Designer Guns for Women!

Women are buying guns and the market is responding by offering designer guns and accessories.

Click this link or the image to watch

NRA Conventioneers Worry Over Obama Gun Plans

from Newsmax.com
May 17, 2009

PHOENIX – Thousands of U.S. gun owners gathering in Phoenix for the National Rifle Association's convention have one target firmly in their sights: any attempt to curb gun rights by the new guys in Washington.

"We as an association, but more importantly America's 80 million gun owners, are very concerned about what may be coming down the pike through the Obama administration," Glen Caroline, grassroots director for the NRA's lobbying arm.

The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country, with a long record of campaigning hard for gun rights sheltered by the U.S. Constitution. It has nearly 4 million members, 60,000 of whom were expected to attend the three-day event that began on Friday.

NRA activists and rank-and-file members say they are worried that President Barack Obama will fulfill promises to seek a permanent ban on assault weapons -- military style semi-automatic rifles -- and take other steps to tighten ownership of certain weapons.

"The question right now is not if there's a gathering storm, but when in fact that legislation is pushed more aggressively," Caroline said as activists, some in NRA caps and stars-and-stripes shirts, gathered for a buffet breakfast and workshop in a Phoenix hotel.

The NRA says Democratic control of both houses of the U.S. Congress make curbs more likely. It is organizing members to campaign for gun-friendly candidates -- usually Republicans -- in the mid-term congressional elections next year.

Many gun owners see curbs looming and are stocking up.

In the first four months of this year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ran just over 5 million instant background checks on individuals applying to buy firearms from licensed dealers or at gun shows, its data shows.

This was an increase of more than 25 percent from the 3.9 million checks made over the same period last year.

Activism is also buoyant, with hundreds of members taking part in a grassroots workshop and breakfast in Phoenix. The NRA also launched a phone campaign firing up activists to object to legislation they say infringes on the right to bear arms.

"Right now is a pivotal time in our history with a president and a total administration that is anti-gun," said Leonard Junker, 56, a truck driver and Republican Party organizer from Tucson attending the workshop.

"I truly believe that they want to disarm us," he added.
© 2009 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Obama was for it, but now he's against it - Why didn't he make the correct choice in the first place?

Obama opposes detainee abuse photo release

from Yahoo News.com
Wed May 13, 2009
By Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a reversal, President Barack Obama said on Wednesday he would fight the release of dozens of photographs showing the abuse of terrorism suspects, over concern the images could ignite a backlash against U.S. troops.

The decision was a blow to some liberals in Obama's Democratic Party who see the photos as part of a broader effort to investigate Bush-era officials and cleanse America's image abroad.

Just last month the Obama administration had said it would comply with a court order to release the pictures by May 28, saying legal options for appealing the case had been limited.

But Obama shifted gears after senior military commanders and some members of Congress expressed misgivings about the potential for the photos to generate violence against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama defended his decision, saying publication of the photographs "would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals."

"In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger," Obama told reporters. "Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the administration is likely to seek a court order aiming at blocking the release of the photos, which had been expected within weeks.

Gibbs was peppered with questions about Obama's shift in course. He said Obama, who has seen some of the pictures, told his legal team last week that he did not feel comfortable with releasing them.

'MAKES A MOCKERY'

The American Civil Liberties Union, which argued for the photos' release, expressed outrage and said the decision "makes a mockery" of Obama's campaign promise of transparency.

"It's absolutely essential that these photos be released so the public can examine for itself the torture and abuse that was conducted in its name, and so that high-level officials who authorized or permitted that abuse can be held accountable," ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said.

The human rights group Amnesty International said it was disappointed.

"Human beings have been tortured and denied basic rights. The American people have been lied to, and government officials who authorized and justified abusive policies have been given a pass," said the group's executive director, Larry Cox. He said the full story had not been told.

But the shift was welcomed by Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent, who said Obama "did exactly the right thing."

"The fact that the president reconsidered the decision is a strength not a weakness," they said in a statement.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he had had second thoughts about the decision to release the pictures after hearing the concerns of the top U.S. commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. Army Generals David McKiernan and Ray Odierno.

"Our commanders, both General McKiernan and General Odierno, have expressed very serious reservations about this, and their very great worry that release of these photographs will cost American lives," Gates told U.S. lawmakers.

"That was all it took for me."

Obama inflamed partisan tensions in Washington in April by releasing memos written by Bush-era Justice Department lawyers that provided the legal justification for harsh interrogation tactics such as waterboarding, which is simulated drowning.

On Capitol Hill on Wednesday, the first of what could be a series of hearings about the topic was held. A former FBI agent, Ali Soufan, argued that methods like waterboarding produced unreliable evidence and were ineffective.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has argued that the tactics did provide valuable intelligence and has appealed to the Obama administration to release memos that detail the methods' effectiveness.

