what appeared to be "a change in beliefs." Lifton defined the three stages as, "breaking down the self, the possibility of salvation," and "rebuilding the self." There are strong parallels between Lifton's stages and President Obama's incremental political strategies to, in his own words, "fundamentally change" America.
The "breaking down the self" stage is being fulfilled by President Obama, his administration, all his surrogates and the liberal media as they continue hammering the idea that people who oppose his policies are un-American, evil doers, racists, hate mongers, and anti-environment. This stage also involves trying to elicit guilt, shame and doubt from his opponents by intimating that their core beliefs are harmful to the country and the planet. Obama is even eliciting religion by saying that those who oppose his health care reform plans are "bearing false witness."
The "possibility of salvation" stage is being accomplished mostly through President Obama's many nationally televised news briefings and speeches where he personally reiterates that the country is in an economic recession because of old ideas and past policies. He offers to help resolve the crisis while assuring his opponents that they are not intrinsically bad -- just their ideas. He then offers the American people kind words of healing, togetherness, and salvation if they will embrace his solutions to the problem.
The final "rebuilding the self" stage will prove to be the toughest test for the Obama administration to complete the brainwashing process. In this stage, President Obama must get his opposition to reject their old belief system and accept his. He must clearly define the choice between going back to the "old' way of doing things and having the same bad results, or choosing to move ahead by embracing the "change" he is offering which will not only bring relief to the current economic crisis, but instill a sense of individual pride, renewal, responsibility and patriotism.
What President Obama is trying to do to America is a very serious thing. It was evidenced when Rahm Emanuel said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." He was clearly referring to the current economic environment and how it could prepare millions of people to be receptive to Obama's socialist policies. When asked to elaborate on his "serious crisis" statement, Obama's Chief of Staff said, "This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do the things you could not do before."
In order to succeed in doing "things you could not do before," and "fundamentally changing the Unites States of America," into a socialist state, President Obama knows there must be an environment conducive for his radical strategies to work. However, keeping America in a recession while incrementally brainwashing Americans to embrace his socialist ideology may prove much harder than even "the one" expected.
Americans are a proud and resilient people who, in difficult times, stick to their principles and always seem to bounce back and forge ahead -- stronger than before.
American pride is now showing itself through a huge groundswell of grassroots opposition to President Obama's socialist agenda through the Tea Party movement, mass participation in town hall meetings and other public protests around the country.
As long as Americans stay focused on the true foundations of this great country and not its radical socialist leader, they will never be brainwashed -- and America will continue to be the "Shining city on a hill" President Ronald Reagan spoke of in his farewell address to the nation.
Another 1,000,000+ Guns Added to American Homes in August
Background Checks On Firearm Sales Up 12% In August.Americans buy 1,074,757+ guns in August 2009
from Ammoland.com
September 9, 2009
Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) reported 1,074,757 checks in August 2009, a 12.3 percent increase from the 956,872 reported in August 2008.
So far that is roughly 9,076,205 gun bought this year! The total is probably more as NICS background checks may cover the purchase of more than one gun at a time.
This latest jump in background checks show that Americans are solidly in-favor of keeping firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens and clearly shows that proponents claiming the USA wants more gun control are blatantly wrong.
Gun Owners Say No to Gun Conrtol with their Wallets
The increased trend of Americans buying firearms at a record pace was once thought to be a one time fluke caused by fears of the new Obama administration expressed lust for more gun control. But now 10 months in and the wrongly named “fear buying” has now become the norm as law abiding US citizen exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear firearms by the millions every month with no sign of slowing down.
The bulk of the buying has been concentrated on the following types of guns or calibers:
•Semi Auto Handguns
•Revolvers
•Ar15s and all variants of the Black Rifle
•.50 Caliber
1.17 Guns for Each Person
Conservative estimates of legally owned guns in the USA put the number at 355,029,250 million guns in the USA. That is 1.17 guns for everyone in the USA and if you listen to the liberal press they are all assault weapons. God bless anyone who tries to invade the USA…
Crime Rates Falling
The most stunning in all of this is that we have not seen an increase in crime, murder rates have fallen across most of the USA and Americans have shown that they can be trusted with firearms ownership. This is directly in contrast to what the national media and gun control supporters would have us believe.
