A great article about who will benefit from Obama Care appears in the American Thinker:
The Lobbyists-First Healthcare Reform Bill
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
"In the vernacular preferred by most men I know, Obamacare could be called the 'Screw-You' plan. Just about every special interest in this Country will make out like bandits, while you and I will be...well yes, I hate to say it, but here goes: we taxpayers will be royally screwed.
We pay; they play.
The special interests that elected this president are conducting multi-million dollar ad campaigns to seal the deal on Obamacare. Every one of them has had a very cushy seat at the power table where the bill was written, not on C-SPAN as candidate Obama promised, but behind closed doors.
Good ole boys, whether from Chicago or New Orleans, play ball by the same slimy rules.
Big Pharma, according to Forbes, is expected to spend as much as $150 million on ads supporting Obamacare. The 1997 FDA rule change that opened the door to direct TV ads aimed at patients, rather than their doctors, heralded a golden age of unprecedented profits. But many of those so-called miracle drugs developed in the 90s are about to go off patent and this will shrink Pharma's profits. The president has promised the drug companies that if they give $80 billion discounts up front, then there will be no haggling with the government over pricing in the future. Good deal for Big Pharma; bad deal for taxpayers.
Can we use the word, 'fascist,' yet?
If you wonder why the union bosses are sending thugs to harass, intimidate and assault Obamacare dissenters at townhall meetings, there are billions of reasons hidden in the legislation. Union bosses spent so much money - about $65 million -- getting Democrats elected last year that they are now on the financial ropes. Obama's campaign got $28 million from the SEIU alone. Unions now have only about 30 cents for every dollar of projected costs for member pension plans. Buried in Section 164 of Obamacare is the anticipated $10 billion taxpayer bailout that helps these union bosses make up for their profligate political spending. And that's only the first-on-the-table figure. It's sure to get bigger and bigger as time passes.
In the real world, we call that political payback. And, honey, it's anything but transparent.
Health insurance companies, who have mysteriously been one of the Democrats' favorite targets in the reform sales blitz, are also on board with the plan. The reason for this may seem shortsighted on their part, since every sentient observer well understands that the so-called public option is sure to eventually put them out of business, but in the short term, they stand to be guaranteed millions of young, healthy, government-mandated customers to help offset the expense of also-mandated coverage for all comers, regardless of pre-existing conditions. And it should not be forgotten that HMO executives gave more than $1.2 million to the Obama campaign. Perhaps the boomer insurance execs are counting on the inevitable bankruptcy-tsunami coming after they've gone to their own golden parachutes in the sky.
Smelling fishier and fishier, honey.
Trial lawyers are in greedy-rapture mode, dreaming up schemes to convince even more patients to file malpractice suits, since there's not even a shred of tort reform in ObamaCare. The multi-million dollar abortion industry is all aflutter, as FactCheck.org has confirmed, abortions would be covered by the federal plan and also by federally subsidized private plans. Pro-illegal immigrant groups are purely salivating over Obamacare, since there isn't a solitary provision in this bill that would require anyone signing up for benefits to prove he is indeed a U.S. citizen. And George Soros, a multi-billion-dollar special interest unto himself, will get the eugenics-lite approach he favors to end-of-life decision making.
So, what we have here, dear readers, is a gargantuan failure to communicate. The trio of Statist Tyrants in charge -- Obama, Pelosi and Reid -- have decided that saying the opposite of what they mean, all the while accusing others of lying, is indeed the way to have an 'open debate' about healthcare reform.
As these Democrats put on their plastic smiley faces in public, they are screaming the figurative, 'Screw You,' behind closed doors. Shameful. Purely plum shameful. And this from that nice young man who promised transparency and a new kind of politics.
Someone get me my smelling salts. Hypocrisy of such magnitude has given me the vapors."
Monday, August 31, 2009
Lt. Col. West Discusses Healthcare Reform
I love this guy! And guess what? He's black. I guess that means I'm not a racist after all for opposing the Marxist in the White House who just happens to be black. Obama could try some of the Michael Jackson skin treatments to make his skin white, and guess what? I wouldn't like him one bit more because he would still be out to destroy the country that I love. So there you have it. Patriotic Americans dislike Obama because of his policies. Sorry Janeane, it has nothing to do with skin color.
Want to reform healthcare? I know I do. But's let's not destroy it in the process. Read some ideas on how to change our healthcare system from the great patriot, who just happens to be running for Congress in Florida in 2010, retired Lt. Col. Allen West, via Atlas Shrugs:
Lt. Colonel Allen West: 'A Conservative Perspective on Healthcare Reform'
"Lt Colonel Allen West to the rescue. Support this man - go West for Congress. He is the best of America - the best prospect we have to save this country from collective ruin.
A Conservative Perspective on Healthcare Reform
Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Retired)
Candidate, Florida US Congressional District 22
30 Aug 2009
'This year’s August heat has brought more than high temperatures and developing tropical storms to south Florida. Political discourse has reached a fever pitch over the proposed health care reforms Congress is proposing.
Our health care system needs reforms. We must make our system more affordable and accessible to all Americans. These reforms can be instituted within the classic conservative principles of limited government, liberty, individual responsibility and accountability, and free market solutions.
A true Conservative believes in the individual and setting the conditions for their success. I offer that the post-modern liberal approach feels the 'collective' is more important than the individual. Our US Constitution plainly states that the preeminent purpose for Government is to protect the Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness of the citizen, we Americans.
Reducing costs of health care can begin by making changes to our legal system which often results in catastrophic litigation brought against medical professionals. How many 'tests' are ordered by attending doctors for us only as a precaution against potential lawsuits?
These costs associated with unnecessary lawsuits are real and often have no basis in fact. A 2006 study by the Harvard School of Public Health found 40% of the lawsuits studied had no patient injury and/or no medical error. Mississippi and Texas recently passed legal reform and insurance premiums have decreased by as much as 70%. These are real savings that will be passed on to health care consumers.
However, as former DNC Chairman Howard Dean stated last week in Alexandria, Va at a townhall meeting, the trial lawyer lobby is more influential than doing what is right.
Why is it that healthcare insurance competition is restricted to individual States? Open this up across the country allowing Americans to receive the best possible plan for their needs. This will force insurance companies to compete for our interest, not us being slaves to them. Personal choice for health care coverage should be a hallmark of any reform.
We need government to provide tax incentives for covering of pre-existing conditions and warn the American people about companies that do not provide best coverage for our citizens. We must also provide tax credits for the working poor, who want health coverage but cannot afford. We can also explore the possibility of increasing child tax deductions for families based upon healthcare costs.
And Americans must have the freedom that portability affords them; they should never have to drop an insurance plan. We have to establish the relationship which is permanent and not that which places them at a disadvantage.
Guaranteed renewable individual insurance contracts are a means by which we can provide Americans the ability to purchase long term, future insurance. This initiative would create the individual relationship, promote portability, and preclude denial on pre-existing conditions. Americans who choose this option would be afforded a tax credit.
We should advocate individual Americans receiving the same tax benefits for individual healthcare plans as enjoyed by employer based plans.
Small businesses should be allowed to pool together in groups in order to have better competition with larger companies and corporations. Pooling small businesses together will create economies of scale and more employers will offer coverage to their workers. These associated health care plans can only be propelled forward by Congress taking action today to encourage more competition for our health care dollar.
Flexible health savings plans allow individuals to have money withheld from their paychecks by their employers. This non-taxed money is then refunded to the individual through a claims process. In effect, the government is losing the income tax and social security tax on the money and is setting a condition in which the individual analyzes their annual healthcare needs. In the case of a catastrophic or new condition, an individual’s medical insurance would kick in. Money not spent in a certain year rolls over to the next and the healthcare dollars continue to grow.
Any legal obstruction to this concept should be removed by Congress.
Those who support a single payer, public option plan should recognize this already exists in the form of Medicaid/Medicare/SCHIP. These are government medical programs which are funded by our taxpayer dollars. These programs are intended to cover those who fall within the respective cracks in the system. Just this past January, SCHIP was expanded to beyond the poverty income level to $83K and the definition of a child, according to new legislation was raised to 25 years of age. Those who are eligible for these programs should be encouraged to sign up for this coverage.
My Dad, who passed in 1986, older brother and I are veterans who interact with the VA Hospital system. I know what government run healthcare systems look like. Ask any Veteran, it is not pretty.
It is well recognized the government run systems are filled with waste and abuse. Any health care reform must ensure these pre-existing government medical programs are meeting their intended purposes; effectively and efficiently. I would offer this is one of the first lines of attack in healthcare reform for the government.
No discussion of health care reform would be complete without including the costs of covering illegal immigrants. An administrator at Martin Medical Center recently disclosed one patient who had stayed at the hospital for 760 days. Another patient had incurred over $1.5 million in health care charges.
Our system simply cannot sustain these costs. Stopping the flow of illegal immigration to our country will save all citizens money in our personal health care expenditures.
On Tuesday, August, 18 I hosted a health care town hall meeting in Deerfield Beach. Nearly seven hundred people attended from all walks of life. At the beginning of the meeting, we announced that all who wish to express their opinions would be given the opportunity to do so.
Many of the attendees expressed very passionate views on health care. But all were afforded the opportunity to speak their piece and were polite in listening to the views of others.
After listening to the varied views of those in attendance, I recognized there was a common thread running through many of their presentations:
• Opposition to any expansion of a government run health care system.
• Keeping government out of the relationship between the patient and their doctor.
• Expansion of personal choice in selecting health coverage.
I agree with these solutions. Those in Congress should listen to these citizens in drafting health care legislation.
I served in the military for 22 years and traveled to 13 countries across Europe, Asia and the Middle East. I can assure you we have one of the best health care systems in the world.
Let us never forget that the government is an entity that can run itself at a loss and raise capital by enacting taxation legislation. That is not fair competition between a public option and private sector.
Of course our system needs reforms. We must always strive to make our systems better. But I also believe we can reform our health care system while maintaining the conservative principles that have made our country great.
LTC(R) A B West'"
Want to reform healthcare? I know I do. But's let's not destroy it in the process. Read some ideas on how to change our healthcare system from the great patriot, who just happens to be running for Congress in Florida in 2010, retired Lt. Col. Allen West, via Atlas Shrugs:
Lt. Colonel Allen West: 'A Conservative Perspective on Healthcare Reform'
"Lt Colonel Allen West to the rescue. Support this man - go West for Congress. He is the best of America - the best prospect we have to save this country from collective ruin.
A Conservative Perspective on Healthcare Reform
Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Retired)
Candidate, Florida US Congressional District 22
30 Aug 2009
'This year’s August heat has brought more than high temperatures and developing tropical storms to south Florida. Political discourse has reached a fever pitch over the proposed health care reforms Congress is proposing.
Our health care system needs reforms. We must make our system more affordable and accessible to all Americans. These reforms can be instituted within the classic conservative principles of limited government, liberty, individual responsibility and accountability, and free market solutions.
A true Conservative believes in the individual and setting the conditions for their success. I offer that the post-modern liberal approach feels the 'collective' is more important than the individual. Our US Constitution plainly states that the preeminent purpose for Government is to protect the Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness of the citizen, we Americans.
Reducing costs of health care can begin by making changes to our legal system which often results in catastrophic litigation brought against medical professionals. How many 'tests' are ordered by attending doctors for us only as a precaution against potential lawsuits?
These costs associated with unnecessary lawsuits are real and often have no basis in fact. A 2006 study by the Harvard School of Public Health found 40% of the lawsuits studied had no patient injury and/or no medical error. Mississippi and Texas recently passed legal reform and insurance premiums have decreased by as much as 70%. These are real savings that will be passed on to health care consumers.
However, as former DNC Chairman Howard Dean stated last week in Alexandria, Va at a townhall meeting, the trial lawyer lobby is more influential than doing what is right.
Why is it that healthcare insurance competition is restricted to individual States? Open this up across the country allowing Americans to receive the best possible plan for their needs. This will force insurance companies to compete for our interest, not us being slaves to them. Personal choice for health care coverage should be a hallmark of any reform.
We need government to provide tax incentives for covering of pre-existing conditions and warn the American people about companies that do not provide best coverage for our citizens. We must also provide tax credits for the working poor, who want health coverage but cannot afford. We can also explore the possibility of increasing child tax deductions for families based upon healthcare costs.
And Americans must have the freedom that portability affords them; they should never have to drop an insurance plan. We have to establish the relationship which is permanent and not that which places them at a disadvantage.
Guaranteed renewable individual insurance contracts are a means by which we can provide Americans the ability to purchase long term, future insurance. This initiative would create the individual relationship, promote portability, and preclude denial on pre-existing conditions. Americans who choose this option would be afforded a tax credit.
We should advocate individual Americans receiving the same tax benefits for individual healthcare plans as enjoyed by employer based plans.
Small businesses should be allowed to pool together in groups in order to have better competition with larger companies and corporations. Pooling small businesses together will create economies of scale and more employers will offer coverage to their workers. These associated health care plans can only be propelled forward by Congress taking action today to encourage more competition for our health care dollar.
Flexible health savings plans allow individuals to have money withheld from their paychecks by their employers. This non-taxed money is then refunded to the individual through a claims process. In effect, the government is losing the income tax and social security tax on the money and is setting a condition in which the individual analyzes their annual healthcare needs. In the case of a catastrophic or new condition, an individual’s medical insurance would kick in. Money not spent in a certain year rolls over to the next and the healthcare dollars continue to grow.
Any legal obstruction to this concept should be removed by Congress.
Those who support a single payer, public option plan should recognize this already exists in the form of Medicaid/Medicare/SCHIP. These are government medical programs which are funded by our taxpayer dollars. These programs are intended to cover those who fall within the respective cracks in the system. Just this past January, SCHIP was expanded to beyond the poverty income level to $83K and the definition of a child, according to new legislation was raised to 25 years of age. Those who are eligible for these programs should be encouraged to sign up for this coverage.