Some Democrats, such as House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have been calling for appointment of a "truth commission" to conduct a public probe into Bush administration interrogation tactics.

But Obama has been wary of such an investigation.

(Additional reporting by Andrew Gray and James Vicini; Writing by Steve Holland, Editing by Simon Gardner
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Obama Breaks Campaign Promise #??? - I've Lost Count

Unhitched! White House scrubs marriage promiseObama's pledge to homosexuals disappears from official agenda

May 12, 20099:26 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The White House has scrubbed President Obama's central pledge to the homosexual community from its website – his promise to quash the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The president unveiled his pro-homosexual agenda on the White House website on Inauguration Day. Under the "Civil Rights" section, he called for the repeal of the act signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 after an overwhelming bipartisan vote in Congress (342-67 and 85-14).

The Defense of Marriage Act provides that federal laws must be interpreted in accord with the traditional definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife.

The following is the original language posted on the White House website as Obama took office:
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights. (emphasis added)

The White House has removed the president's goal to repeal the act. The website now states the following:

President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. ... (emphasis added)

The White House also temporarily altered language promising to repeal the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. The newly worded statement simply said the president "supports changing Don't Ask Don't Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security."

After Pro Publica caught the change, the White House reinserted the word "repealing" in place of "changing."

However, the DOMA change still remains.

In December 2008, Obama told the Advocate, "I for a very long time have been interested in repeal of DOMA."

In a Feb. 8, 2008, letter posted on his website, Obama promised "LGBT equality in America." It stated:

Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.
Peter LaBarbara, president of Americans for Truth questioned whether scrubbing the language means repealing the Defense of Marriage Act is now a low priority for the Obama administration.
"We hope so, given that support for traditional marriage, between a man and a woman, remains strong throughout the country," he said in a statement.

"We hope that President Obama recognizes that his anti-DOMA pledge – like his radical campaign embracing the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would eviscerate pro-life laws restricting abortion across America – is not popular with mainstream voters, even if it was useful in rallying liberal Democratic activists during the campaign."
Click to read the article and the comments

Obama Will Have Blood On His Hands If He Releases The Photos

Poison Photo-Drop

President Obama’s decision to release photographs of prisoner abuse will imperil our nation and its defenders.

from The National Review Online
By Andrew C. McCarthy

American soldiers, American civilians, and other innocent people are going to die because Pres. Barack Obama wants to release photographs of prisoner abuse. Note: I said, “wants to release” — not “has to release,” or “is being forced to release,” or “will comply with court orders by releasing.” The photos, quite likely thousands of them, will be released because the president wants them released. Any other description of the situation is a dodge.

If President Obama wanted to refrain from releasing these photos in order to protect the military forces he commands or promote the security of Americans — his two highest obligations as president — he could do so by simply issuing an executive order. The applicable statute expressly allows for it, just as it provides for Congress — now in the firm control of the president and his party — to withhold the photos from disclosure. Instead, Obama and congressional Democrats are choosing to release the photos.

They are making that choice fully aware that it will cost lives. It is a sedulous Democrat talking-point, repeated most recently by Carl Levin, the Senate Armed Services chairman and a key Obama ally, that the revelations of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib inspired new terrorist recruits, caused American combat casualties, and made the United States more vulnerable to terrorist attack. This has long been Obama’s own position. It is a charge he made throughout the 2008 campaign, and it is one he repeated just a month ago in his Strasbourg speech: “When we saw what happened in Abu Ghraib, that wasn’t good for our security — that was a recruitment tool for terrorism. Humiliating people is never a good strategy to battle terrorism.”

It was not by reading news reports about prisoner abuse that “we saw what happened at Abu Ghraib.” It was by viewing the graphic photos: the images broadcast incessantly throughout the world, used simultaneously by al-Qaeda and by the anti-war Left to condemn the United States military, the United States government, and the American people themselves for the aberrational depravity of an unrepresentative handful of rogue prison guards. Obama has always been very much a part of the anti-war Left. That’s why he can make the risible assertion that “humiliating people” was anyone’s “strategy to battle terrorism.” That is why he said at a CNN campaign forum last June that “Abu Ghraib is something that all of us should be ashamed for, even if you were supportive of a war.”

Obama doesn’t have the political nerve to end the war. But he is slowly (or, as he’d no doubt put it, pragmatically) strangling the war effort. A critical part of the antiwar project is to make Americans feel ashamed of defending ourselves, inducing us to accept the European view that actions taken in our defense — even those that have protected us from additional jihadist strikes — tarnish our image, stir our enemies, and put us in grave danger. Better to go back to seeing terrorism as a law-enforcement concern, this theory holds, and accept the occasional terrorist strike as a cost of managing, rather than fighting, this scourge. What we lose in dead Americans, the argument goes, will be more than compensated for in increased international prestige — if not for the United States, at least for Barack Obama. Discrediting the war effort itself is what the release of these photos is about.