Gun owners you are clearly the majority!
from Ammoland.com
September 9, 2009
Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) reported 1,074,757 checks in August 2009, a 12.3 percent increase from the 956,872 reported in August 2008.
So far that is roughly 9,076,205 gun bought this year! The total is probably more as NICS background checks may cover the purchase of more than one gun at a time.
This latest jump in background checks show that Americans are solidly in-favor of keeping firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens and clearly shows that proponents claiming the USA wants more gun control are blatantly wrong.
Gun Owners Say No to Gun Conrtol with their Wallets
The increased trend of Americans buying firearms at a record pace was once thought to be a one time fluke caused by fears of the new Obama administration expressed lust for more gun control. But now 10 months in and the wrongly named “fear buying” has now become the norm as law abiding US citizen exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear firearms by the millions every month with no sign of slowing down.
The bulk of the buying has been concentrated on the following types of guns or calibers:
•Semi Auto Handguns
•Revolvers
•Ar15s and all variants of the Black Rifle
•.50 Caliber
1.17 Guns for Each Person
Conservative estimates of legally owned guns in the USA put the number at 355,029,250 million guns in the USA. That is 1.17 guns for everyone in the USA and if you listen to the liberal press they are all assault weapons. God bless anyone who tries to invade the USA…
Crime Rates Falling
The most stunning in all of this is that we have not seen an increase in crime, murder rates have fallen across most of the USA and Americans have shown that they can be trusted with firearms ownership. This is directly in contrast to what the national media and gun control supporters would have us believe.
Gun owners you are clearly the majority!
Friday, August 14, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Obama's Approval Index in a nose dive!!!!
I'll be inactive until the end of August, but I just had to post this. Isn't it just a beautiful thing?
Rees
Rees
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Suicide Bomber in Tehran - The Mullahs should be getting a little nervous...
image by alligator
Saturday, June 20, 2009
from The Corner
by Jonah Goldberg
A blast at a Khomeini shrine, according to Reuters:
TEHRAN (Reuters) - A suicide bomber blew himself up near the shrine of Iran's revolutionary founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in Tehran on Saturday, Iran's semi-official Mehr news agency reported.
"A few minutes ago a suicide bomber blew himself up at the shrine," Mehr quoted a police official, Hossein Sajedinia, as saying.
Two other people were wounded in the incident in the northern wing of the shrine, another news agency, Fars, said.
I think some skepticism is in order about who's behind this incident.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Those Who Pay Taxes Need Not Apply...
from Jammie Wearing Fool
June 19, 2009
Obama Appoints Another Tax Cheat
Ah, to be one of the beautiful people. Avoid paying taxes for two years, offer up some mealy-mouthed excuses and presto, you get a cushy State Department job from Barack Obama.
John Edwards was right. There are two Americas. One for the regular schlubs out there who obey the law and another for Obama and his crew of tax cheats.
Instapundit links. Thanks!Ed Morrissey also weighs in.
posted by JammieWearingFool @ 8:48 AM
June 19, 2009
Obama Appoints Another Tax Cheat
Ah, to be one of the beautiful people. Avoid paying taxes for two years, offer up some mealy-mouthed excuses and presto, you get a cushy State Department job from Barack Obama.
John Edwards was right. There are two Americas. One for the regular schlubs out there who obey the law and another for Obama and his crew of tax cheats.
Lame. Why not just say the dog ate them?President Obama’s choice as chief of protocol for the State Department, a position that carries the status of an ambassadorship, did not file tax returns for 2005 and 2006, errors she corrected last November.
The nominee, Capricia Penavic Marshall, has placed blame for the problem on the Postal Service and on miscommunication between her husband and their accountant.
Ms. Marshall, who was the social secretary in the Clinton White House, notified the Obama administration about the late filings before she was nominated on May 14. She has since provided written answers to questions about the matter from Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, which will hold a hearing on the appointment next Wednesday. The post requires Senate confirmation.Just imagine a Republican appointee trying to get away with this.
Tax issues have bedeviled several high-level Obama appointees and cost the administration at least two of its picks.
Ms. Marshall may fare better because, after ultimately filing the 2005 and 2006 federal and local paperwork, she was entitled to $37,259 in refunds, according to data she provided to Mr. Lugar.