My Dad, who passed in 1986, older brother and I are veterans who interact with the VA Hospital system. I know what government run healthcare systems look like. Ask any Veteran, it is not pretty.
It is well recognized the government run systems are filled with waste and abuse. Any health care reform must ensure these pre-existing government medical programs are meeting their intended purposes; effectively and efficiently. I would offer this is one of the first lines of attack in healthcare reform for the government.
No discussion of health care reform would be complete without including the costs of covering illegal immigrants. An administrator at Martin Medical Center recently disclosed one patient who had stayed at the hospital for 760 days. Another patient had incurred over $1.5 million in health care charges.
Our system simply cannot sustain these costs. Stopping the flow of illegal immigration to our country will save all citizens money in our personal health care expenditures.
On Tuesday, August, 18 I hosted a health care town hall meeting in Deerfield Beach. Nearly seven hundred people attended from all walks of life. At the beginning of the meeting, we announced that all who wish to express their opinions would be given the opportunity to do so.
Many of the attendees expressed very passionate views on health care. But all were afforded the opportunity to speak their piece and were polite in listening to the views of others.
After listening to the varied views of those in attendance, I recognized there was a common thread running through many of their presentations:
• Opposition to any expansion of a government run health care system.
• Keeping government out of the relationship between the patient and their doctor.
• Expansion of personal choice in selecting health coverage.
I agree with these solutions. Those in Congress should listen to these citizens in drafting health care legislation.
I served in the military for 22 years and traveled to 13 countries across Europe, Asia and the Middle East. I can assure you we have one of the best health care systems in the world.
Let us never forget that the government is an entity that can run itself at a loss and raise capital by enacting taxation legislation. That is not fair competition between a public option and private sector.
Of course our system needs reforms. We must always strive to make our systems better. But I also believe we can reform our health care system while maintaining the conservative principles that have made our country great.
LTC(R) A B West'"
Liberalism and Its Effects on the Black Community
Liberalism has done more harm to the black community than one can imagine. With the introduction of LBJ's "Great Society", welfare began to take the place of husbands and fathers, and the result was the single-parent family where children grew up without fathers. The effects have been catastrophic because children need both a father and a mother. Oh yeah, liberalism is real caring!
Read more about the devastation liberal policies have brought to the black community, via the American Thinker:
Dear White Liberal America
By Lloyd Marcus
"Thank you very, very much. You see us poor helpless inferior blacks (oh forgive me, I must be politically correct, 'African Americans'), and you want to help us using your superior intellect. After all, we could not possibly succeed in this racist, homophobic and greedy country without your assistance.
I first met you guys in the 70s when I attended the prestigious Maryland Institute College of Art on a scholarship. A black kid from the ghetto, I found myself amongst white kids from well to do families. I worked a part-time job to cover my books and art supplies. You guys did not have to work.
And yet, I remember many conversations about how you would never bring a child into this 'freaking world' and how 'freaking screwed up' this 'freaking country is'. You told me how 'freaking selfish" your 'freaking parents' were and how they only cared about 'freaking money'. Then, you drove off in your convertible given to you be your 'freaking parents' as I stood at the bus stop.
I can not thank you enough for the numerous times you shared your expensive premmo weed with me. While I enjoyed the free weed (of which I've long ceased to indulge) and rebellious chicks, in all honesty, I could not figure out what you were so p-o-ed about.
So, now you former hippie boomers are in total control of government, colleges and public schools, still selling your Utopian message of peace and love. Thanks for getting rid of black dads in the home via your welfare programs. I mean, everyone knows dads are cruel chauvinists who beat and molest their kids.
Oh, and thanks for encouraging schools to accept black kids speaking Ebonics rather than English. It would be racist to expect us simple minded colored folks to learn to speak English correctly. And besides, we don't want our black kids sounding too white. Authentic blacks must sound like the hood, love rap and Kentucky Fried. I would never trust any black that eats 'sushi'; which is probably what those traitors, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas eat. If Justice Thomas would have answered his phone with a 'What up!' and a heartfelt 'A-muri-ka sucks', the NAACP would have championed him as a true brother faithful to his blackness. Sadly, Rice and 'Uncle Thomas' as we call him, chose the character, education and hard work route to success. How disgusting!
Yes, you libs are soooo good to us. I really appreciate 'b' actresses like Janeane Garofalo putting that Uncle Tom, RNC Chairman, Michael Steele in his place when she said he suffered from Stockholm Syndrome. How dare he not view himself as a victim of white America. How dare he empower young blacks with the knowledge that they can achieve without liberal intervention. What an ungrateful, well, you know the word I'm thinking. It begins with an 'N'.
In closing, you libs, please keep up the good work. With your continued diligence, we minorities and most Americans will not have to work or be responsible for anything. Your president is in the process of confiscating the wealth from those greedy rich white SOBs and redistributing it to us. Right on!
Now, if I can just figure out how to tie my shoes all by myself. But if I can't, I know you libs are there for me. Fighting back tears of overwhelming gratitude, again, I thank you.
Cordially yours,
Lloyd Marcus"
Read more about the devastation liberal policies have brought to the black community, via the American Thinker:
Dear White Liberal America
By Lloyd Marcus
"Thank you very, very much. You see us poor helpless inferior blacks (oh forgive me, I must be politically correct, 'African Americans'), and you want to help us using your superior intellect. After all, we could not possibly succeed in this racist, homophobic and greedy country without your assistance.
I first met you guys in the 70s when I attended the prestigious Maryland Institute College of Art on a scholarship. A black kid from the ghetto, I found myself amongst white kids from well to do families. I worked a part-time job to cover my books and art supplies. You guys did not have to work.
And yet, I remember many conversations about how you would never bring a child into this 'freaking world' and how 'freaking screwed up' this 'freaking country is'. You told me how 'freaking selfish" your 'freaking parents' were and how they only cared about 'freaking money'. Then, you drove off in your convertible given to you be your 'freaking parents' as I stood at the bus stop.
I can not thank you enough for the numerous times you shared your expensive premmo weed with me. While I enjoyed the free weed (of which I've long ceased to indulge) and rebellious chicks, in all honesty, I could not figure out what you were so p-o-ed about.
So, now you former hippie boomers are in total control of government, colleges and public schools, still selling your Utopian message of peace and love. Thanks for getting rid of black dads in the home via your welfare programs. I mean, everyone knows dads are cruel chauvinists who beat and molest their kids.
Oh, and thanks for encouraging schools to accept black kids speaking Ebonics rather than English. It would be racist to expect us simple minded colored folks to learn to speak English correctly. And besides, we don't want our black kids sounding too white. Authentic blacks must sound like the hood, love rap and Kentucky Fried. I would never trust any black that eats 'sushi'; which is probably what those traitors, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas eat. If Justice Thomas would have answered his phone with a 'What up!' and a heartfelt 'A-muri-ka sucks', the NAACP would have championed him as a true brother faithful to his blackness. Sadly, Rice and 'Uncle Thomas' as we call him, chose the character, education and hard work route to success. How disgusting!
Yes, you libs are soooo good to us. I really appreciate 'b' actresses like Janeane Garofalo putting that Uncle Tom, RNC Chairman, Michael Steele in his place when she said he suffered from Stockholm Syndrome. How dare he not view himself as a victim of white America. How dare he empower young blacks with the knowledge that they can achieve without liberal intervention. What an ungrateful, well, you know the word I'm thinking. It begins with an 'N'.
In closing, you libs, please keep up the good work. With your continued diligence, we minorities and most Americans will not have to work or be responsible for anything. Your president is in the process of confiscating the wealth from those greedy rich white SOBs and redistributing it to us. Right on!
Now, if I can just figure out how to tie my shoes all by myself. But if I can't, I know you libs are there for me. Fighting back tears of overwhelming gratitude, again, I thank you.
Cordially yours,
Lloyd Marcus"
Aid to Honduras Cut Off by Obama Administration
Birds of a feather do truly flock together, as in Obama, Castro, Chavez, and Ortega. Our Marxist president is showing his true colors in the handling of the removal of the Honduran president. His latest move is cutting off humanitarian aid to the poor Central American nation.
Way to stick it to another ally, President Obama. You are on quite a roll: Britain, Poland, the Czech Republic, Israel, etc.
Read from Gateway Pundit:
Figures. Obama Cuts Off Aid to Honduras Over His Misreading of the Law
"Birds of a feather...
(Michael Ramirez)
The news that President Obama will cut off aid to our ally Honduras did not make many headlines this week but it should have. Barack Obama is openly siding with Marxists Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega in punishing the government of Honduras.
Not only that but Obama misread the laws to come to his conclusion.
Hans Bader reported at the DC Examiner:
'The Obama Administration is about to cut off humanitarian aid to Honduras, one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere. Earlier, the Obama Administration blocked travel to the United States by the people of Honduras.
Both actions are foolish responses to a recent ruling by the supreme court of Honduras refusing to approve the return to power of the country’s bullying ex-president and would-be dictator, Mel Zelaya. Zelaya was earlier arrested by soldiers acting on orders of the Honduras Supreme Court, replaced by his country’s Congress with a civilian successor, and forced into exile. Zelaya’s removal came after he systematically abused his powers: he sought to circumvent constitutional term limits, used mobs to intimidate his critics, threatened public employees with termination if they refused to help him violate the Constitution, engaged in massive corruption, illegally cut off public funds to local governments whose leaders refused to back his quest for more power, denied basic government services to his critics, refused to enforce dozens of laws passed by Congress, and spent the country into virtual bankruptcy, refusing to submit a budget so that he could illegally spend public funds on his cronies.
State Department lawyers, who are not experts on Honduran law, plan to declare the ex-president’s removal a military coup' to justify cutting off aid, even though Honduras has a civilian president, and the ex-president was lawfully removed from office (although his subsequent exile may technically have violated Honduran law).
Journalists nonsensically refer to Honduras’s removal of its ex-president as a 'coup' even while admitting that it was ordered by the country’s supreme court. But if it was legal, by definition, it cannot be a coup, since a coup is defined as 'the unconstitutional overthrow of a legitimate government by a small group.'
The ex-president’s removal was perfectly constitutional, say many lawyers and foreign policy experts, including attorneys Octavio Sanchez, Miguel Estrada, and Dan Miller, former Assistant Secretary of State Kim Holmes, Stanford’s William Ratliff, and the Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady.
Moreover, the ex-president’s removal was not a 'coup' because it was not committed by a 'small group,' as the definition of 'coup' requires. The removal of Honduras’s president was supported by the entire Honduran Supreme Court, an almost unanimous Honduran Congress, and much of Honduran society. Honduras did not lose its government, but merely replaced one illegitimate part of it: its overbearing president. And his removal from office (as opposed to his subsequent exile) was clearly legally justified.'"
Sounds like Zelaya would fit in perfectly in Chicago thug-style politics.
Way to stick it to another ally, President Obama. You are on quite a roll: Britain, Poland, the Czech Republic, Israel, etc.
Read from Gateway Pundit:
Figures. Obama Cuts Off Aid to Honduras Over His Misreading of the Law
"Birds of a feather...
(Michael Ramirez)
The news that President Obama will cut off aid to our ally Honduras did not make many headlines this week but it should have. Barack Obama is openly siding with Marxists Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega in punishing the government of Honduras.
Not only that but Obama misread the laws to come to his conclusion.
Hans Bader reported at the DC Examiner:
'The Obama Administration is about to cut off humanitarian aid to Honduras, one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere. Earlier, the Obama Administration blocked travel to the United States by the people of Honduras.
Both actions are foolish responses to a recent ruling by the supreme court of Honduras refusing to approve the return to power of the country’s bullying ex-president and would-be dictator, Mel Zelaya. Zelaya was earlier arrested by soldiers acting on orders of the Honduras Supreme Court, replaced by his country’s Congress with a civilian successor, and forced into exile. Zelaya’s removal came after he systematically abused his powers: he sought to circumvent constitutional term limits, used mobs to intimidate his critics, threatened public employees with termination if they refused to help him violate the Constitution, engaged in massive corruption, illegally cut off public funds to local governments whose leaders refused to back his quest for more power, denied basic government services to his critics, refused to enforce dozens of laws passed by Congress, and spent the country into virtual bankruptcy, refusing to submit a budget so that he could illegally spend public funds on his cronies.
State Department lawyers, who are not experts on Honduran law, plan to declare the ex-president’s removal a military coup' to justify cutting off aid, even though Honduras has a civilian president, and the ex-president was lawfully removed from office (although his subsequent exile may technically have violated Honduran law).
Journalists nonsensically refer to Honduras’s removal of its ex-president as a 'coup' even while admitting that it was ordered by the country’s supreme court. But if it was legal, by definition, it cannot be a coup, since a coup is defined as 'the unconstitutional overthrow of a legitimate government by a small group.'
The ex-president’s removal was perfectly constitutional, say many lawyers and foreign policy experts, including attorneys Octavio Sanchez, Miguel Estrada, and Dan Miller, former Assistant Secretary of State Kim Holmes, Stanford’s William Ratliff, and the Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady.
Moreover, the ex-president’s removal was not a 'coup' because it was not committed by a 'small group,' as the definition of 'coup' requires. The removal of Honduras’s president was supported by the entire Honduran Supreme Court, an almost unanimous Honduran Congress, and much of Honduran society. Honduras did not lose its government, but merely replaced one illegitimate part of it: its overbearing president. And his removal from office (as opposed to his subsequent exile) was clearly legally justified.'"
Sounds like Zelaya would fit in perfectly in Chicago thug-style politics.
Did Obama Know?
The six-million-dollar question: Was President Obama aware of the anticipated release of the Lockerbie bomber before the Scottish committed their reprehensible act? Joe Scarborough from MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show suggests that is indeed the case.
Read and watch from Newsbusters:
Scarborough: Obama Admin Must Have Signed Off On Lockerbie Terrorist Release
"If Joe Scarborough is right, this could be a game-changing blow to Barack Obama . . .
On today's Morning Joe, Scarborough left no doubt that he believes the Obama administration acquiesced to the release by the British government of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie murderer and terrorist.