The ACLU, the anti-war crowd’s Old Reliable, has argued for years that release of the photos would “provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib,” and thus that their “disclosure is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse.”

These contentions are absurd. No one is claiming that there has been no prisoner abuse outside Abu Ghraib. It has long been reported that there were many other allegations — although the bipartisan 2004 Schlessinger Panel, in rejecting claims of systematic prisoner abuse, reported that less than one-tenth of 1 percent of 50,000 detainees in the War on Terror had viable abuse claims, an extraordinarily low percentage by historical standards. Many officials have already been held accountable, investigations are continuing, and there is no need to broadcast the photos for that process to go forward.Exposing these photos to scrutiny, moreover, would not “help the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse.” It would be just as likely to achieve the opposite. A photograph captures an instant, not a pattern. It is capable of being grossly manipulated: We could have no photos and still have widespread abuse, or a million photos and still have relatively little. The Left knows this quite well, and that explains why the mainstream media stopped broadcasting video of the 9/11 attacks (and other terrorist strikes) for fear of tarring all Muslims with the acts of a few. The photos at issue won’t tell us anything significant about prisoner abuse, and they may very well serve to distort reality. What seems certain is that they will get Americans killed; again, that is Obama’s own stated view, which, as Front Page magazine’s Ben Johnson recounts, is echoed not only by Sen. Levin but by Sens. John Kerry and John McCain, among others.

The administration claims its hands are tied because of a ruling last September by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. That is untrue. The Second Circuit decision rejected the Defense Department’s argument that disclosure was foreclosed by an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for “law enforcement records” that “could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.” The three-judge panel reasoned that while the term “any individual” could be broadly construed, it should not cover a class of millions of people, such as all the members of our armed forces who might be jeopardized. To do so, the panel said, would nullify what it took to be the higher purpose of FOIA: to let Americans “know what their government is up to.”

This conclusion was far from indisputable. The country, after all, is currently involved in a defensive war authorized by Congress — an imperative one might have thought took precedence over other legislative goals, such as those of the Freedom of Information Act. Given the stakes, the Bush administration sought a rehearing in the case before the full Second Circuit. By the time the court denied that application on March 12, however, the Obama administration had taken over. With Attorney General Eric Holder now at the helm, the Justice Department decided not to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. As a Pentagon spokesman told Stars and Stripes, “A decision was made by the Justice Department, in collaboration with us, that we should comply with the lower court’s ruling.”

Obviously, that was a bad call. An administration that made its top priority the protection of our armed forces and the American people would have taken this case as far as it could — which would very likely have pushed a final ruling well into next year. This administration’s failure to do so underscores its anti-war predisposition — as well as the deeply conflicted posture of the Holder Justice Department, many of whose top officials (including the attorney general himself) come from firms that have spent the last several years representing America’s enemies in court.

But contrary to what the administration would have Americans believe, the Second Circuit ruling is not the end of the story. FOIA also contains an exemption from disclosure for matters that are “specifically authorized under criteria established by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.” That exemption was not at issue in the Second Circuit case.

Thus, if President Obama wanted to keep these photos from being exploited by America’s enemies, all he would need to do is issue an executive order sealing them, based on a finding (which could be drawn from public statements he has already made) that their release would imperil the national defense — as well as frustrate ongoing American foreign-policy efforts in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, and elsewhere in the Muslim Middle East.

Some will say that the president won’t do that because he does not want to anger the anti-war Left, a significant part of his base. In truth, the president is the anti-war Left. He won’t issue an executive order of this kind because he wants the photos revealed. It is important to understand that disclosure here is not an inevitable outcome. It is a choice. It doesn’t have to happen unless Obama wants it to happen.

The same can be said of the Democratic Congress. The Second Circuit ruling that Holder chose not to appeal did not say the Constitution mandated public dissemination of photos that will imperil Americans. It said FOIA required it. FOIA is just a statute. Congress writes the statutes and it can amend the statutes. Democrats control both houses, as well as the White House. If they wanted to bar disclosure of the photos, they could do that tomorrow. And with the overwhelming support they’d get from Republicans, they could do it with veto-proof margins. But legislative override would likely be irrelevant: Obama wouldn’t dare veto a non-disclosure bill — he wants disclosure, but only if he can snooker people into believing it wasn’t his choice.

Congress would not even need to amend FOIA. As it now stands, FOIA provides for nondisclosure of matters “specifically exempted from disclosure by statute.” All Congress has to do is enact a law categorically barring disclosure of these particular photos, or barring photos that could endanger the lives of American service personnel and civilians for the duration of this war against an enemy already known to exploit such photos for propaganda purposes. Such a rule doesn’t have to last forever — only until the end of the war. And if that seems too long, Congress could stipulate that the question of disclosure will be revisited every few years.