Instapundit links. Thanks!Ed Morrissey also weighs in.
posted by JammieWearingFool @ 8:48 AM
Thursday, June 18, 2009
US boosts Hawaii defense to counter NKorea t
from KSL.com
June 18th, 2009
By JAE-SOON CHANG
Associated Press Writer
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - The United States has deployed anti-missile defenses around Hawaii amid reports that North Korea may fire its most advanced ballistic missile toward the U.S. islands early next month, adding to already high tensions in the region.
A report in a Japanese newspaper said Pyongyang might test-fire its Taepodong-2 toward Hawaii around the U.S. holiday of Independence Day. North Korea test-fired a similar long-range missile on July 4 three years ago, but it failed seconds after liftoff.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the additional defenses around Hawaii consist of a ground-based mobile missile system and a radar system nearby. Together they could shoot an incoming missile in mid air.
"Without telegraphing what we will do, I would just say ... we are in a good position, should it become necessary, to protect Americans and American territory," Gates told reporters in Washington on Thursday.
A new missile launch _ though not expected to reach U.S. territory _ would be a brazen slap in the face of the international community, which punished North Korea with new U.N. sanctions for conducting a second nuclear test on May 25 in defiance of a U.N. ban.
North Korea spurned the U.N. Security Council resolution with threats of war and pledges to expand its nuclear bomb-making program.
The Security Council resolution calls on all 192 U.N. member states to inspect vessels on the high seas _ with the owner country's approval _ if they believe the cargo contains banned weapons.
In what would be the first test case for the sanctions, the U.S. military has begun tracking a North Korean-flagged ship, Kang Nam, which left a port in North Korea on Wednesday, two U.S. officials said.
The ship, which may be carrying illicit weapons, was in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of China on Thursday, the officials said on condition of anonymity because they were discussing intelligence.
It was uncertain what the Kang Nam was carrying, but it has been involved in weapons proliferation before, one of the officials said.
The missile now being readied in the North is believed to be a Taepodong-2 with a range of up to 4,000 miles (6,500 kilometers), and would be launched from North Korea's Dongchang-ni site on the northwestern coast sometime around July 4, the Yomiuri newspaper said.
It cited an analysis by Japan's Defense Ministry and intelligence gathered by U.S. reconnaissance satellites.
It speculated the missile could fly over Japan and toward Hawaii, but would not be able to hit Hawaii's main islands, which are about 4,500 miles (7,200 kilometers) from the Korean peninsula.
A spokesman for the Japanese Defense Ministry declined to comment on the report. South Korea's Defense Ministry and the National Intelligence Service _ the country's main spy agency _ said they could not confirm it.
Pyongyang's missile and nuclear programs are centerpieces of the regime's catalog of weapons of mass destruction.
But the impoverished nation, which has put most of its scarce resources into boosting its military capabilities under its "army-first" policy, also has a large chemical arsenal, as well as capabilities to produce biological weapons.
On Thursday, an international security think tank warned that North Korea's chemical weapons are no less serious a threat to the region than its nuclear arsenal.
The independent International Crisis Group said the North is believed to have between 2,500 and 5,000 tons of chemical weapons, including mustard gas, phosgene, blood agents and sarin. These weapons can be delivered with ballistic missiles and long-range artillery and are "sufficient to inflict massive civilian casualties on South Korea."
"If progress is made on rolling back Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions, there could be opportunities to construct a cooperative diplomatic solution for chemical weapons and the suspected biological weapons program," the think tank said in a report.
It also called on the U.S. to engage the North in dialogue to defuse the nuclear crisis, saying "diplomacy is the least bad option." It said Washington should be prepared to send a high-level special envoy to Pyongyang to resolve the tension.
Associated Press writers Shino Yuasa in Tokyo, Hyung-jin Kim in Seoul, and Anne Gearan, Pauline Jelinek and Jeannine Aversa in Washington contributed to this report.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Obama’s popularity slips...
image by rees
article from Don Surber
June 17, 2009
NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed his job approval is down to 56/34 in June from 61/30 in April.
To be sure, it is only 1 poll and the numbers are high. But it is still in keeping with most rookie presidents at this point in their careers.
“The shift, five months after Obama took office as president, follows continued bad news on the unemployment rate, which rose to 9.4 percent in May. Some 35 percent of those surveyed called unemployment the most important economic issue facing the country, up a bit from 33 percent in January,” CNBC reported.
On specific policies, he does not fare as well.
41% oppose eliminating waterboarding.