Scarborough was reacting to reports suggesting that, contrary to initial claims, the release was done at the behest of Gordon Brown's British government, and was not an independent move by Scotland.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: I'm talking about the British deal: oil for terrorists. And Chuck Todd earlier today said the White House needs to answer questions: what did the president know, when did he know it? Did the administration know about this deal? Did they go along with it?
. . .
PAT BUCHANAN: It's hard for me to believe that the British government, Gordon Brown and these other folks, working these things out with Scotland to let this terrorist go, who has killed 260 or 270 people, including about five dozen American school kids, that they would let him go and not give the White House a heads-up as to what is coming down the pike.
SCARBOROUGH: This is just one of those stories that smells from the very beginning. They set up that Scottish guy to hold the press conference, like he's going to release the biggest terrorist this side of al Qaeda? . . . No! You knew the British government was attached. We predicted it last week; it's come true. Then that raises the next question: what's the link between Great Britain's government and the U.S. government? Anybody that works in Washington for more than a day knows the British government is not going to release a terrorist that killed American kids without getting the OK from the American government.
. . .
SCARBOROUGH: Because of that celebration, this is the end of Gordon Brown's government; there's no surviving this, is there? This is the last straw.
BUCHANAN: I don't think there is any surviving: this guy is just holding on . . . My guess is this thing went up the food chain at State [Department] and went up the food chain through the NSC.
SCARBOROUGH: If this did not end up at the White House, Mike Barnicle, I would be shocked.
American governments don't fall like British ones can. But if it's true that Pres. Obama gave the green light for the release of a terrorist directly responsible for the deaths of dozens of Americans, his administration will suffer a huge blow. How intensely will the MSM pursue the story?"
A little common sense tells us that the MSM will be mum on this story. As to Obama supporting the release of a terrorist, why would that surprise anyone? Gitmo, anyone?
Read and watch from Newsbusters:
Scarborough: Obama Admin Must Have Signed Off On Lockerbie Terrorist Release
"If Joe Scarborough is right, this could be a game-changing blow to Barack Obama . . .
On today's Morning Joe, Scarborough left no doubt that he believes the Obama administration acquiesced to the release by the British government of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie murderer and terrorist.
Scarborough was reacting to reports suggesting that, contrary to initial claims, the release was done at the behest of Gordon Brown's British government, and was not an independent move by Scotland.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: I'm talking about the British deal: oil for terrorists. And Chuck Todd earlier today said the White House needs to answer questions: what did the president know, when did he know it? Did the administration know about this deal? Did they go along with it?
. . .
PAT BUCHANAN: It's hard for me to believe that the British government, Gordon Brown and these other folks, working these things out with Scotland to let this terrorist go, who has killed 260 or 270 people, including about five dozen American school kids, that they would let him go and not give the White House a heads-up as to what is coming down the pike.
SCARBOROUGH: This is just one of those stories that smells from the very beginning. They set up that Scottish guy to hold the press conference, like he's going to release the biggest terrorist this side of al Qaeda? . . . No! You knew the British government was attached. We predicted it last week; it's come true. Then that raises the next question: what's the link between Great Britain's government and the U.S. government? Anybody that works in Washington for more than a day knows the British government is not going to release a terrorist that killed American kids without getting the OK from the American government.
. . .
SCARBOROUGH: Because of that celebration, this is the end of Gordon Brown's government; there's no surviving this, is there? This is the last straw.
BUCHANAN: I don't think there is any surviving: this guy is just holding on . . . My guess is this thing went up the food chain at State [Department] and went up the food chain through the NSC.
SCARBOROUGH: If this did not end up at the White House, Mike Barnicle, I would be shocked.
American governments don't fall like British ones can. But if it's true that Pres. Obama gave the green light for the release of a terrorist directly responsible for the deaths of dozens of Americans, his administration will suffer a huge blow. How intensely will the MSM pursue the story?"
A little common sense tells us that the MSM will be mum on this story. As to Obama supporting the release of a terrorist, why would that surprise anyone? Gitmo, anyone?
Muslims Killed Jews Before Israel Became a Jewish Nation
"If only Israel wasn't such an Apartied state, the Muslims would be peace-loving." This is the mantra of the mainstream Pravda in the United States and Europe.
Such talk is nothing more than absolute BS. Islam is not a religion of peace, but instead calls for the killing of Christians and Jews.
Israel is used as an excuse for jihad activity by Islamists. Don't believe me? Well, how do you explain this? Long before Israel became a Jewish state in 1948, Muslims were killing Jews.
Read from Debbie Schlussel:
Wknd Read: 80 Years Ago, There Was No Israel; But Muslims Massacred Jews Anyway
"Eighty years ago, this past week, there was no Israel. Israel is constantly the excuse we hear for Islamic violence against Jews, America, and the rest of the West. But what happened 80 years ago is yet more evidence that this specious argument is absolute bunk."
Read it all.
Such talk is nothing more than absolute BS. Islam is not a religion of peace, but instead calls for the killing of Christians and Jews.
Israel is used as an excuse for jihad activity by Islamists. Don't believe me? Well, how do you explain this? Long before Israel became a Jewish state in 1948, Muslims were killing Jews.
Read from Debbie Schlussel:
Wknd Read: 80 Years Ago, There Was No Israel; But Muslims Massacred Jews Anyway
"Eighty years ago, this past week, there was no Israel. Israel is constantly the excuse we hear for Islamic violence against Jews, America, and the rest of the West. But what happened 80 years ago is yet more evidence that this specious argument is absolute bunk."
Read it all.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
An Analysis of Ted Kennedy
After the nonstop media blitz on the death of Ted Kennedy, I feel compelled to make a few comments before he is nominated to sainthood.
Teddy was a devoted uncle to his fatherless nieces and nephews after the assassinations of his two brothers. As a busy man, he should be commended for his commitment to the Kennedy clan. Also, from things I've heard over the years, he was dedicated to his Massachusetts constituents, fighting for them when they came to him with special requests. Obviously, from the outpouring of support since his death, he was well-liked by many of his colleagues in Washington, as well as his liberal supporters at home and throughout the nation.
Having said this, it is only fair to cover his weaknesses. Like his father and his brothers before him, he was a philanderer, causing much pain to his wife (Joan--I don't know about wife number two, Vicki) and children. The incident at Chappaquiddick showed evidence of his true lack of character, and he only escaped punishment because he was a Kennedy. Not only did it destroy any hopes of a presidency, it probably paid a huge part in his wife, Joan's alcoholism. How would you like to have been in her shoes during that period of time? Like his wife, Ted shared a love for the bottle.
Politically speaking, Ted was a stanch liberal who worked hard for the causes he believed in, such as universal healthcare, big government, abortion on demand, gay marriage, amnesty for illegals, a liberal judiciary, a weak national defense, etc.
Interestingly enough, he was pro-life early in his career until it became politically expedient to become pro-abortion. Somehow the teachings of the Catholic Church on the matter of abortion did not stick with him the way they did with sister, Eunice.
As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ted made it a point to go after conservative judicial nominees appointed by Republicans. He is best known for his contemptible comments to judicial nominee Robert Bork, who he smeared with his own brand of personal destruction with the following comment:
"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."
Kennedy's efforts to smear Clarence Thomas did not prove to be as successful, though he gave it his best shot. When it came time for Samuel Alito to come before the Senate Judiciary, Ted tried to portray Alito as a racist, causing Alito's wife to break down crying.
Though I disagree with nearly everything Ted Kennedy stood for, what I find particularly disturbing was his 1983 letter to the Soviets in which he offered to help the Soviet Union defeat Reagan’s efforts to build up the nuclear deterrent in Europe. Was that not treasonous to conspire with the enemy to undermine a political opponent during the Cold War? Absolutely reprehensible on his part.
So, there you have it. All in all, Ted Kennedy's faults far outweighed his strengths. In spite of that, I continue to pray for his family during their period of grief, especially after the recent death of his sister.
UPDATE: More on Kennedy and the KGB here and here.
Palin Vs. Obama
A year ago yesterday, Sarah Palin became a household name when introduced as John McCain's running mate. She excited a disillusioned conservative base like none other, and contrary to what the liberals like to say, kept McCain from a complete slaughter on Election Day. Immediately, the liberal mainstream media made it their mission to destroy this good woman who represented a threat to their god, Barack Obama. And we all know the rest of the story.
Read a great article summing up the differences between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, via Atlas Shrugs:
Our first Palinversary ............. a National Love Affair Turns One
"It was a year ago today that Sarah Palin walked onto the national stage and raised us up. Those of us who were fed up with a limp GOP moving center left were thrilled with a principled conservative, a rugged individualist VP pick. It saved a McCain campaign on life support.
McCain had it right when introducing her. He said, 'she's exactly what we need, she's exactly what this country needs'. Bingo.
There is no artifice with the woman. You couldn't write a more perfect resume. Raising her kids, involved in the PTA, elected mayor of her hometown where she stopped wasteful spending and cut property taxes, elected to the oil and gas commission where she stood up to lobbyists, special interests, the old boy network .... the rest is history.
What a year it has been for her and us. Looking back in hindsight, could the differences between Palin and Barack be more stark? Obama is all artifice. Palin is all real, all that. Obama is all style. Palin is all substance. Obama is anti-American. Palin is all-American. Obama holds the US military in contempt. Palin reveres the military. The military loves Palin. The military is on to Obama. The corrupt activist media loves Obama. The corrupt activist media loathes and libels Palin.
Despite the attacks and lawsuits by freaks in Alaska working for Obama's hatchet men, Palin perseveres. Hampered by the ethics lawsuits and attrition, she moved on to take on the enemy within, here, on the front lines. When Palin made her 'farewell' speech last month, I said that her speech was no farewell address at all, but a commencement address. 'I will fight even harder for you, for what is right and for the truth,' she promised. 'And I have never felt I needed a title to do that!' Her speech embodied what a great American sounds like, and what a President ought to sound like. Palin made no apologies. She said nothing like Obama's inane drone of 'America's best days are behind us.' No tearing down of our nation. Obama ranks on us; Palin raises us up and speaks of national pride.
Palin wasted no time in taking on the big boys yet again, and winning. No slave to the leftist feudal media caste system, Palin circumvents the O-propagandists and disinformationalists. Sarah, alone, with her Facebook page as her unfiltered messenger, calls out the rotting, decaying vultures in DC on their death panels -- and they recoil to their nests and pull the death panels out of Obamacare legislation. Palin, alone, on her unedited Facebook page, declares no healthcare reform without tort reform, and she gets Howard Dean to confess they won't take on the lawyers. You can't make this stuff up.
She's a marvel and wonderful to watch. She is a lioness.
Palin is all content. Obama is all about playing the race card. The Obama mop up will be huge. The Republicans are going to need a 'real' genuine article; that's our girl Sarah, plain and tall.
Many of us saw the divergent paths America would take with the 2008 election of a radical or the election of a patriot. America, in the well intentioned interest of putting the first black man in the White House, never looked beyond color to content of character.
America fell for the smooth talking boulevardier, like an impressionable school girl. But once you've had one of those, you run the other way.
I suspect America will be running far and fast from the destroying Democrats into the arms of the pure and the good. When the pendulum swings, its swings hard and fast.
Happy 1st anniversary, Sarah. Looking forward to the next four and especially the eight after that. I love huh!"
UPDATE: Liberals beware: Palin has received 1,070 invitations since leaving office.
Read a great article summing up the differences between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, via Atlas Shrugs:
Our first Palinversary ............. a National Love Affair Turns One
"It was a year ago today that Sarah Palin walked onto the national stage and raised us up. Those of us who were fed up with a limp GOP moving center left were thrilled with a principled conservative, a rugged individualist VP pick. It saved a McCain campaign on life support.
McCain had it right when introducing her. He said, 'she's exactly what we need, she's exactly what this country needs'. Bingo.
There is no artifice with the woman. You couldn't write a more perfect resume. Raising her kids, involved in the PTA, elected mayor of her hometown where she stopped wasteful spending and cut property taxes, elected to the oil and gas commission where she stood up to lobbyists, special interests, the old boy network .... the rest is history.
What a year it has been for her and us. Looking back in hindsight, could the differences between Palin and Barack be more stark? Obama is all artifice. Palin is all real, all that. Obama is all style. Palin is all substance. Obama is anti-American. Palin is all-American. Obama holds the US military in contempt. Palin reveres the military. The military loves Palin. The military is on to Obama. The corrupt activist media loves Obama. The corrupt activist media loathes and libels Palin.
Despite the attacks and lawsuits by freaks in Alaska working for Obama's hatchet men, Palin perseveres. Hampered by the ethics lawsuits and attrition, she moved on to take on the enemy within, here, on the front lines. When Palin made her 'farewell' speech last month, I said that her speech was no farewell address at all, but a commencement address. 'I will fight even harder for you, for what is right and for the truth,' she promised. 'And I have never felt I needed a title to do that!' Her speech embodied what a great American sounds like, and what a President ought to sound like. Palin made no apologies. She said nothing like Obama's inane drone of 'America's best days are behind us.' No tearing down of our nation. Obama ranks on us; Palin raises us up and speaks of national pride.
Palin wasted no time in taking on the big boys yet again, and winning. No slave to the leftist feudal media caste system, Palin circumvents the O-propagandists and disinformationalists. Sarah, alone, with her Facebook page as her unfiltered messenger, calls out the rotting, decaying vultures in DC on their death panels -- and they recoil to their nests and pull the death panels out of Obamacare legislation. Palin, alone, on her unedited Facebook page, declares no healthcare reform without tort reform, and she gets Howard Dean to confess they won't take on the lawyers. You can't make this stuff up.
She's a marvel and wonderful to watch. She is a lioness.
Palin is all content. Obama is all about playing the race card. The Obama mop up will be huge. The Republicans are going to need a 'real' genuine article; that's our girl Sarah, plain and tall.
Many of us saw the divergent paths America would take with the 2008 election of a radical or the election of a patriot. America, in the well intentioned interest of putting the first black man in the White House, never looked beyond color to content of character.