The leading congressional Democrats are tribunes of the anti-war Left. They have not enacted such a law because, like Obama, they want the photos disclosed — or because they are too craven to defy their base. But it is important for Americans to understand: The Democrats are making a conscious choice that will imperil our nation and its defenders.

Last week, the Republican minority proposed legislation (the Keep Terrorists out of America Act) to pressure President Obama into reversing his plan to transfer trained jihadists into the United States. They are to be commended for an effective tactic. But it’s not enough. Where is the No Disclosure of Enemy Propaganda Material Act? Unless something is done, the photos that will cause American soldiers, American civilians, and other innocent people to die will be released in two weeks. Time is running out — the danger is not.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Your neighbor is now a former Guantanamo Bay inmate - It could happen!

Coming Soon To A 'Hood Near You: Gitmo (Ex?)Terrorists

from The New York Daily News
by James Gordon Meek
May 8, 2009

How would you like your family’s next-door neighbor to be a former Guantanamo Bay inmate who was trained in a military camp in pre-9/11 Afghanistan? Would it matter if they were declared no longer to be an “enemy combatant” by the Pentagon?

That’s the fundamental question that ought to be going through the minds of Northern Virginia residents this week, amid news reports - including our own Daily News exclusive today - that a group from Gitmo may soon be making house in the D.C. suburbs. Officials tell The News the ethnic Turk Muslims from China, known as Uyghurs, will be settled in a Uyghur community in Fairfax, Va. - if Team Obama gives the thumbs up.

While Republicans have unarguably been making political hay out of this news - as well as the release of the Bush-era “torture memos” and President Obama’s plan to close Gitmo by January - they are indeed representing the views of many counterterror officials by objecting strenuously to plans to resettle a half-dozen former detainees in the D.C. suburbs.

“There are people in the intelligence community who are concerned about the Uyghurs from a security standpoint,” Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.), ranking GOPer on the Homeland Security Committee, told The Mouth. “They have very real worries.”

Counterterror officials who spoke to The Mouth this week expressed concern but no great alarm. Some see a greater threat than others. But at the core of the debate is that it’s not entirely clear how connected the detainees were to a Uyghur terrorist group linked to Al Qaeda, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, before they were nabbed after 9/11.

“How do you say for sure? You don’t, and that’s the problem,” said one U.S. official briefed on contingency operations involving the Uyghur detainees.

Another matter is whether they grew into hardened jihadis during the seven years they’ve been held at Gitmo, though now in a minimally restrictive camp.

“You don’t know what kind of radicalization happened down there,” said Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), whose district is the spot where U.S. officials are looking to relocate the Gitmo group.

Wolf and King complain Team Obama hasn’t told them much. But other officials insist the members have been regularly briefed on Gitmo plans.

As the Daily News reported today, a sweeping security operation by the FBI and Homeland Security Department is in place to keep a watchful eye on the Uyghurs if they’re released in Virginia. But Wolf said the costs to taxpayers of the surveillance will be high for a decade or more, during which time the Uyghurs may become determined to attack the Red Chinese government.

“Will they one day try to kill the Chinese ambassador?” Wolf wonders. “You’d have to do (surveillance) forever.”

“We are not as much worried,” said Alim Seytoff, general secretary of the Uyghur American Association in Washington. “If the Uyghurs (at Gitmo) are released, we will welcome them.”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2009/05/coming-soon-to-a-hood-near-you.html#ixzz0F1urVALt&B

BREAKING! - Classic Comedy Movie Sequel Being Released!

image by Rees

Here' the trailer to the movie:

President Obama Addresses CIA & FBI Employees - I've got your back...

from Investor's Business Daily
by Michael Ramirez

Our Border Guards can't wear surgical masks??? They're too intimidating???

Drinking With Bob really knows how make a point.

Our Border Guards can't wear surgical masks??? The masks are too intimidating???

Crisis Management For Dummies: The Obama Way

From: Temple CPA

Now, let me get this straight. Several hundred people get the flu in Mexico and 150 Mexican nationals die, now lowered to seven. A few Americans get the flu, 91 people at last count, but no one dies. A Mexican toddler did die in Houston, but had undisclosed other "underlying health issues."

Even before this number reportedly died, US Pravda, otherwise known as CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc., hyped the "flu pandemic" story up to astronomical levels. Here we go again! The sky is falling, the sky is falling! BE SCARED! TERROR, TERROR! CRISIS! BE AFRAID! ...

Does anyone buy this line anymore? We have a pandemic alright, a "fear pandemic."

Are you aware that tens of thousands of U.S. citizens die each year from influenza? Excuse me a minute while I change my surgical particle mask and guzzle some more Tamiflu.