52% oppose closing Gitmo.
56% oppose the GM takeover.
69% are concerned about the federal government taking a greater role in the economy and health care.
39% say the stimulus was a bad idea (37% say it was a good idea).
53% oppose giving Chrysler and GM loans.
Asked “From what you have heard about Barack Obama’s health care plan, do you think his plan is a good idea or a bad idea?” 33% said good, 32% said bad.
There are cracks in Obama’s popularity. Please, don’t tell him.
Click to go to the article and read the comments
'American Idol' star's dad cited for patronizing prostitute
June 17th, 2009
from KSL.com
By Ben Winslow
MIDVALE -- The father of "American Idol" runner-up and Utah favorite David Archuleta quietly settled a citation for patronizing a prostitute, court records show.
The case was handled in January in Midvale Justice Court. Records show James "Jeff" Archuleta, 41, pleaded no contest to patronizing a prostitute, a class B misdemeanor.
He entered what is called a plea in abeyance, which means that if he commits no further violations of the law, the case will be dismissed.
Court records show Midvale Justice Court Judge Ronald Wolthuis ordered Archuleta to attend a class called "Thinking Errors," and pay a $582 fine. He complied with those terms, court records show.
Archuleta is due in court again on June 30 for a review hearing where the case will likely be dismissed.
Midvale police did not return repeated calls for comment seeking information on the initial arrest.
Obama Attacked by Gigantic Fly - Peta Outraged
PETA wishes Obama hadn't swatted that fly
from KSL.com
June 17th, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) - The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) wants the flyswatter in chief to try taking a more humane attitude the next time he's bedeviled by a fly in the White House.
PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.
"We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said Wednesday. "We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."
During an interview for CNBC at the White House on Tuesday, a fly intruded on Obama's conversation with correspondent John Harwood.
"Get out of here," the president told the pesky insect. When it didn't, he waited for the fly to settle, put his hand up and then smacked it dead.
"Now, where were we?" Obama asked Harwood. Then he added: "That was pretty impressive, wasn't it? I got the sucker."
Friedrich said that PETA was pleased with Obama's voting record in the Senate on behalf of animal rights and noted that he has been outspoken against animal abuses.
Still, "swatting a fly on TV indicates he's not perfect," Friedrich said, "and we're happy to say that we wish he hadn't."
Deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said the White House has no comment on the matter.
Click to go to the article and read the comments
Monday, June 15, 2009
Response To Netanyahu's Speech? - Intifada - Why of course!
The following comment summarized the entire situation in basically one paragraph:
Palestinian response to speech? VIOLENCE. That's all they know. Notice that the response of the "peace loving" Palestinians is the threat of another intifada, more violence and bloodshed. They live by the sword, teach hatred, and are a society built on nothing but violence. They deserve nothing.
Daniel - USA (06/14/2009 23:04)
PA: Netanyahu has buried peace process
by Khaled Abu Toameh
June 15, 2009
Palestinian Authority officials in Ramallah expressed outrage and shock on Sunday over Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's call for the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state and his demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
The officials said that the speech that Netanyahu delivered at Bar-Ilan University was much worse than they had expected.
They also warned that Netanyahu's policies would trigger a new intifada.
Some of PA President Mahmoud Abbas's top advisers accused Netanyahu of "burying the peace process" and said the ball was now in the court of US President Barack Obama.
"Netanyahu's speech is a blow to Obama before it's a blow to the Palestinians and Arabs," an Abbas aide said. "It's obvious, in the aftermath of this speech, that we are headed toward another round of violence and bloodshed."
Abbas's office issued a terse statement in which it accused Netanyahu of destroying efforts to achieve peace in the region.
"The speech has destroyed all initiatives and expectations," the statement said. "It has also placed restrictions on all efforts to achieve peace and constitutes a clear challenge to the Palestinian, Arab and American positions."
Nabil Abu Rudaineh, a spokesman for Abbas, also lambasted Netanyahu for refusing to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state and his call for solving the issue of Palestinian refugees outside Israel.
"Netanyahu's remarks won't lead to a just and comprehensive peace based on United Nations resolutions," Abu Rudaineh added.
Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior PLO official closely associated with Abbas, launched a scathing attack on Netanyahu, calling him a "swindler and liar."