America fell for the smooth talking boulevardier, like an impressionable school girl. But once you've had one of those, you run the other way.
I suspect America will be running far and fast from the destroying Democrats into the arms of the pure and the good. When the pendulum swings, its swings hard and fast.
Happy 1st anniversary, Sarah. Looking forward to the next four and especially the eight after that. I love huh!"
UPDATE: Liberals beware: Palin has received 1,070 invitations since leaving office.
Obama Compared to Lenin
The Left always loved comparing President Bush to Hitler, though President Obama is much more in line with the views of Hitler than Bush ever was. Nevertheless, read this comparison of Obama with Vladimir Lenin, via the American Thinker. Hmmm, I'm not sure if this article will outrage the Left, or perhaps they would feel honored to have Obama linked to one of their beloved Commies.
Obama as Leninoid
By James Lewis
"The parallels between Barack Hussein Obama and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin are intriguing. To be sure, there are differences: Barack Obama is not the absolute ruler of a tyrannical state. Lenin was. We are not about to see a violent Bolshevik coup like Lenin's. (At least, I'm fairly sure.) America in 2009 is not Russia in 1917. So we won't equate them.
And yet, without losing sight of those facts, the similarities are too strong for mere coincidence. So I'm going to make up the word 'Leninoid,' as a reminder that Obama isn't Lenin -- but he must have hired the same Hollywood scriptwriters. I don't know why. I'm just pointing to what I see.
Cult of Personality
It was Lenin, not Stalin, who first introduced the Cult of Personality to raise his profile to superhuman status after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Even today, some Leftists talk about Lenin as a Jesus figure, who only murdered four million people out of necessity. Wikipedia writes that 'The late Australian historian and leftist intellectual Manning Clark described Lenin as 'Christ-like, at least in his compassion.'
Obama's entire election campaign was based on a Cult of Personality, deliberately whipped up by PR honcho Axelrod and shamefully effective with many Americans. The Obama-as-Jesus theme has been sounded by Obama himself, followed by his millions of acolytes.
Hollywood Lefty Susan Sarandon has said: 'He is a community organizer like Jesus was ... And now, we're a community and he can organize us.'
Revolution Comes from Above
'I am the change' is a standard Obama line.
'Understand where the vision for change comes from, first and foremost,' he told reporters at his third press conference in as many days. 'It comes from me. That's my job, is to provide a vision in terms of where we are going, and to make sure, then, that my team is implementing.'
That is exactly the Leninoid notion of 'Revolution comes from above.' Again, this has been attributed to Stalin, in order to protect Lenin's reputation on the Left. In fact, it was Stalin who controlled and edited all of Lenin's published works after his death in 1924. The trick in all revolutionary movements is to trigger revolution from above, and to attribute it to 'the oppressed masses.' But the masses of people are never even consulted. That is why the Communist Party must always be the 'Vanguard of the Proletariat.' Lenin routinely had peasants and workers executed by the Cheka (the terror police he created) if they were against him.
Scapegoating the rich and all 'enemies' of the regime
'This is basic to all of Marxism, of course. But the demagogic version, the one that literally proclaims, "Kill the rich!' came from Lenin -- because Lenin was the first dictator of a state coming out of the Marxist revolutionary movements. He was the model of actual revolutionary governance. Everybody else followed the successful elements of Lenin's model. That includes European social democracies, which routinely engage in the same political tactics, mostly exercised through the media.
(Social democrats tend to use peaceful methods, like constant propaganda, indoctrination through the media, and vote buying as opposed to mass terror. They cannot be confused with murderous Leninist regimes, but they still constantly require new victim groups to appeal to -- which is why they import Pakistani Muslims from Peshawar into London. They are cheap votes, and anybody who disagrees is viciously scapegoated through the media.)"
Read it all.
Obama as Leninoid
By James Lewis
"The parallels between Barack Hussein Obama and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin are intriguing. To be sure, there are differences: Barack Obama is not the absolute ruler of a tyrannical state. Lenin was. We are not about to see a violent Bolshevik coup like Lenin's. (At least, I'm fairly sure.) America in 2009 is not Russia in 1917. So we won't equate them.
And yet, without losing sight of those facts, the similarities are too strong for mere coincidence. So I'm going to make up the word 'Leninoid,' as a reminder that Obama isn't Lenin -- but he must have hired the same Hollywood scriptwriters. I don't know why. I'm just pointing to what I see.
Cult of Personality
It was Lenin, not Stalin, who first introduced the Cult of Personality to raise his profile to superhuman status after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Even today, some Leftists talk about Lenin as a Jesus figure, who only murdered four million people out of necessity. Wikipedia writes that 'The late Australian historian and leftist intellectual Manning Clark described Lenin as 'Christ-like, at least in his compassion.'
Obama's entire election campaign was based on a Cult of Personality, deliberately whipped up by PR honcho Axelrod and shamefully effective with many Americans. The Obama-as-Jesus theme has been sounded by Obama himself, followed by his millions of acolytes.
Hollywood Lefty Susan Sarandon has said: 'He is a community organizer like Jesus was ... And now, we're a community and he can organize us.'
Revolution Comes from Above
'I am the change' is a standard Obama line.
'Understand where the vision for change comes from, first and foremost,' he told reporters at his third press conference in as many days. 'It comes from me. That's my job, is to provide a vision in terms of where we are going, and to make sure, then, that my team is implementing.'
That is exactly the Leninoid notion of 'Revolution comes from above.' Again, this has been attributed to Stalin, in order to protect Lenin's reputation on the Left. In fact, it was Stalin who controlled and edited all of Lenin's published works after his death in 1924. The trick in all revolutionary movements is to trigger revolution from above, and to attribute it to 'the oppressed masses.' But the masses of people are never even consulted. That is why the Communist Party must always be the 'Vanguard of the Proletariat.' Lenin routinely had peasants and workers executed by the Cheka (the terror police he created) if they were against him.
Scapegoating the rich and all 'enemies' of the regime
'This is basic to all of Marxism, of course. But the demagogic version, the one that literally proclaims, "Kill the rich!' came from Lenin -- because Lenin was the first dictator of a state coming out of the Marxist revolutionary movements. He was the model of actual revolutionary governance. Everybody else followed the successful elements of Lenin's model. That includes European social democracies, which routinely engage in the same political tactics, mostly exercised through the media.
(Social democrats tend to use peaceful methods, like constant propaganda, indoctrination through the media, and vote buying as opposed to mass terror. They cannot be confused with murderous Leninist regimes, but they still constantly require new victim groups to appeal to -- which is why they import Pakistani Muslims from Peshawar into London. They are cheap votes, and anybody who disagrees is viciously scapegoated through the media.)"
Read it all.
Plans to Censor the Internet?
How does the thought of President Obama being in control of the internet sound? Aren't his supporters the same individuals who screamed bloody murder when George W. Bush was spying on our enemies in an effort to stop jihad activities in America? Let me try to figure this out. Spying on a dangerous enemy is not acceptable, even if it saves lives. But, spying on everyday Americans on the internet, who may just be speaking out against the evils of an Obama presidency is perfectly fine. Now, there's some rational thinking.
Read about the evil plans of the Obama Administration in their quest for censorship of anyone who opposes their efforts to make us into a totalitarian nation. From Joshua Pundit:
New Bill Would Give Obama 'Emergency' Control Of Internet
"Declan McCullagh at CBS has the story....
'Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector.{...}
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.'
Two critical things that come to mind are the ability of Obama to simply declare a national emergency and then to require government control over the 'net,especially when it comes to requiring companies to share information...like the names, addresses, social security numbers and other data of 'dissidents', or the shutting down of websites criticizing Obama's policies. It's a Leftist wet dream.
Probably no president should be entitled to exercise this much power without oversight. But the current occupant of the White House has already shown some fairly authoritarian tendencies in this regard, and a real sensitivity to any dissent and criticism of his policies. While an actual policy for cybersecurity might be vital, Obama has already proven that he's not the man to be trusted to implement it.
This is real Reichstag fire territory. Contact your Congressmen. Now."
The Brown Shirts are alive and well, and they are operating out of the White House.
Read about the evil plans of the Obama Administration in their quest for censorship of anyone who opposes their efforts to make us into a totalitarian nation. From Joshua Pundit:
New Bill Would Give Obama 'Emergency' Control Of Internet
"Declan McCullagh at CBS has the story....
'Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector.{...}
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.'
Two critical things that come to mind are the ability of Obama to simply declare a national emergency and then to require government control over the 'net,especially when it comes to requiring companies to share information...like the names, addresses, social security numbers and other data of 'dissidents', or the shutting down of websites criticizing Obama's policies. It's a Leftist wet dream.
Probably no president should be entitled to exercise this much power without oversight. But the current occupant of the White House has already shown some fairly authoritarian tendencies in this regard, and a real sensitivity to any dissent and criticism of his policies. While an actual policy for cybersecurity might be vital, Obama has already proven that he's not the man to be trusted to implement it.
This is real Reichstag fire territory. Contact your Congressmen. Now."
The Brown Shirts are alive and well, and they are operating out of the White House.
The Abandoning of Our Allies
Why, oh why, oh why, does President Obama insist on spitting in the faces of our allies? During the Bush years, the liberals went on and on about how Bush was alienating our friends throughout the world, particularly in Europe. Obama ran on a platform that would improve our image worldwide. So where's the fruit of his promises?
Early in his presidency, Obama rudely returned a bust of Winston Churchill, a gift from the British after 9/11. He added to his improper behavior by presenting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown with a DVD collection of classic American movies which would not operate in the UK because of region-specific limitations. Obviously, that was not his responsibility to recognize this fact. But, shouldn't someone in his administration have been aware of this problem? He made America look foolish.
Now, with the Iranian nuclear threat growing greater by the day, President Obama has now decided to renege on America's promise to build a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. He chooses to instead cave into demands from Russia to abandon our allies in Europe, while foolishly trusting the Russians to keep a promise to help stop a nuclear Iran. When have the Russians ever proven themselves worthy of our trust? What a nonsensical move on the part of Obama, to abandon our allies and kowtow to the demands of the Russians.
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
Obama Officially Abandons Our Allies on Missile Defense in Europe
"Add to the list two more allies of the US Obama is throwing to the wolves. Another terrible betrayal .... It is not possible to suspend one's disbelief to actually think Russia will abandon the Iranian nuclear project - of which they are so very much a part.
Winston Churchill speaking after the Battle of Britain: 'Never before in the history of mankind has one man visited so much insanity'.
Obama Officially Abandons Missile Defense in Europe
'According to the Polish daily, Gazeta Wyborcza, sources in the United States have confirmed that the Obama administration has made the decision to abandon our anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Unfortunately this news is not surprising at all. In March of this year it was revealed that President Obama 'secretly' offered Moscow a grand bargain whereby it would sacrifice missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic in exchange for Moscow’s help discouraging Iran’s nuclear program. Then in his July summit with Moscow, Obama reinforced his message that missile defense remains a bargaining chip that can exchanged for his college dream of a nuclear free world.
This is a grave mistake for several reasons:
*The decision to abandon the 'third site' deployment of 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic violates President Obama’s pledge to support missile defense that is 'pragmatic and cost-effective.' Ground based missile defense is effective, affordable, and available now.
*According to the Congressional Budget Office, alternatives to the third site do not provide a comparable level of defense. The CBO concluded that the estimated $9-14 billion 20-year cost of the third site was half of the estimated costs of a sea-based alternative.
*Reneging on our promise to Poland and the Czech Republic sends a terrible signal to our allies in the region.
Abandoning our best missile defense option in Europe only encourages Iran to speed up their ballistic missile program so that they can get their threat in place before a European missile defense system is available. We are in a desperate race to beat the clock on Iran’s nuclear program. Why on earth are we stopping now to let the Iranians catch up?'"
His college dream of a nuclear free world? Obama needs to wake up from his dream world and face reality. We have evil enemies lurking in all corners of the world who cannot be trusted to lay down their arms and be peaceful. Is this a rerun of the Jimmy Carter years? I strongly believe so.
If his abandoning of Poland and the Czech Republic hasn't caused your blood to boil, perhaps this will. He is making it increasingly more difficult for Israel to protect itself from his Muslim brothers in the Middle East and Iran.
Again, read from Atlas Shrugs:
Anti-Semitism: Obama, Revoke Your Choke on Israel
"It sickens freedom lovers: the money and support Obama is throwing at jihadist regimes while cutting off nascent and established democracies. The US is shtooping Hamas more cash, yet again, while cutting off the oxygen to the Jewish people. No surprise from the Muhammadan president, but he is not an absolute ruler. Call and write your Congressmen. Hold them accountable. It is not difficult to understand why an anti-semitic Administration would seek to diminish Israel’s defensive capability.
CONGRESS: REVOKE THE BAN ON EXPORTS OF THE THE F-22 TO ISRAEL
If Congress does not reverse the ban on exports of the F-22 Raptor, it will become complicit in furthering the Obama Administration’s commitment to deny Israel the option of defending herself from the Iranian nuclear threat.
To date, the Administration has denied the Israel military’s requests to: Purchase in-flight refueling tankers; fly over Iraqi air-space; install its advanced electronics into the F-35; purchase Apache attack helicopters; and now, purchase F-22 stealth fighters.
For US strategic purposes, we have stationed an advanced early radar system in the Negev at a compound accessible only to US personnel. The system can monitor aircraft or missile activity up to 1,500 miles away. This capability could give Israel an extra 60-70 seconds to react should Iran fire a missile. However, the Administration has denied Israel any direct access to the data collected. Israel will only be fed intelligence second hand, on a need-to-know basis by its American operators. Complained one top official, 'It’s like a pair of golden handcuffs on Israel.'