What happened to the Hope and Change and "the end of the politics of fear?" If we keep having so many crises, there's really no point in living. I feel like I'm cast in a never-ending soap opera, and I might as well end it all now.

But, is there possibly another motive behind all of this chicanery? As a result of each "crisis" immediate action had to be taken. After 9-11 we received the Patriot Act that allows warrantless government surveillance of not only foreigners but American citizens as well. Who needs the 4th Amendment anyway? We also received the Department of Homeland Security, another federal police force. DHS ignores millions of illegals and terrorists openly operating in the U.S. while labeling veterans and conservatives as "terrorists" or "right wing extremists." Exactly when did being right become extreme anyway?

Later, we had the "credit crisis" and we got TARP, or is that TRAP? As a result, the Federal Reserve, a private corporation which is as federal as Federal Express, leaves U.S. taxpayers on the hook for TRILLIONS of dollars without having to explain where the money went. That number is now over 12.8 TRILLION DOLLARS. The Federal Reserve has great power over the value of our money and the direction of our economy and yet does not have to disclose its operations to the American people. In fact, the Federal Reserve apparently doesn't have to answer to Congress, the President or anyone. There is currently pending in Congress H.B. 1207 calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve, something that has never occurred since its inception in 1913. The bill currently has 100 co-sponsors and may very well pass. I'm certain the foreign banker owners don't want this to happen. Cockroaches do tend to flee when the light switch is turned on!

Recently, the "stimulus" bill, another whopping $787 billion, passed because of the dire emergency. One thousand pages of eye-popping pork that not one congressman even read. The bill had to be passed right away or we would fall off the edge of the earth, even though "The One" didn't sign the legislation until 4 days after returning from his vacation.

Then, there was the uproar over the AIG bonuses. The public was instructed to focus on $165 million in bonuses to camouflage the 10s of billions that were shipped to foreign banks. Remember, they're the Fed, they transfer the money and you pay the amount back the amount lent, with interest of course. Move along there's nothing to see here.

Does anyone else see a pattern here? Everytime there is a "crisis" more of our rights are confiscated and we get the short end of the stick.

Maybe it's time that "we the people" start issuing terrorist alerts, with a focus on the domestic variety.

Apparently, we're supposed to be frightened out of our minds because of the flu and the media is now preparing the public for the potential of mandatory flu innoculations. TIME magazine is also soothing the public for this possibility. While discussing the mandatory flu vaccination debacle during President Ford's administration, the TIME article does have an interesting quote by Howard Markel, director of the Center for the History of Medicine at the University of Michigan. Markel states, "the political climate in the U.S. is much less combustible today than in the post-Watergate era, when Ford faced a skeptical public. Even so, he says, citizens still need to trust that the government is working for the greater good." What planet is this guy from?

Now, the federal government has chosen Baxter International to develop a vaccine for the swine flu. Never heard of Baxter? Why this is the same company that gave the world HIV infected treatments in the 1980s and more recently sent live avian flu in vaccinations to 18 European countries. I feel safer already.

So what are we supposed to ignore while focusing on this latest "crisis?" Does the government not want you to focus on the dismal quarterly economic data? The continued rising unemployment? This week's vote on the preposterous $3.5 trillion budget? Forget about the concerns over the unbridled Federal Reserve?

Oh, I forgot. I'm not supposed to think. I'm supposed to be terrified.

Can I have another sip of that Kool-Aid?

Drew

The Right Needs to Play as Dirty as the Left

"Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest. However tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." - General George S. Patton

It's time to give them a taste of their own medicine.

May 1, 2009
by John Hawkins
from Pajamas Media

When I was in college, I studied Southern Long Fist Kung Fu for more than a year and my teacher told me something that I never forgot. He said that when you’re being attacked, the aggressor sets the rules and if you want to survive, you have to play by those rules. In other words, if your opponent is trying to cut your head off with a sword while you’re trying not to hurt him, chances are that you’re going to end up dead. This is a lesson that conservatives can and should apply to politics.

Too often today, liberals are using below-the-belt tactics against conservatives and paying no price whatsoever. Meanwhile, those on the right like to pat themselves on the back for being above it all. This is like a boxer priding himself on never taking off his gloves while his opponent nearly beats him to death with his bare firsts. But in the end, there’s not much to be said for lovable losers. Conservatives should realize that fair play isn’t going to pay any dividends.

While we conservatives don’t have to stoop quite as low as the left has, we do need to start giving them a taste of their own medicine, if only to make them think twice about the way they’re treating our side.

For example, look at the media jihad that was shamelessly launched against Sarah Palin’s family. There was a not-so-subtle message being sent: if you’re a Republican woman, you better stay in the shadows or we’re going to destroy your family to get you. The left gave the same kind of intrusive, public scrutiny to “Joe the Plumber,” a private citizen who merely asked an inconvenient question to Barack Obama. While conservatives defended both Sarah and Joe as we complained incessantly about the way they were treated, the reality is that the Democrats paid no price whatsoever for the out-of-bounds attacks.