Netanyahu wanted the Palestinians to join the Zionist movement by offering them a state under the protectorate of Israel, Abed Rabbo said. He also rejected Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
The speech, Abed Rabbo said, was worthless and meaningless and hampered efforts to move forward toward a fair solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict.
"Netanyahu is creating tricks to sabotage the peace process," he said. "The response to Netanyahu must be firm."
Chief PA negotiator Saeb Erekat called on the Arab countries to suspend the Arab peace initiative in protest against Netanyahu's statements. "We were not surprised by this speech," he said. "It didn't come as a surprise to all those who are familiar with the Israeli mentality. It's time for the Arab world to announce a clear position toward Netanyahu's speech."
Click to read the rest of the article and the great comments
GLOBAL WARMING ALERT - June's chill in Chicago is one for the records
The Global Warming/Global Cooling/Climate Change/Carbon Footprint/Carbon Dioxide/Cap and trade crowd should go hide for about 10 years just for embarrassing themselves so badly on the world stage.
Rees
from WGNTV.com
By Steve Kahnon in Chicago
article from June 12th
The cloudy, chilly and rainy open to June here has been the talk of the town. So far this June is running more than 12 degrees cooler than last year, and the clouds, rain and chilly lake winds have been persistent. The average temperature at O'Hare International Airport through Friday has been only 59.5 degrees: nearly 7 degrees below normal and the coldest since records there began 50 years ago.
More bad weather is on the way Saturday with a cold rain expected to linger through the bulk of the morning. Rainfall could be heavy -- especially north of the city, which would be a reversal of Thursday's deluge that targeted the southern suburbs.
Better days aheadEncouraging signs in recent computer runs signal a change to more typical June weather which by now should feature daily highs around 80 degrees. A return of sunshine should boost temperatures well into the 70s Sunday and Monday, though lake cooling will continue. By midweek a northward shift in the jet stream promises a steady diet of highs in the 80s, though showers and thunderstorms are likely to accompany the warm-up.
Click to read the article and the comments
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Netanyahu endorses Palestinian State IF...
from Yahoo News
by Josef Federman
Associated Press Writer
JERUSALEM – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorsed a Palestinian state beside Israel for the first time on Sunday, reversing himself in the face of U.S. pressure but attaching conditions like demilitarization that the Palestinians swiftly rejected.
A week after President Barack Obama's address to the Muslim world, Netanyahu said the Palestinian state would have to be unarmed and recognize Israel as the Jewish state — a condition amounting to Palestinian refugees giving up the goal of returning to Israel.
With those conditions, he said, he could accept "a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state."
The West Bank-based Palestinian government dismissed the proposal as an attempt to determine the outcome of negotiations while maintaining Israeli settlements, refusing compromise over Jerusalem and ignoring the issue of borders. They also said that demilitarization would solidify Israeli control over them.
Netanyahu, in an address seen as his response to Obama, refused to heed the U.S. call for an immediate freeze of construction on lands Palestinians claim for their future state. He also said the holy city of Jerusalem must remain under Israeli sovereignty.
"Netanyahu's speech closed the door to permanent status negotiations," senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat said. "We ask the world not to be fooled by his use of the term Palestinian state because he qualified it. He declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, said refugees would not be negotiated and that settlements would remain."
But in Washington, the White House said Obama welcomed the speech as an "important step forward."
Netanyahu's address had been eagerly anticipated in the wake of Obama's landmark speech to the Muslim world.
His speech was a dramatic transformation for a man who was raised on a fiercely nationalistic ideology and has spent a two-decade political career criticizing peace efforts.
Many Israeli commentators speculated that after the re-election of Iran's hardline president, Netanyahu would focus the address on the threat of Iran's suspect nuclear program. While reiterating his belief that a nuclear-armed Iran is a grave threat, Netanyahu spent little time on the issue.
"I call on you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority: Let us begin peace negotiations immediately, without preconditions," he said, calling on the wider Arab world to work with him. "Let's make peace. I am willing to meet with you any time any place — in Damascus, Riyadh, Beirut and in Jerusalem."
Since assuming office in March, Netanyahu has been caught between American demands to begin peace talks with the Palestinians and the constraints of a hardline coalition. With his speech, he appeared to favor Israel's all-important relationship with the U.S. at the risk of destabilizing his government.