It is difficult to understand why the Administration seeks to diminish Israel’s defensive capability, particularly given the reports that the Air Force has sought to sell the ultra-advanced F-22 Raptor abroad to trusted US allies, 'as a way of plussing up the numbers and production'. It initially intended to purchase 300-800 F-22’s, which was cut to 442, then 381, and most recently to just over 180. With F-22 production set to terminate around 2010, and increasing concern over the capability gap between other US fighters, and global competitors like the SU-30 family, MIG-35, et. al., some planners are becoming concerned. They believe that maintaining the F-22 production line through exports extends the USA’s decision options, in sync with former Air Force chief of staff, Gen. McPeak’s plea not to compromise 'our future air combat capabilities.'
No discussion of our capabilities can ignore the contribution Israel made in developing US supremacy in the air. Retired Air Force intelligence chief, Gen. George F. Keegan, when discussing Israeli assistance in discovery of Soviet capabilities, new weapons, electronics and jamming devices, said, 'I could not have procured the intelligence…with five CIAs.' He maintained during the Cold War that 'the ability of the U.S. Air Force in particular, and the Army in general, to defend whatever position it has in NATO owes more to the Israeli intelligence input than it does to any single source of intelligence.' Surely the fact that Mossad had convinced an Iraqi pilot to fly the Soviet’s premier fighter, the MIG-21 to an Israeli base, contributed to the General’s observation. At the time (1966) the US had no clue as to how it was built, what its weaknesses were, nor which weapons should be developed against it…that is, until the Israelis loaned her MIG-21 to the US Air Force.
It is also striking, given the millions of unemployed Americans, and the White House’s otherwise strong commitment to bailing out suffering industries, that the Administration is seeking to phase-out production of the F-22. Production would help Lockheed-Martin and its major suppliers retain 25,000 jobs in California, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas, and 95,000 jobs overall in 44 states when subcontractors are included. Thus, should Congress reverse the ban on exports Israel wishes to purchase, it would provide a painless stimulus to the economy, and bolster our 'future air combat capabilities' at the same time.
Though the Obama Administration has not courted the vast pro-Israel sentiment of Christians and Jews, Congress is obligated to act on the wishes of the overwhelming millions of Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, who would not deny Israel the right to defend herself against the threat of extinction.
H.L. Linfield
Formerly Deputy Director of the Mid-Atlantic Region of the American Jewish Committee"
Actually, it is not "difficult to understand why the Administration seeks to diminish Israel’s defensive capability". The man and most of his administration despise Israel.
Early in his presidency, Obama rudely returned a bust of Winston Churchill, a gift from the British after 9/11. He added to his improper behavior by presenting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown with a DVD collection of classic American movies which would not operate in the UK because of region-specific limitations. Obviously, that was not his responsibility to recognize this fact. But, shouldn't someone in his administration have been aware of this problem? He made America look foolish.
Now, with the Iranian nuclear threat growing greater by the day, President Obama has now decided to renege on America's promise to build a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. He chooses to instead cave into demands from Russia to abandon our allies in Europe, while foolishly trusting the Russians to keep a promise to help stop a nuclear Iran. When have the Russians ever proven themselves worthy of our trust? What a nonsensical move on the part of Obama, to abandon our allies and kowtow to the demands of the Russians.
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
Obama Officially Abandons Our Allies on Missile Defense in Europe
"Add to the list two more allies of the US Obama is throwing to the wolves. Another terrible betrayal .... It is not possible to suspend one's disbelief to actually think Russia will abandon the Iranian nuclear project - of which they are so very much a part.
Winston Churchill speaking after the Battle of Britain: 'Never before in the history of mankind has one man visited so much insanity'.
Obama Officially Abandons Missile Defense in Europe
'According to the Polish daily, Gazeta Wyborcza, sources in the United States have confirmed that the Obama administration has made the decision to abandon our anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Unfortunately this news is not surprising at all. In March of this year it was revealed that President Obama 'secretly' offered Moscow a grand bargain whereby it would sacrifice missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic in exchange for Moscow’s help discouraging Iran’s nuclear program. Then in his July summit with Moscow, Obama reinforced his message that missile defense remains a bargaining chip that can exchanged for his college dream of a nuclear free world.
This is a grave mistake for several reasons:
*The decision to abandon the 'third site' deployment of 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic violates President Obama’s pledge to support missile defense that is 'pragmatic and cost-effective.' Ground based missile defense is effective, affordable, and available now.
*According to the Congressional Budget Office, alternatives to the third site do not provide a comparable level of defense. The CBO concluded that the estimated $9-14 billion 20-year cost of the third site was half of the estimated costs of a sea-based alternative.
*Reneging on our promise to Poland and the Czech Republic sends a terrible signal to our allies in the region.
Abandoning our best missile defense option in Europe only encourages Iran to speed up their ballistic missile program so that they can get their threat in place before a European missile defense system is available. We are in a desperate race to beat the clock on Iran’s nuclear program. Why on earth are we stopping now to let the Iranians catch up?'"
His college dream of a nuclear free world? Obama needs to wake up from his dream world and face reality. We have evil enemies lurking in all corners of the world who cannot be trusted to lay down their arms and be peaceful. Is this a rerun of the Jimmy Carter years? I strongly believe so.
If his abandoning of Poland and the Czech Republic hasn't caused your blood to boil, perhaps this will. He is making it increasingly more difficult for Israel to protect itself from his Muslim brothers in the Middle East and Iran.
Again, read from Atlas Shrugs:
Anti-Semitism: Obama, Revoke Your Choke on Israel
"It sickens freedom lovers: the money and support Obama is throwing at jihadist regimes while cutting off nascent and established democracies. The US is shtooping Hamas more cash, yet again, while cutting off the oxygen to the Jewish people. No surprise from the Muhammadan president, but he is not an absolute ruler. Call and write your Congressmen. Hold them accountable. It is not difficult to understand why an anti-semitic Administration would seek to diminish Israel’s defensive capability.
CONGRESS: REVOKE THE BAN ON EXPORTS OF THE THE F-22 TO ISRAEL
If Congress does not reverse the ban on exports of the F-22 Raptor, it will become complicit in furthering the Obama Administration’s commitment to deny Israel the option of defending herself from the Iranian nuclear threat.
To date, the Administration has denied the Israel military’s requests to: Purchase in-flight refueling tankers; fly over Iraqi air-space; install its advanced electronics into the F-35; purchase Apache attack helicopters; and now, purchase F-22 stealth fighters.
For US strategic purposes, we have stationed an advanced early radar system in the Negev at a compound accessible only to US personnel. The system can monitor aircraft or missile activity up to 1,500 miles away. This capability could give Israel an extra 60-70 seconds to react should Iran fire a missile. However, the Administration has denied Israel any direct access to the data collected. Israel will only be fed intelligence second hand, on a need-to-know basis by its American operators. Complained one top official, 'It’s like a pair of golden handcuffs on Israel.'
It is difficult to understand why the Administration seeks to diminish Israel’s defensive capability, particularly given the reports that the Air Force has sought to sell the ultra-advanced F-22 Raptor abroad to trusted US allies, 'as a way of plussing up the numbers and production'. It initially intended to purchase 300-800 F-22’s, which was cut to 442, then 381, and most recently to just over 180. With F-22 production set to terminate around 2010, and increasing concern over the capability gap between other US fighters, and global competitors like the SU-30 family, MIG-35, et. al., some planners are becoming concerned. They believe that maintaining the F-22 production line through exports extends the USA’s decision options, in sync with former Air Force chief of staff, Gen. McPeak’s plea not to compromise 'our future air combat capabilities.'
No discussion of our capabilities can ignore the contribution Israel made in developing US supremacy in the air. Retired Air Force intelligence chief, Gen. George F. Keegan, when discussing Israeli assistance in discovery of Soviet capabilities, new weapons, electronics and jamming devices, said, 'I could not have procured the intelligence…with five CIAs.' He maintained during the Cold War that 'the ability of the U.S. Air Force in particular, and the Army in general, to defend whatever position it has in NATO owes more to the Israeli intelligence input than it does to any single source of intelligence.' Surely the fact that Mossad had convinced an Iraqi pilot to fly the Soviet’s premier fighter, the MIG-21 to an Israeli base, contributed to the General’s observation. At the time (1966) the US had no clue as to how it was built, what its weaknesses were, nor which weapons should be developed against it…that is, until the Israelis loaned her MIG-21 to the US Air Force.
It is also striking, given the millions of unemployed Americans, and the White House’s otherwise strong commitment to bailing out suffering industries, that the Administration is seeking to phase-out production of the F-22. Production would help Lockheed-Martin and its major suppliers retain 25,000 jobs in California, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas, and 95,000 jobs overall in 44 states when subcontractors are included. Thus, should Congress reverse the ban on exports Israel wishes to purchase, it would provide a painless stimulus to the economy, and bolster our 'future air combat capabilities' at the same time.
Though the Obama Administration has not courted the vast pro-Israel sentiment of Christians and Jews, Congress is obligated to act on the wishes of the overwhelming millions of Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, who would not deny Israel the right to defend herself against the threat of extinction.
H.L. Linfield
Formerly Deputy Director of the Mid-Atlantic Region of the American Jewish Committee"
Actually, it is not "difficult to understand why the Administration seeks to diminish Israel’s defensive capability". The man and most of his administration despise Israel.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
The Hijra or Doctrine of Immigration
Read about the invasion of Islam in the West. Pay close attention because Europe will soon be lost to the "religion of peace" because of the high rate of Muslim births, while at the same time non-Muslims are conceiving fewer and fewer children. America better beware of the dangers we face. How does Sharia law in America sound?
Read of the dangers of "the hijra" or "doctrine of immigration" in this enlightening article in the American Thinker:
The Hijra
By Janet Levy
Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration
By Sam Solomon and Elias Al Maqdisi
ANM Publishers, 2009
139 pp., $14.95
"Within the past few decades, mosques have increasingly dotted the landscapes of American and European cities and towns, with mega mosques often overshadowing adjacent, centuries-old churches in predominantly Christian regions. Islamic schools or academies and a host of Muslim organizations have become omnipresent across the West.
Meanwhile, Americans and Europeans have made countless accommodations to Muslim demands. They have included footbaths; high-decibel, five-times-daily calls to prayer; segregated male-female gym and swimming pool hours; halal food; workplace dispensations for handling pork products and for female head and face coverings; and special, public prayer rooms. Also, shari'ah-compliant financial transactions, the expunging of offensive likenesses of Mohammed or imagined depictions of Arabic characters that connote 'Allah,' official swearings-in on Korans in place of customary Bibles, the neutralizing of official descriptive language about Islamists and the jihad, the revision of so-called offensive content in movies and television programs, the removal of representations of pigs from the public sphere, and many other acculturations to Muslim entreaties have all been made in the service of respecting Muslim religious beliefs and practices.
To those in Western democracies, these accommodating actions appear, on the surface, to be little more than harmless civil gestures, respecting the needs of a growing religion in their midst and welcoming a new addition to their proud, multicultural tradition. Many Westerners pat themselves on the back for their liberal bent, their tolerance and their open-mindedness.
Little do they realize that this strategic pattern of demands is part of an insidious, 1,400-year-old proscription for Muslims that originates in the Koran and the Sunnah, the deeds of Mohammed. It is the Hijra or doctrine of immigration. Modeled by Mohammed's migration from Mecca to Medina, this immigration is not to a romanticized melting pot wherein newcomers gratefully search for opportunities for a better life in liberty and freely offer their talents and loyalty to benefit their new homeland. This is immigration for Islamic expansionism employing ethnic separatism to gain special status and privileges within the host country. Hijra is immigration designed to subvert and subdue non-Muslim societies and pave the way for eventual, total Islamization.
In their compelling book, 'Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration,' authors Sam Solomon, a former professor of shari'ah law and convert to Christianity, and Elias Al Maqdisi, an expert on Islamic teachings, explain the migration of Muslims to the Dar-al-Harb, the 'land of war,' as a religious edict with a basis in Islamic doctrine. They delineate the step-by-step process of this 1,400-year-old strategy of conquest. It is a transitional strategy which they characterize as the most important step in spreading Islam and preparing for jihad. From their carefully delineated treatise on Hijra, it is clear that migration in concert with military conquest comprise the bookends of Islamic expansionism.
Solomon and Al Maqdisi review the phases of the Hijra and its juristic or legal basis in Islamic doctrine. Under the cover of taquiya or deception, the step-by-step methodology of the migration process is designed to subdue, then, subjugate the host culture, culminating in implementation of shari'ah law.
The beginning phase of Islamization usually includes activities pivotal to building a physical presence. It consists of public calls to prayer; founding of schools, libraries and research centers; and the teaching of Arabic -- actions that appear to be reasonable and respectable infrastructure requirements necessary to support the presence of a faith. At this point in the Hijra, it is permissible for Muslims to engage in haram, or forbidden actions, out of necessity to establish and empower the umma or Muslim community. Koranic rules such as the prohibition against friendships with infidels are suspended while the objectives of future Islamization are systematically put into place. In its initial phase, the Hijra passes scrutiny by the West whose citizens erroneously view the migration as mainly economic -- a pilgrimage for a better life.
Solomon and Maqdisi examine the comprehensive strategy that begins with the establishment of the umma or Muslim community. The mosque becomes the locus of power, a strategic base and the center of all activities. They explain how in this embryonic phase, a top priority is the scouting for new arrivals to expand and empower the existing Muslim community. Muslim leaders offer solicitous assistance and helpful suggestions for schools, housing, mosque worship, halal markets and other services to ingratiate themselves with new arrivals and bring them into the local Muslim community. Agents of local mosques, ever alert for new immigrants and potential converts, engage in subtle forms of indoctrination and police local Muslims.
This first step of establishing the mosque as the center of local Islamic life and activities is mistakenly viewed by non-Muslims as merely the benign construction of houses of worship. Its true goal escapes notice, that of firmly establishing a purposeful non-integrated Muslim identity to advance the goal of Islamization.
Once the consolidation of the Muslim community occurs under the radar, the purposeful fight for special status and shari'ah follows. As dictated by the Koran and Sunnah, segregation from non-Muslims is a natural outcome of the advancement of the Hijra.