Instead of continuing to complain, here’s a better idea. Why don’t conservatives do opposition research on the journalists endlessly running stories about Bristol Palin and Joe the Plumber? Have they ever been arrested? Whom do they own property with? Have they ever been paid to do a speech for someone and then run a favorable news story about him? Certainly Keith Olbermann’s personal life is just as newsworthy as Joe the Plumber’s, and the details of Maureen Dowd’s life are just as noteworthy as those of Bristol Palin — are they not?

Here’s another example. On college campuses, conservative speakers often need bodyguards to give a speech. Conservatives are shouted down and attacked — and nothing serious ever seems to happen to the fascists who engage in these thuggish tactics. So why shouldn’t conservative groups do the exact same thing to every liberal speaker who comes to the college? Go on stage, lock arms, and shout him down — then sue the university if they’re given so much as an hour’s detention more than the protesting liberal students.

Along those same lines, how is it that we have public universities using taxpayer dollars to discriminate against conservatives, indoctrinate kids into liberalism, and hire faculty like Bill Ayers? Why are Republican state legislators allowing this? How about standing up and saying, “If you want to continue to receive taxpayer money, you’re going to act like a university should, not an indoctrination center”?

If you are tired of being called a racist by race-hustling poverty pimps like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP, how about using their own tactics against them by boycotting organizations that work with them or support them financially?

Are you sick of feeling like you need to familiarize yourself with porn terms just to understand what they’re saying about the tea parties on MSNBC or CNN? Then start filing obscenity complaints with the FCC. The left has never hesitated to use the government and the court system against its political opponents, so why should we?

Obviously, we don’t have to become liars — in fact, even setting aside the ethics of it, it’s better for our credibility if we don’t. But conservatives do need to stop playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules and futilely hoping that the public will finally start to notice that we’re actually nice guys, even as we are smeared as Nazis, homophobes, and racists every day.

How much credit did John McCain get for refusing to talk about Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama’s lack of patriotism? How many times was George Bush — a moderate on domestic issues who bent over backwards to create a “new tone” — accused of being Hitler? How many times has Fox News, which makes more of an effort to be balanced than any of the other networks and all the biggest newspapers in America, been accused of being as biased as Rush Limbaugh?

Complaining bitterly about the Democrats’ “politics of personal destruction” or bellyaching that the media doesn’t treat us fairly ultimately accomplishes nothing. The public doesn’t care.

Using the exact same tactics against the left that it uses against the right may very well be effective.

Even if it isn’t, it may at least convince them that such tactics ought to be off limits on both sides. We can say, “Gee, what if Bush had done this” or “That’s a cheap shot” all day long, but until our political opponents feel the brunt of the same savage incivility that it dishes out on a regular basis, nothing is going to change.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Verbal Terrorism by an ACORN mob again

photoshop credit Leo Alberti

This isn't free speech, this is verbal terrorism. I don't have any problem with protesters being their, because that all by itself visually indicates their disagreement with that particular foreclosure process. That's their free speech.

However, they don't have the right to disrupt. That's not free speech.
Rees

Health hazard: ACORN mob strikes
from Michelle Malkin.com
By Michelle Malkin
April 28, 2009 09:05 PM

They’re baaaaack. The housing entitlement mobsters of ACORN menaced a Sacramento foreclosure auction event today — and helped send an auctioneer to the hospital with chest pains. Homeland security alert, Ja-No? Left-wing extremism is on the rise:

A large crowd of protesters disrupted several foreclosure auctions today on the Sacramento County Courthouse steps, winning temporary cancellation of one Sacramento foreclosure and sending an auctioneer to the hospital with chest pains.

Bidders on the homes, all declining to provide their names, called the ACORN protest the first major disruption of an established auction schedule that plays out every weekday at the courthouse following 37,000 foreclosures in the capital region since Jan. 2007…

..As the first auction was to begin at 9:30 a.m. on the Sacramento County Courthouse steps, Los Angeles ACORN member Kathleen Thompson-Boons asked an unidentified auctioneer with LPS Financial Services of Sacramento “to stop the auction.”

When the auctioneer resumed seeking bids from nine potential bidders, Thompson-Boons asked again, prompting the auctioneer to say, “If you’re not going to bid, then go away.”

Seconds later, protesters surrounded the group, chanting, blowing whistles and creating a commotion that made it impossible to hear. The auctioneer, who had a pacemaker according to associates, began to collapse and was later taken to a local hospital.

The protest continued for about 90 minutes. ACORN members left after cheering a concession by LPS Financial Services to cancel a specific requested foreclosure auction for one Sacramento family. Minutes later, as the group left, the auctions resumed as scheduled.