Netanyahu laid out his vision in a half-hour speech broadcast nationwide during prime time. He spoke at Bar-Ilan University, known as a bastion of the Israeli right-wing establishment, and his call for establishing a Palestinian state was greeted with lukewarm applause.
As Netanyahu spoke, two small groups of protesters demonstrated at the entrance to the university.
Several dozen hard-liners held up posters showing Obama wearing an Arab headdress and shouted slogans against giving up West Bank territory. Across from them, a few dozen dovish Israelis and foreign backers chanted slogans including "two states for two peoples" and "stop the occupation."
Police kept the two groups apart.
The Palestinians demand all of the West Bank as part of a future state, with east Jerusalem as their capital. Israel captured both areas in the 1967 Mideast war.
Netanyahu, leader of the hardline Likud Party, has always resisted withdrawing from these lands, for both security and ideological reasons. In his speech, he repeatedly made references to Judaism's connection to the biblical Land of Israel.
"Our right to form our sovereign state here in the land of Israel stems from one simple fact. The Land of Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish people," he said.
But Netanyahu also said that Israel must recognize that millions of Palestinians live in the West Bank, and continued control over these people is undesirable. "In my vision, there are two free peoples living side by side each with each other, each with its own flag and national anthem," he said.
Netanyahu has said he fears the West Bank could follow the path of the Gaza Strip — which the Palestinians also claim for their future state. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and Hamas militants now control the area, often firing rockets into southern Israel.
"In any peace agreement, the territory under Palestinian control must be disarmed, with solid security guarantees for Israel," he said.
"If we get this guarantee for demilitarization and necessary security arrangements for Israel, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, we will be willing in a real peace agreement to reach a solution of a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state," he said.
Netanyahu became the latest in a series of Israeli hard-liners to soften their positions after assuming office. Earlier this decade, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon led Israel out of Gaza before suffering a debilitating stroke. His successor, Ehud Olmert, spoke eloquently of the need to withdraw from the West Bank, though a corruption scandal a disastrous war in Lebanon prevented him from carrying out that vision.
Netanyahu gave no indication as to how much captured land he would be willing to relinquish. However, he ruled out a division of Jerusalem, saying, "Israel's capital will remain united."
Netanyahu also made no mention of uprooting Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Nearly 300,000 Israelis live in the West Bank, in addition to 180,000 Israelis living in Jewish neighborhoods built in east Jerusalem. He also said that existing settlements should be allowed to grow — a position opposed by the U.S.
"We have no intention to build new settlements or expropriate land for expanding existing settlements. But there is a need to allow residents to lead a normal life. Settlers are not the enemy of the nation and are not the enemy of peace — they are our brothers and sisters," he said.
Netanyahu also said the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinians have refused to do so, fearing it would amount to giving up the rights of millions of refugees and their descendants and be discriminatory to Israel's own Arab minority.
Erekat said Netanyahu's plan was unacceptable since it effectively imposes a solution on the core issues of the conflict.
"Netanyahu's speech closed the door to permanent status negotiations," he said. "We ask the world not to be fooled by his use of the term Palestinian state because he qualified it. He declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, said refugees would not be negotiated and that settlements would remain."
Although the Palestinians have agreed to demilitarization under past peace proposals, Erekat rejected it, saying it would cement Israeli rule over them.
Nabil Abu Rdeneh, another Palestinian official, called on the U.S. to challenge Netanyahu "to prevent more deterioration in the region."
"What he has said today is not enough to start a serious peace process," he added.
In Gaza, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri called the speech "racist" and called on Arab nations "form stronger opposition" toward Israel. Hamas ideology does not recognize a Jewish state in an Islamic Middle East and has sent dozens of suicide bombers into Israel.
Netanyahu also came under criticism from within his own government — a coalition of religious and nationalistic parties that oppose Palestinian independence.
Zevulun Orlev, a member of the Jewish Home Party, which represents Jewish settlers and other hard-liners, said Netanyahu's speech violated agreements struck when the government was formed. "I think the coalition needs to hold a serious discussion to see where this is headed," he told Israel Radio.
Israeli media speculated that Netanyahu might turn to the centrist Kadima Party, which heads the parliamentary opposition, to shore up his government if the coalition falls apart.
Kadima, the largest party in parliament, denied a report that there were secret talks with Netanyahu over the matter ahead of the speech.
Israel's ceremonial president, Nobel peace laureate Shimon Peres, called the speech "real and brave."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