Visible changes begin to be apparent as the Muslim population achieves more of a critical mass. Over time, the dress code, often beginning with a hijab in segregated enclaves and moving toward the complete covering of a neqab in the public sphere, separates Muslim women from men and from non-Muslim women. Eventually, as the host population becomes familiarized with what they believe to be the requirements of religious piety, demands are made for segregation at public facilities, in the workplace and at schools and universities. Requests for halal food, shari'ah-compliant financial transactions and the addition of Muslim holidays to public calendars further elevate the Muslim community with a special status making them separate and distinct.
All demands are initially presented as benign attempts to accommodate the religious requirements of devout Muslims. Any actions to suppress them are decried as religious discrimination. In the United States, requests for separate swimming and gym hours for Muslim men and women, demands for identification photos for licenses for women wearing hijabs and refusals to handle pork products or don immodest dress in the workplace have appeared. At this point, representatives of the Muslim community are often working cooperatively with the host government to bring about change. As Solomon and Maqdisi explain, the idea is to get the host society accustomed to Muslim buildings, customs, holidays, dress and food. Newcomers are encouraged by Muslim leadership to become citizens, vote and run for political office to increase the umma's influence.
At the university level, students are indoctrinated to become advocates for Islam, engage in interfaith activities and da'wa or proselytization and train for jihad. Non-Muslims professors are solicited through zakat or payments to present courses favorable to Islam and write and speak publicly to promote Islam. The bequeathal by Saudi Prince Al-waleed bin Talal of $20 million dollars for Islamic study centers at Harvard and Georgetown universities, respectively, was a gesture to insure the promulgation of positive research, publications and presentations toward Islam.
In 'Modern Day Trojan Horse,' Solomon and Maqdisi point out that as Muslims gain power and mass in the host country, consolidation of identity occurs, as well as strengthening of their infrastructure of mosques, schools, clubs, organizations and media. The doctrine of taquiya is firmly in place as Muslims hide behind the dictates of their religious devotion and seek cultural changes in the land of the non-Muslim or kuffar. At this more advanced stage, attempts are made to silence opponents and curry favor. The judicious use of zakat elicits favorable views of Muslims and Islam from politicians, representatives from the media and other organizations. For example, within the last couple of years in the United States, the words, 'jihad' and 'Islamofascism,' have been expunged from the lexicon of government officials and the words, 'Islamic' and 'terrorism,' are rarely paired. In Europe, which is further advanced in this process, a dangerous turn materialized with the murder of filmmaker ,Theo Van Gogh, who produced a film on the subjugation of women in Islam, and with death threats against Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilder for his outspoken criticism of Islam.
As Islamization of the host culture proceeds apace, preparations begin for learning the skills necessary for jihad. Young jihadists may travel to their countries of origin for further indoctrination and terrorist training. This development has been noted within Somali Muslim communities in Minnesota and Tennessee. Young Muslims have disappeared to Somalia to rendezvous with Al Shabaab, a terrorist group linked to Al Qaeda.
As the resident Muslim community becomes more established and begins to wield considerable power in the political arena, pressure is brought to bear on politicians to permit shari'ah law courts in exchange for Muslim votes. This is very much evident in Britain where parallel systems of legal jurisprudence currently coexist. Muslim inhabitants of the host country are pressured to follow shari'ah law in lieu of the prevailing legal system. Several recent legal decisions by non-Muslim judges in Europe have referenced shari'ah law as a standard for verdicts concerning Muslims.
As the intensity of the hijra advances, the appearance of open ghettos or Muslim-only regions occurs. These are areas where non-Muslims are essentially prohibited and where, if they enter, they actually may be physically threatened. Such no-go zones, where even non-Muslim community workers are unwelcome, exist throughout Europe today. Remarkably, Muslim movements are never restricted; they venture freely anywhere in the host country.
As Solomon and Maqdisi point out, the Hijra is a comprehensive and direct political attempt to undermine the culture and values of the host country and replace them with Islam and shari'ah. It is an insidious migration seeking transformation of the culture, behaviors, customs, rules and laws of a host society to spread Islam and establish an Islamic state. The stages of the Hijra are very much evident in varying degrees in all Western societies today. Ironically, our open democratic societies with constitutionally mandated freedoms of speech, religion and assembly have facilitated this march toward the very demise of our way of life.
'Modern Day Trojan Horse' should be required reading for all citizens of Western democracies who urgently need to understand the Hijra and the threat it represents. The book sounds the alarm for the cautious evaluation of what may appear to be innocent religious practice in our midst but has sinister motives to transform our societies forever."
"Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration" sounds like a good book to read. Wake up America!!
Read of the dangers of "the hijra" or "doctrine of immigration" in this enlightening article in the American Thinker:
The Hijra
By Janet Levy
Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration
By Sam Solomon and Elias Al Maqdisi
ANM Publishers, 2009
139 pp., $14.95
"Within the past few decades, mosques have increasingly dotted the landscapes of American and European cities and towns, with mega mosques often overshadowing adjacent, centuries-old churches in predominantly Christian regions. Islamic schools or academies and a host of Muslim organizations have become omnipresent across the West.
Meanwhile, Americans and Europeans have made countless accommodations to Muslim demands. They have included footbaths; high-decibel, five-times-daily calls to prayer; segregated male-female gym and swimming pool hours; halal food; workplace dispensations for handling pork products and for female head and face coverings; and special, public prayer rooms. Also, shari'ah-compliant financial transactions, the expunging of offensive likenesses of Mohammed or imagined depictions of Arabic characters that connote 'Allah,' official swearings-in on Korans in place of customary Bibles, the neutralizing of official descriptive language about Islamists and the jihad, the revision of so-called offensive content in movies and television programs, the removal of representations of pigs from the public sphere, and many other acculturations to Muslim entreaties have all been made in the service of respecting Muslim religious beliefs and practices.
To those in Western democracies, these accommodating actions appear, on the surface, to be little more than harmless civil gestures, respecting the needs of a growing religion in their midst and welcoming a new addition to their proud, multicultural tradition. Many Westerners pat themselves on the back for their liberal bent, their tolerance and their open-mindedness.
Little do they realize that this strategic pattern of demands is part of an insidious, 1,400-year-old proscription for Muslims that originates in the Koran and the Sunnah, the deeds of Mohammed. It is the Hijra or doctrine of immigration. Modeled by Mohammed's migration from Mecca to Medina, this immigration is not to a romanticized melting pot wherein newcomers gratefully search for opportunities for a better life in liberty and freely offer their talents and loyalty to benefit their new homeland. This is immigration for Islamic expansionism employing ethnic separatism to gain special status and privileges within the host country. Hijra is immigration designed to subvert and subdue non-Muslim societies and pave the way for eventual, total Islamization.
In their compelling book, 'Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration,' authors Sam Solomon, a former professor of shari'ah law and convert to Christianity, and Elias Al Maqdisi, an expert on Islamic teachings, explain the migration of Muslims to the Dar-al-Harb, the 'land of war,' as a religious edict with a basis in Islamic doctrine. They delineate the step-by-step process of this 1,400-year-old strategy of conquest. It is a transitional strategy which they characterize as the most important step in spreading Islam and preparing for jihad. From their carefully delineated treatise on Hijra, it is clear that migration in concert with military conquest comprise the bookends of Islamic expansionism.
Solomon and Al Maqdisi review the phases of the Hijra and its juristic or legal basis in Islamic doctrine. Under the cover of taquiya or deception, the step-by-step methodology of the migration process is designed to subdue, then, subjugate the host culture, culminating in implementation of shari'ah law.
The beginning phase of Islamization usually includes activities pivotal to building a physical presence. It consists of public calls to prayer; founding of schools, libraries and research centers; and the teaching of Arabic -- actions that appear to be reasonable and respectable infrastructure requirements necessary to support the presence of a faith. At this point in the Hijra, it is permissible for Muslims to engage in haram, or forbidden actions, out of necessity to establish and empower the umma or Muslim community. Koranic rules such as the prohibition against friendships with infidels are suspended while the objectives of future Islamization are systematically put into place. In its initial phase, the Hijra passes scrutiny by the West whose citizens erroneously view the migration as mainly economic -- a pilgrimage for a better life.
Solomon and Maqdisi examine the comprehensive strategy that begins with the establishment of the umma or Muslim community. The mosque becomes the locus of power, a strategic base and the center of all activities. They explain how in this embryonic phase, a top priority is the scouting for new arrivals to expand and empower the existing Muslim community. Muslim leaders offer solicitous assistance and helpful suggestions for schools, housing, mosque worship, halal markets and other services to ingratiate themselves with new arrivals and bring them into the local Muslim community. Agents of local mosques, ever alert for new immigrants and potential converts, engage in subtle forms of indoctrination and police local Muslims.
This first step of establishing the mosque as the center of local Islamic life and activities is mistakenly viewed by non-Muslims as merely the benign construction of houses of worship. Its true goal escapes notice, that of firmly establishing a purposeful non-integrated Muslim identity to advance the goal of Islamization.
Once the consolidation of the Muslim community occurs under the radar, the purposeful fight for special status and shari'ah follows. As dictated by the Koran and Sunnah, segregation from non-Muslims is a natural outcome of the advancement of the Hijra.
Visible changes begin to be apparent as the Muslim population achieves more of a critical mass. Over time, the dress code, often beginning with a hijab in segregated enclaves and moving toward the complete covering of a neqab in the public sphere, separates Muslim women from men and from non-Muslim women. Eventually, as the host population becomes familiarized with what they believe to be the requirements of religious piety, demands are made for segregation at public facilities, in the workplace and at schools and universities. Requests for halal food, shari'ah-compliant financial transactions and the addition of Muslim holidays to public calendars further elevate the Muslim community with a special status making them separate and distinct.
All demands are initially presented as benign attempts to accommodate the religious requirements of devout Muslims. Any actions to suppress them are decried as religious discrimination. In the United States, requests for separate swimming and gym hours for Muslim men and women, demands for identification photos for licenses for women wearing hijabs and refusals to handle pork products or don immodest dress in the workplace have appeared. At this point, representatives of the Muslim community are often working cooperatively with the host government to bring about change. As Solomon and Maqdisi explain, the idea is to get the host society accustomed to Muslim buildings, customs, holidays, dress and food. Newcomers are encouraged by Muslim leadership to become citizens, vote and run for political office to increase the umma's influence.
At the university level, students are indoctrinated to become advocates for Islam, engage in interfaith activities and da'wa or proselytization and train for jihad. Non-Muslims professors are solicited through zakat or payments to present courses favorable to Islam and write and speak publicly to promote Islam. The bequeathal by Saudi Prince Al-waleed bin Talal of $20 million dollars for Islamic study centers at Harvard and Georgetown universities, respectively, was a gesture to insure the promulgation of positive research, publications and presentations toward Islam.
In 'Modern Day Trojan Horse,' Solomon and Maqdisi point out that as Muslims gain power and mass in the host country, consolidation of identity occurs, as well as strengthening of their infrastructure of mosques, schools, clubs, organizations and media. The doctrine of taquiya is firmly in place as Muslims hide behind the dictates of their religious devotion and seek cultural changes in the land of the non-Muslim or kuffar. At this more advanced stage, attempts are made to silence opponents and curry favor. The judicious use of zakat elicits favorable views of Muslims and Islam from politicians, representatives from the media and other organizations. For example, within the last couple of years in the United States, the words, 'jihad' and 'Islamofascism,' have been expunged from the lexicon of government officials and the words, 'Islamic' and 'terrorism,' are rarely paired. In Europe, which is further advanced in this process, a dangerous turn materialized with the murder of filmmaker ,Theo Van Gogh, who produced a film on the subjugation of women in Islam, and with death threats against Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilder for his outspoken criticism of Islam.
As Islamization of the host culture proceeds apace, preparations begin for learning the skills necessary for jihad. Young jihadists may travel to their countries of origin for further indoctrination and terrorist training. This development has been noted within Somali Muslim communities in Minnesota and Tennessee. Young Muslims have disappeared to Somalia to rendezvous with Al Shabaab, a terrorist group linked to Al Qaeda.
As the resident Muslim community becomes more established and begins to wield considerable power in the political arena, pressure is brought to bear on politicians to permit shari'ah law courts in exchange for Muslim votes. This is very much evident in Britain where parallel systems of legal jurisprudence currently coexist. Muslim inhabitants of the host country are pressured to follow shari'ah law in lieu of the prevailing legal system. Several recent legal decisions by non-Muslim judges in Europe have referenced shari'ah law as a standard for verdicts concerning Muslims.
As the intensity of the hijra advances, the appearance of open ghettos or Muslim-only regions occurs. These are areas where non-Muslims are essentially prohibited and where, if they enter, they actually may be physically threatened. Such no-go zones, where even non-Muslim community workers are unwelcome, exist throughout Europe today. Remarkably, Muslim movements are never restricted; they venture freely anywhere in the host country.
As Solomon and Maqdisi point out, the Hijra is a comprehensive and direct political attempt to undermine the culture and values of the host country and replace them with Islam and shari'ah. It is an insidious migration seeking transformation of the culture, behaviors, customs, rules and laws of a host society to spread Islam and establish an Islamic state. The stages of the Hijra are very much evident in varying degrees in all Western societies today. Ironically, our open democratic societies with constitutionally mandated freedoms of speech, religion and assembly have facilitated this march toward the very demise of our way of life.
'Modern Day Trojan Horse' should be required reading for all citizens of Western democracies who urgently need to understand the Hijra and the threat it represents. The book sounds the alarm for the cautious evaluation of what may appear to be innocent religious practice in our midst but has sinister motives to transform our societies forever."
"Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration" sounds like a good book to read. Wake up America!!
The Radicalizing of 9/11
While Americans remember and grieve over the senseless loss of life and the tragedy of 9/11 as its anniversary is quickly approaching, President Obama has big plans for the day of remembrance. As usual, everything is about him and building his power base.