Click to read the article and comments

McCain's Border Impotence Has Cost Him His Job - Meet His Replacement!

When Chris Simcox is elected U.S. Senator from Arizona, the tides in Washington will shift and NO ONE in Washington will be able to silence us any longer!!!

As President of the MCDC, Chris Simcox has:

*spent weeks and months on the Mexican border

*seen the mounds of evidence left in the trails of illegal immigrants

*personally discovered Islamic paraphernalia along the border

*seen the human corpses of illegal aliens left behind by their smugglers

*witnessed the tons of narcotics seized by U.S. Border Patrol

*experienced the horror of drug cartel and gang violence sweeping Phoenix and other cities

NO ONE can deny his leadership and experience in helping to expose the dangerous flood of illegal aliens into our cities and towns!

House GOP: Napolitano must go

from Hot Air.com
by Allahpundit
4-22-2009

She doesn’t know immigration law or how the 9/11 hijackers got here, and she can’t manage a report on a topic as sensitive as domestic terrorism without insulting vets, but hey — at least she doesn’t owe back taxes. Who could have guessed that the title of Most Hapless Obama Appointee would pass so soon from Geithner?

Nothing says “smart power” like having foreign media wonder how your chief of security got her job.

House Republicans are calling on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to step down or be fired in the wake of a controversial department memo that has sparked indignant battle cries from conservatives and some veterans.

“Singling out political opponents for working against the ruling party is precisely the tactic of every tyrannical government from Red China to Venezuela,” said Texas Rep. John Carter, a member of the party’s elected leadership who has organized an hour of floor speeches Wednesday night to call for Napolitano’s ouster. “The first step in the process is creating unfounded public suspicion of political opponents, followed by arresting and jailing any who continue speaking against the regime.”

Click to read the rest of the Hot Air article and comments

Here is the article from The National Post

The border for dummies
National Post editorial board
National Post Published: Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Can someone please tell us how U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job?

She appears to be about as knowledgeable about border issues as a late-night radio call-in yahoo.

In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.

All the 9/11 terrorists, of course, entered the United States directly from overseas. The notion that some arrived via Canada is a myth that briefly popped up in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and was then quickly debunked.

Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."

Just what does that mean, exactly?

Just a few weeks ago, Ms. Napolitano equated Canada's border to Mexico's, suggesting they deserved the same treatment. Mexico is engulfed in a drug war that left more than 5,000 dead last year, and which is spawning a spillover kidnapping epidemic in Arizona. So many Mexicans enter the United States illegally that a multi-billion-dollar barrier has been built from Texas to California to keep them out.

In Canada, on the other hand, the main problem is congestion resulting from cross-border trade. Not quite the same thing, is it?
Click to read the article and comments

Napolitano:"crossing the border is not a crime per se." Yes, she really said that.

Bulletin: Napalatano changes the immigration law all by herself. At least it looks that way. Wow, I didn't know her DHS position had that authority but I guess it does.

Question: Do we need to vote anymore? Does it make any difference? Obama's administration seems to be doing pretty much whatever they want. If they can't get it passed through the congress and senate, they'll just back door it.
Rees

Janet Napolitano said what?
from Michell Malkin.com
By Michelle Malkin
April 21, 2009

She said this on CNN over the weekend:

KING: A lot of Democrats in Congress want to you investigate [Joe Arpaio]. They think he is over the line. He says he is just enforcing the law and the problem is the federal government.

NAPOLITANO: Well, you know, Sheriff Joe, he is being very political in that statement, because he knows that there aren’t enough law enforcement officers, courtrooms or jail cells in the world to do what he is saying.

What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.

And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.

Full transcript here.

Julie Kirchner gently reminds the DHS Secretary of what the law actually says:

ENTRY WITHOUT INSPECTION IS A CRIME: In fact, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
1325, crossing the border illegally is a crime–a misdemeanor for the first offense and a felony for the second and subsequent offenses. But of course, ignoring or mischaracterizing the law is a very convenient way for those in power to avoid the laws they find most inconvenient. Sadly, statements such as these are also a signal that Americans will have to wait a long time before their government articulates any credible immigration enforcement policy.

Jena McNeill at The Foundry sees through Napolitano’s parsing:

This ‘interpretation’ of the law by Secretary Napolitano seems to be the latest in an effort by the Obama Administration to scale back interior immigration enforcement efforts in the United States. As recently as March 28th, Napolitano made the decision to delay a series of immigration raids and other workplace actions aimed at finding illegal workers. At the same time, both President Obama and Secretary Napolitano have announced new initiatives intending to send the message that they take the issues at the southern border seriously. But the Administration cannot fight cartels while ignoring illegal immigration—people smuggling is part of the problem, not a separate issue. Legalization will only make matters worse. Granting the people here illegally asylum will only encourage more illegal border crossing. Likewise, failing to enforce workplace and immigration laws will only encourage more to ignore the law.