Read of his latest stunt from Gateway Pundit:
Obama & Radical Left Plan to Desecrate 9-11 Into Day of Community Service
"Sick. Barack Obama and the radical Left plan on desecrating 9-11 into a Leftist holiday like they already did to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.
President Obama signed legislation earlier this year to turn 9-11 into a socialist holiday of community service.
Matthew Vadum at The Spectator reported:
'The Obama White House is behind a cynical, coldly calculated political effort to erase the meaning of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks from the American psyche and convert Sept. 11 into a day of leftist celebration and statist idolatry.
This effort to reshape the American psyche has nothing to do with healing the nation and everything to do with easing the nation along in the ongoing radical transformation of America that President Obama promised during last year's election campaign. The president signed into law a measure in April that designated Sept. 11 as a National Day of Service, but it's not likely many lawmakers thought this meant that day was going to be turned into a celebration of ethanol, carbon emission controls, and radical community organizing.
The administration's plans were outlined in an Aug. 11 White House-sponsored teleconference call run by Obama ally Lennox Yearwood, president of the Hip Hop Caucus, and Liv Havstad, the group's senior vice president of strategic partnerships and programs.
Yearwood, who uses the honorific "Reverend" before his name, has been in the news in recent years, usually for getting arrested. After Democrats took back Congress, the rowdy activist was handcuffed outside a congressional hearing in September 2007 when Gen. David Petraeus was to testify. Yearwood told the "Democracy Now" radio program that he wanted to attend the hearing to hear Petraeus give his report. "I knew that when officers lie, soldiers die," he said.
On the Aug. 11 call, Yearwood and other leaders kept saying repeatedly that they wanted 9/11 to be used for something "positive," "forward-leaning," and "productive," said a source with knowledge of the teleconference.
The plan is to turn a "day of fear" that helps Republicans into a day of activism called the National Day of Service that helps the left. In other words, nihilistic liberals are planning to drain 9/11 of all meaning.
"They think it needs to be taken back from the right," said the source. "They're taking that day and they're breaking it because it gives Republicans an advantage. To them, that day is a fearful day."'
There's more at The Spectator.
Dahoser at Free Republic added this on the legislation:
'Here is the summary of who is responsible for sending this abomination to Obama. He bears the ultimate responsibility for signing it (and, of course, not discouraging it along the way), but we should all know who sent it.
The counts lead to the detailed voting information for each category.
March 18, 2009 Roll call number 140 in the House
Question On Passage: H R 1388 Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act
Ayes: 321 (Democrat: 251; Republican: 70)
Nays: 105 (Democrat: 1; Republican: 104)
Abstained: 6 (Democrat: 2; Republican: 4)
March 26, 2009 Roll call number 115 in the Senate
Question On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 1388 As Amended )
Ayes: 79 (Democrat: 56; Republican: 21; Other: 2)
Nays: 19 (Democrat: 0; Republican: 19)
Abstained: 1 (Democrat: 1; Republican: 0)"
Read of his latest stunt from Gateway Pundit:
Obama & Radical Left Plan to Desecrate 9-11 Into Day of Community Service
"Sick. Barack Obama and the radical Left plan on desecrating 9-11 into a Leftist holiday like they already did to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.
President Obama signed legislation earlier this year to turn 9-11 into a socialist holiday of community service.
Matthew Vadum at The Spectator reported:
'The Obama White House is behind a cynical, coldly calculated political effort to erase the meaning of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks from the American psyche and convert Sept. 11 into a day of leftist celebration and statist idolatry.
This effort to reshape the American psyche has nothing to do with healing the nation and everything to do with easing the nation along in the ongoing radical transformation of America that President Obama promised during last year's election campaign. The president signed into law a measure in April that designated Sept. 11 as a National Day of Service, but it's not likely many lawmakers thought this meant that day was going to be turned into a celebration of ethanol, carbon emission controls, and radical community organizing.
The administration's plans were outlined in an Aug. 11 White House-sponsored teleconference call run by Obama ally Lennox Yearwood, president of the Hip Hop Caucus, and Liv Havstad, the group's senior vice president of strategic partnerships and programs.
Yearwood, who uses the honorific "Reverend" before his name, has been in the news in recent years, usually for getting arrested. After Democrats took back Congress, the rowdy activist was handcuffed outside a congressional hearing in September 2007 when Gen. David Petraeus was to testify. Yearwood told the "Democracy Now" radio program that he wanted to attend the hearing to hear Petraeus give his report. "I knew that when officers lie, soldiers die," he said.
On the Aug. 11 call, Yearwood and other leaders kept saying repeatedly that they wanted 9/11 to be used for something "positive," "forward-leaning," and "productive," said a source with knowledge of the teleconference.
The plan is to turn a "day of fear" that helps Republicans into a day of activism called the National Day of Service that helps the left. In other words, nihilistic liberals are planning to drain 9/11 of all meaning.
"They think it needs to be taken back from the right," said the source. "They're taking that day and they're breaking it because it gives Republicans an advantage. To them, that day is a fearful day."'
There's more at The Spectator.
Dahoser at Free Republic added this on the legislation:
'Here is the summary of who is responsible for sending this abomination to Obama. He bears the ultimate responsibility for signing it (and, of course, not discouraging it along the way), but we should all know who sent it.
The counts lead to the detailed voting information for each category.
March 18, 2009 Roll call number 140 in the House
Question On Passage: H R 1388 Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act
Ayes: 321 (Democrat: 251; Republican: 70)
Nays: 105 (Democrat: 1; Republican: 104)
Abstained: 6 (Democrat: 2; Republican: 4)
March 26, 2009 Roll call number 115 in the Senate
Question On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 1388 As Amended )
Ayes: 79 (Democrat: 56; Republican: 21; Other: 2)
Nays: 19 (Democrat: 0; Republican: 19)
Abstained: 1 (Democrat: 1; Republican: 0)"
Obama's Hypocrisy of Using God to Promote Obama Care
President Obama uses God to bring forth his abominable healthcare plan that will result in healthcare rationing, especially of the elderly. Has this man no shame?
He speaks of "partnering with God". I've got news for him; God is not partnering with him in a plan that will provide free abortion, sex-change operations, and medical care to those who have broken our laws by sneaking into our country illegally, at the expense of hard-working Americans in their last years of life. Yes, God is a compassionate God. But, I'm sorry, this is not a compassionate plan, no matter how they spin it.
Americans do not want this monstrosity. But, do Obama and his liberals pals care what we want? Absolutely not! It's all about gaining power over us peons. Wake up America! This president is not looking after your best interests. It's all about him and building a strong power base.
Read about Obama's hypcrisy, via this superb article from the American Thinker:
The Obama Clergy Call
By Jan LaRue
"ObamaCare needs a crash cart. It's so ominous that President Barack Obama is partnering with God and the God-squad to keep the American people from pulling the plug.
'Thousands of religious leaders got a call from on high last Wednesday when Obama reached out to Jewish and Christian clergy, urging them to push health care reform from the pulpit,' according to Fox News. 'We are God's partners in matters of life and death' Obama told rabbis in an earlier call Wednesday, according to Ben Smith at Politico.com.
Notice that Obama didn't refer to it as 'serving' God. Obama is partnering with God on life and death. Are we feeling better yet?
Following the administration's compulsory tenet, 'never let a crisis go to waste,' Obama simply parted the 'wall of separation' between church and state in hope that the Republicans will drown in his sea of red ink.
Apparently Obama has converted from his position in 2004: 'I think there is an enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God's mandate.' Partnering with God to accomplish 'necessary reform' sounds like a mandate.
At CNN's 'Compassion Forum," in 2008, Obama said those in the public square shouldn't claim a 'direct line to God':
And the biggest danger, I think, for those of us of religious faith when we're in the public sphere is a certain self-righteousness, where we start thinking that, 'Well, you know, I've got a direct line to God.' You know, that is incompatible with democracy. You may have a direct line to God. But, you know, that is not -- the public square is not the place for us to empower ourselves in that way.
The problem with Obama's clergy call is, if you criticize Obama's plan, according to Obama, you're 'bearing false witness.' Apparently, Moses is the new White House Truth Czar. David Brody of CBN called it a 'slap down':
'When the President got on that Wednesday conference call sponsored by progressive and moderate faith leaders he said some of his critics are 'bearing false witness'. Well it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that he's definitely referring (not exclusively) to people who are talking about these death panels and government funding of abortion. Guess what? He's talking about conservative Evangelical groups. When you come out on a FAITH conference call and use the words, 'bearing false witness' that is a direct slap down of conservative Evangelical groups.'
God's new junior 'partner' should follow his own advice by reading the company manual. On the subject of making public policy, it was Obama who said [at 42 seconds on the tape]: 'So before we get carried away, let's read our Bibles. Folks haven't been reading their Bible.'
How about giving us chapter and verse on God's mandate for government-run health care, especially if it includes funding for abortion and end of life counseling panels for seniors and the infirm?
Obama reads the Bible much like he reads the 'living constitution.' He told Cathleen Falsani of the Chicago Sun-Times in 2004: 'I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.'
Falsani recognized that Obama's theology contradicts Christ's words:
'It's perhaps an unlikely theological position for someone who places his faith squarely at the feet of Jesus to take, saying essentially that all people of faith -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone -- know the same God.'
That depends, Obama says, on how a particular verse from the Gospel of John, where Jesus says, 'I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me,' is heard.
Obama expects us to take him at his word on matters of life and death, but he questions Jesus' words on something as vital as salvation. Call it skepticism, but don't call it 'rooted in the Christian tradition.'
'Let me be clear' is Obama's 'pet phrase.' Obama can speak clearly but Jesus can't?
Yet, Obama thinks he's heard God clearly on the right way to reform health care, clearly enough to say 'preach it, brother.'
Speaking of Moses, the Books of the Law include many essential public health regulations, but there's nothing directing government to provide anything close to ObamaCare.
The Great Physician healed lots of sick folks, but He never billed Caesar, or lobbied Rome or Jerusalem for health care.
Obama urged the clergy to 'tell the stories of health care dilemmas to illustrate what is at stake' in their sermons. The Obama version of the woman who was healed after touching Jesus' robe might sound something like this:
'It is absolutely tragic that in the most prosperous nation on earth a woman suffers a debilitating illness for 12 years because of George Bush and a vast right-wing Republican conspiracy. It's another example of doctors who over-charged and misdiagnosed a patient, and made things worse. Then greedy insurance companies denied her coverage because of her pre-existing condition. Daughter, Obamacare is here for you. I've appointed a Prognosis Czar and a panel of waste-cutters who will decide if you can be made well. If it costs too much, we'll get some pain killers to you via the postal service. Go in hope and change.'
Obama said that if elected, he was 'absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick.'
And that's about how long it will take to see a doctor under Obamacare. Try to get a window seat so you can watch the oceans recede and the planet heal while you wait."
He speaks of "partnering with God". I've got news for him; God is not partnering with him in a plan that will provide free abortion, sex-change operations, and medical care to those who have broken our laws by sneaking into our country illegally, at the expense of hard-working Americans in their last years of life. Yes, God is a compassionate God. But, I'm sorry, this is not a compassionate plan, no matter how they spin it.
Americans do not want this monstrosity. But, do Obama and his liberals pals care what we want? Absolutely not! It's all about gaining power over us peons. Wake up America! This president is not looking after your best interests. It's all about him and building a strong power base.
Read about Obama's hypcrisy, via this superb article from the American Thinker:
The Obama Clergy Call
By Jan LaRue
"ObamaCare needs a crash cart. It's so ominous that President Barack Obama is partnering with God and the God-squad to keep the American people from pulling the plug.
'Thousands of religious leaders got a call from on high last Wednesday when Obama reached out to Jewish and Christian clergy, urging them to push health care reform from the pulpit,' according to Fox News. 'We are God's partners in matters of life and death' Obama told rabbis in an earlier call Wednesday, according to Ben Smith at Politico.com.
Notice that Obama didn't refer to it as 'serving' God. Obama is partnering with God on life and death. Are we feeling better yet?
Following the administration's compulsory tenet, 'never let a crisis go to waste,' Obama simply parted the 'wall of separation' between church and state in hope that the Republicans will drown in his sea of red ink.
Apparently Obama has converted from his position in 2004: 'I think there is an enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God's mandate.' Partnering with God to accomplish 'necessary reform' sounds like a mandate.
At CNN's 'Compassion Forum," in 2008, Obama said those in the public square shouldn't claim a 'direct line to God':
And the biggest danger, I think, for those of us of religious faith when we're in the public sphere is a certain self-righteousness, where we start thinking that, 'Well, you know, I've got a direct line to God.' You know, that is incompatible with democracy. You may have a direct line to God. But, you know, that is not -- the public square is not the place for us to empower ourselves in that way.
The problem with Obama's clergy call is, if you criticize Obama's plan, according to Obama, you're 'bearing false witness.' Apparently, Moses is the new White House Truth Czar. David Brody of CBN called it a 'slap down':
'When the President got on that Wednesday conference call sponsored by progressive and moderate faith leaders he said some of his critics are 'bearing false witness'. Well it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that he's definitely referring (not exclusively) to people who are talking about these death panels and government funding of abortion. Guess what? He's talking about conservative Evangelical groups. When you come out on a FAITH conference call and use the words, 'bearing false witness' that is a direct slap down of conservative Evangelical groups.'
God's new junior 'partner' should follow his own advice by reading the company manual. On the subject of making public policy, it was Obama who said [at 42 seconds on the tape]: 'So before we get carried away, let's read our Bibles. Folks haven't been reading their Bible.'
How about giving us chapter and verse on God's mandate for government-run health care, especially if it includes funding for abortion and end of life counseling panels for seniors and the infirm?
Obama reads the Bible much like he reads the 'living constitution.' He told Cathleen Falsani of the Chicago Sun-Times in 2004: 'I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.'
Falsani recognized that Obama's theology contradicts Christ's words:
'It's perhaps an unlikely theological position for someone who places his faith squarely at the feet of Jesus to take, saying essentially that all people of faith -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone -- know the same God.'