Yep, that’s The Plan.
***
There is now a Fire Napolitano website.
Click to read the article and comments

Muslim Group to FBI - "We're Going To Fight"

I guess it's a good thing that this wasn't a Rightwing Extremist meeting. Janet Napolitano would probably have had all of them arrested and put in an internment camp.

In fact, I don't believe I've seen a release from the DHS lately indicating that the disenchantment that Muslims perceive, could result in violent activity. If they've drafted one lately, I don't believe it was released to the public. That would have been a problem because it would have smeared the entire American Muslim population as Muslim Extremists.

Yeah, Janet wouldn't want to do something like that.

But, if she did, I would assume the DHS draft might read as follows:

* (U) Muslims in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as demanding implementation of sharia law.
Rees

from The Los Angeles Times
By Paloma Esquivel
April 20, 2009

Some influential Muslim groups question FBI's actions
Revelations that the agency has been surveilling popular leaders and infiltrating mosques and schools has many organizations turning away from their post-9/11 cooperation.

As they sipped tea and nibbled on dates, more than 100 men and women listened to a litany of speakers sounding the same message: The FBI is not your friend.

"We're here today to say our mosques are off limits," Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations for Greater Los Angeles, told the crowd last month at an Anaheim mosque.

"Our Koran is off limits," Ayloush said. "Our youth, who they try to radicalize, are off limits. Now is the time to tell them, 'We're not going to let this happen anymore.' "

Attendees applauded Qazi's statement, but it was a mea culpa that most moved them.

"We goofed up, guys," said Shakeel Syed, head of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California. "We brought them here. We brought them to our mosques, to our meetings. . . . We have to hold ourselves responsible. That's why it's so important to dig our heels into the ground and say we're not going to take this lying down, we're going to fight."

He got the loudest applause of the night.
Click to read the rest of the article

This is 2009, not 1984

This is an incredible article. I posted the first couple of paragraphs and would encourage everyone to click on the link to read the rest of the article. It's worth your time.
Rees

from America's Right
By Rick Saunders & Jeff Schreiber
Monday, April 20, 2009

Report: FBI was actively monitoring Tax Day Tea Party protests

Yesterday, White House adviser David Axelrod suggested that the "TEA Party" phenomenon which started sweeping the country last week was an "unhealthy" reaction to tough economic times.

Given the leftist pedigree Axelrod flaunts, that statement should come as no surprise, if not an outright compliment to the many concerned Americans who took time off from work to voice their opinions. Regardless of how taken, it only further underscores the fundamental intellectual hostility toward America and Americans who love their country and Constitution recently demonstrated by folks like Axelrod, DHS Commandante Janet Napolitano and, of course, The Chosen One himself.
Click to read the rest of the article and comments

White House is "not at all" afraid of the NRA - according to David Axelrod

Hey Axelrod, stop with the "95% received tax cuts" BS, because that's exactly what it is. Obama's policies are going to triple the debt, your numbers, not the CBO's. Maybe you sure review the graph they issued. You do know how to interpret a graph don't you?

Axelrod says the Tea Party movement could be 'unhealthy' - Oh, it all makes sense now. You're the one that actually wrote the DHS report basically labeling everyone who disagrees with Obama as Rightwing Extremists!
Rees

Axelrod: TEA movement could be 'unhealthy'

WASHINGTON, April 19 (UPI) -- The so-called "TEA Party" movement against taxes could become an "unhealthy" reaction to gloomy U.S. economic conditions, a White House adviser said.

In an appearance Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation" program, Senior White House Adviser David Axelrod said the Taxed Enough Already rallies across the nation last week should not have been directed at President Barack Obama's administration.

"The thing that bewilders me is that this president just cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people," Axelrod argued. "I think the tea bags should be directed elsewhere because he certainly understands the burden that people face."

He said the TEA Party events, which were organized by the conservative group FreedomWorks, comes from a dissatisfaction with the economy that "can mutate into something that's unhealthy."

In the interview, Axelrod also addressed a proposed ban on assault-style weapons. He said now is not the time for Congress to tackle the controversial issue. [In other words, they are going to outlaw them, just not right now - my comment]

"The question is: Is there the consensus and the ability, given the rules of Congress and the realities of Congress, to move that in the midst of everything else that we have to do. Is that something that you want to embark on now?" he said.

He also said the White House is "not at all" afraid of the National Rifle Association.

"The White House is interested in pursuing policies that we can enact quickly to deal with the issue of violence in this country, to deal with the issue of violence on the border. That means tightening enforcement," Axelrod said.
Click to read the article

Janeane Garofalo Calls Tea Party Protesters Racists

ARE YOU ONE???

"If you believe that the only reason you have first amendment rights, is because you have second amendment rights... then you might be a Rightwing Extremist"