That depends, Obama says, on how a particular verse from the Gospel of John, where Jesus says, 'I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me,' is heard.
Obama expects us to take him at his word on matters of life and death, but he questions Jesus' words on something as vital as salvation. Call it skepticism, but don't call it 'rooted in the Christian tradition.'
'Let me be clear' is Obama's 'pet phrase.' Obama can speak clearly but Jesus can't?
Yet, Obama thinks he's heard God clearly on the right way to reform health care, clearly enough to say 'preach it, brother.'
Speaking of Moses, the Books of the Law include many essential public health regulations, but there's nothing directing government to provide anything close to ObamaCare.
The Great Physician healed lots of sick folks, but He never billed Caesar, or lobbied Rome or Jerusalem for health care.
Obama urged the clergy to 'tell the stories of health care dilemmas to illustrate what is at stake' in their sermons. The Obama version of the woman who was healed after touching Jesus' robe might sound something like this:
'It is absolutely tragic that in the most prosperous nation on earth a woman suffers a debilitating illness for 12 years because of George Bush and a vast right-wing Republican conspiracy. It's another example of doctors who over-charged and misdiagnosed a patient, and made things worse. Then greedy insurance companies denied her coverage because of her pre-existing condition. Daughter, Obamacare is here for you. I've appointed a Prognosis Czar and a panel of waste-cutters who will decide if you can be made well. If it costs too much, we'll get some pain killers to you via the postal service. Go in hope and change.'
Obama said that if elected, he was 'absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick.'
And that's about how long it will take to see a doctor under Obamacare. Try to get a window seat so you can watch the oceans recede and the planet heal while you wait."
Friday, August 28, 2009
"The Marxist Spirit Pervades the White House"
A Communist advising the White House? You read that right, a Communist. Oh, but don't call President Obama a radical.
Read the disturbing info at Powerline:
A Communist in the White House
"Ronald Radosh explores the case of Van Jones. Jones is Obama's green jobs 'czar' (his formal title is Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality). As green jobs 'czar,' Jones's responsibility is to coordinate the stimulus spending to assure that a hefty portion of it goes to projects that promote green energy.
In his relatively recent past Jones was a Marxist revolutionary. From 1992 until 2002, Jones was a member of a radical communist group that was dedicated to 'organizing a revolutionary movement in America.' Does Jones remain a Marxist revolutionary today?
The White House has declined to provide a straight answer to the question. We will accordingly assume that, in Jones's case, 'commissar' would be more like it.
UPDATE: A commenter points out that Jones is not a 'czar,' but rather an 'adviser.' The Wall Street Journal distinguished between the job titles here in the case of Jones. Does the title of Obama administration 'czar' have formal legal contours? The Chicago Tribune asks: how many czars are there? In any event, I think commissar is the more appropriate honorific, and Victor Davis Hanson makes the case that the Marxist spirit pervades the White House."
This sit OK with you, Diogenes? Do you have a problem with a Commie advising your beloved Obama?
Read the disturbing info at Powerline:
A Communist in the White House
"Ronald Radosh explores the case of Van Jones. Jones is Obama's green jobs 'czar' (his formal title is Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality). As green jobs 'czar,' Jones's responsibility is to coordinate the stimulus spending to assure that a hefty portion of it goes to projects that promote green energy.
In his relatively recent past Jones was a Marxist revolutionary. From 1992 until 2002, Jones was a member of a radical communist group that was dedicated to 'organizing a revolutionary movement in America.' Does Jones remain a Marxist revolutionary today?
The White House has declined to provide a straight answer to the question. We will accordingly assume that, in Jones's case, 'commissar' would be more like it.
UPDATE: A commenter points out that Jones is not a 'czar,' but rather an 'adviser.' The Wall Street Journal distinguished between the job titles here in the case of Jones. Does the title of Obama administration 'czar' have formal legal contours? The Chicago Tribune asks: how many czars are there? In any event, I think commissar is the more appropriate honorific, and Victor Davis Hanson makes the case that the Marxist spirit pervades the White House."
This sit OK with you, Diogenes? Do you have a problem with a Commie advising your beloved Obama?
The Consequences of Appeasement
Liberals refuse to learn that appeasement of our enemies never works; it just emboldens our foes. Notice during the Bush years, we didn't hear a peep out of the Libyan dictator, Muammar Qaddafi. Now that foreign policy weakling, President Obama, is in charge, our enemies are coming out of the woodwork to test us. It's a rerun of the Carter years. Last time around, we had Reagan to come in and clean up the mess. But, there is no Ronald Reagan sitting in the wings ready to take over the White House after Obama causes catastrophe after catastrophe.
Read about Obama's latest stunt regarding the nation he hates most. No not Iran, Syria, North Korea, or Russia. Instead, it's that "mean, old Israel" who should never, ever trust Obama to look out for anything that would be in the Jewish nation's best interest.
From the Jerusalem Post:
Column One: The rigged game
By CAROLINE GLICK
"On Tuesday the Guardian reported that the Obama administration is now making Israel an offer it can't refuse: In exchange for a government order to freeze construction for Jews in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, the administration will adopt a 'much tougher line with Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program.'
Israel should refuse this offer.
What the Guardian account shows is an Obama administration looking to blame Israel for the failure of its policy of attempting to appease the likes of Iranian dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Come September, US President Barack Obama is going to have a difficult time of it. He set a September deadline for his strategy of diplomatically courting the mullahs. This policy involves deferring further sanctions against Teheran and all but openly renouncing the option of using military force to destroy Iran's nuclear installations while waiting politely for the mullahs to sit down for tea with US officials.
Far from accepting Obama's offer, the Iranians have spit on it. Indeed, they have been too busy brutalizing their own people and building bombs and missiles to even respond to him directly. Instead, they have signaled their contempt for Obama by promoting known arch-terrorists to high office. For instance, Ahmadinejad just appointed Ahmad Vahidi, the suspected mastermind of the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia where 19 US servicemen and women were murdered to serve as defense minister.
In support of Obama's appeasement efforts, both the House and the Senate Foreign Relations committees set aside veto-proof bills that would place sanctions on companies exporting refined fuel to Iran. But Congress, now on summer recess, reconvenes in September and members are anxiously awaiting a green light from the White House to put the bills before a vote.
So unless something saves him, Obama will look like quite a fool next month. His appeasement policy has given the mullahs eight precious months of unimpeded work at their nuclear installations. Their uranium enrichment facility at Natanz is now operating some 5,000 centrifuges, with another 2,400 centrifuges about to go on line. That is an eightfold increase in centrifuge activity from a year ago.
Obama now turns to Israel to avoid embarrassment. If he can convince Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that the White House will only get serious about Iran's nuclear weapons program if Netanyahu freezes Jewish building in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, then Obama can present his sudden willingness to sign on to veto-proof congressional sanctions legislation not as a consequence of his own failure, but as a result of Israeli pressure.
If Obama succeeds in getting Netanyahu on board, the American media discussion of sanctions will focus on the issue of Israeli power over US policy. The so-called Israel lobby will be pummeled as pundits argue about whether Obama was right or wrong to succumb to Israeli pressure to support congressional sanctions. No one will remember that Obama was forced to support the sanctions because he had no other choice, since next month his engagement policy will become indefensible.
On the other hand, if Israel refuses to play ball and doesn't provide Obama with a concession which he will be 'forced' to pay for with a harder line on Iran, then he will still have to adopt a harder line. In this case, however, it will be attributed to the failure of his appeasement policy toward Iran rather than to the success of his Middle East diplomacy against Israel.
Obama's apparent interest in setting Israel up as the fall guy for the failure of his engagement policy is the same policy he will doubtless follow if matters continue on course and Teheran acquires nuclear weapons. At that point, Obama can be counted on to claim that it was Israel's recalcitrance in the negotiations with the Palestinians or the Syrians or the Lebanese that forced the mullahs' hands. That is, he will say it is the absence of 'progress' in the 'peace process' due to whatever imagined Israeli intransigence that made it impossible for the Iranian 'moderates' to convince the 'hardliners' to give up their nuclear weapons program.
In Obama's defense, it should be noted that at least he worries about being embarrassed by the failure of his Iran policy. He knows that the overwhelming majority of Americans consider Iran to be an enemy of their country. In a poll of US voters taken in May, some 80 percent of Americans claimed that a nuclear-armed Iran would constitute a threat to US national security and 57% said that Israel would be justified in launching a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear installations.
Things are different on the other side of the Atlantic. Obama's European counterparts do not face a comparable situation. They have no reason to fear being embarrassed when and if Iran emerges as a nuclear power, because their constituents view Israel as threat equal to or greater than Iran.
European politics - particularly as they relate to the Middle East - are not informed by rational interests so much as they are defined by attitude. Facts today mean little in Europe. They are easily crushed under the weight of the fantasies that dominate European political discourse.
The main fantasy governing Europe's attitude toward the Middle East is the belief in Israeli militaristic venality, fundamentalist messianism, and territorial greed. It is this fantasy that protects European leaders from the need to account for their six years of failed appeasement toward Iran, during which Iran has made its swiftest progress toward completing its nuclear weapons program.
It is the predominance of anti-Israel attitudes throughout the continent that enables European leaders to make light of the Iranian nuclear threat even as ever growing swathes of the continent fall within the range of the Islamic republic's ballistic missiles."
Read it all.
Read about Obama's latest stunt regarding the nation he hates most. No not Iran, Syria, North Korea, or Russia. Instead, it's that "mean, old Israel" who should never, ever trust Obama to look out for anything that would be in the Jewish nation's best interest.
From the Jerusalem Post:
Column One: The rigged game
By CAROLINE GLICK
"On Tuesday the Guardian reported that the Obama administration is now making Israel an offer it can't refuse: In exchange for a government order to freeze construction for Jews in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, the administration will adopt a 'much tougher line with Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program.'
Israel should refuse this offer.
What the Guardian account shows is an Obama administration looking to blame Israel for the failure of its policy of attempting to appease the likes of Iranian dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Come September, US President Barack Obama is going to have a difficult time of it. He set a September deadline for his strategy of diplomatically courting the mullahs. This policy involves deferring further sanctions against Teheran and all but openly renouncing the option of using military force to destroy Iran's nuclear installations while waiting politely for the mullahs to sit down for tea with US officials.
Far from accepting Obama's offer, the Iranians have spit on it. Indeed, they have been too busy brutalizing their own people and building bombs and missiles to even respond to him directly. Instead, they have signaled their contempt for Obama by promoting known arch-terrorists to high office. For instance, Ahmadinejad just appointed Ahmad Vahidi, the suspected mastermind of the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia where 19 US servicemen and women were murdered to serve as defense minister.
In support of Obama's appeasement efforts, both the House and the Senate Foreign Relations committees set aside veto-proof bills that would place sanctions on companies exporting refined fuel to Iran. But Congress, now on summer recess, reconvenes in September and members are anxiously awaiting a green light from the White House to put the bills before a vote.
So unless something saves him, Obama will look like quite a fool next month. His appeasement policy has given the mullahs eight precious months of unimpeded work at their nuclear installations. Their uranium enrichment facility at Natanz is now operating some 5,000 centrifuges, with another 2,400 centrifuges about to go on line. That is an eightfold increase in centrifuge activity from a year ago.
Obama now turns to Israel to avoid embarrassment. If he can convince Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that the White House will only get serious about Iran's nuclear weapons program if Netanyahu freezes Jewish building in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, then Obama can present his sudden willingness to sign on to veto-proof congressional sanctions legislation not as a consequence of his own failure, but as a result of Israeli pressure.
If Obama succeeds in getting Netanyahu on board, the American media discussion of sanctions will focus on the issue of Israeli power over US policy. The so-called Israel lobby will be pummeled as pundits argue about whether Obama was right or wrong to succumb to Israeli pressure to support congressional sanctions. No one will remember that Obama was forced to support the sanctions because he had no other choice, since next month his engagement policy will become indefensible.
On the other hand, if Israel refuses to play ball and doesn't provide Obama with a concession which he will be 'forced' to pay for with a harder line on Iran, then he will still have to adopt a harder line. In this case, however, it will be attributed to the failure of his appeasement policy toward Iran rather than to the success of his Middle East diplomacy against Israel.
Obama's apparent interest in setting Israel up as the fall guy for the failure of his engagement policy is the same policy he will doubtless follow if matters continue on course and Teheran acquires nuclear weapons. At that point, Obama can be counted on to claim that it was Israel's recalcitrance in the negotiations with the Palestinians or the Syrians or the Lebanese that forced the mullahs' hands. That is, he will say it is the absence of 'progress' in the 'peace process' due to whatever imagined Israeli intransigence that made it impossible for the Iranian 'moderates' to convince the 'hardliners' to give up their nuclear weapons program.
In Obama's defense, it should be noted that at least he worries about being embarrassed by the failure of his Iran policy. He knows that the overwhelming majority of Americans consider Iran to be an enemy of their country. In a poll of US voters taken in May, some 80 percent of Americans claimed that a nuclear-armed Iran would constitute a threat to US national security and 57% said that Israel would be justified in launching a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear installations.
Things are different on the other side of the Atlantic. Obama's European counterparts do not face a comparable situation. They have no reason to fear being embarrassed when and if Iran emerges as a nuclear power, because their constituents view Israel as threat equal to or greater than Iran.
European politics - particularly as they relate to the Middle East - are not informed by rational interests so much as they are defined by attitude. Facts today mean little in Europe. They are easily crushed under the weight of the fantasies that dominate European political discourse.
The main fantasy governing Europe's attitude toward the Middle East is the belief in Israeli militaristic venality, fundamentalist messianism, and territorial greed. It is this fantasy that protects European leaders from the need to account for their six years of failed appeasement toward Iran, during which Iran has made its swiftest progress toward completing its nuclear weapons program.
It is the predominance of anti-Israel attitudes throughout the continent that enables European leaders to make light of the Iranian nuclear threat even as ever growing swathes of the continent fall within the range of the Islamic republic's ballistic missiles."
Read it all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
