Requiring pregnant women and girls to view an ultrasound of their unborn babies is, in reality, an act of mercy upon them. Many go into an abortion clinic without accurate knowledge of what they are about to do, and in many, many cases they are pressured by boyfriends and parents to dispose of the life growing inside their wombs.
But, it is the mother of the child who ultimately must live with her decision. Shouldn't she be made aware of what she is actually aborting? Studies have shown that women who have abortions are more likely to be depressed and to abuse drugs than those who do not.
And for those who argue that the unborn baby is not really a "baby," than why object to viewing a "non-baby"?
Read from Liberty Pundits:
Maybe Pre-abortion Ultrasounds Are Emotionally Torturous For A Reason
"My latest post from Newsreal:
This weekend is the one-year anniversary of George Tiller’s horrible murder, and of course, this means that the pro-abortion fanatics are out in force. This time, they’re complaining about states that require women to view ultrasounds before having an abortion. That complaint isn’t particularly new, but now, it’s being called emotional torture.
'Staff members interviewed at three of the seven abortion clinics in the state estimated that 30 percent to 70 percent of women chose to see ultrasound images. But they said it was uncommon for women to be dissuaded.
It had happened occasionally, they said, when a sonogram revealed a multiple pregnancy or when a woman was already deeply unsure about her choice.
But a number of women at the Birmingham clinic, which was the site of a fatal bombing in 1998, said they simply did not want to subject themselves to images that might haunt them. “You almost have to think of it as an alien,” said Carmen, 28, who was there for her second abortion in three years.
Like other patients, Laura, who has a 17-year-old son, said she took offense at the state’s implicit suggestion that she had not fully considered her choice.
“You don’t just walk into one of these places like you’re getting your nails done,” she said. “I think we’re armed with enough information to make adult decisions without being emotionally tortured.”'
This makes the assumption that all women take the time to think an abortion through, that they all know week-by-week how the baby is growing in their uterus, that they have received medically accurate information. This is suspect at best.
Take Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States. Approximately one third of Planned Parenthood’s clients are girls under the age of 18. Just how informed are they expected to be? Not only do these girls usually have no clue whatsoever about what they are about to go through, they don’t usually have medically accurate information. Pro-life activist group Live Action gained fame from investigating Planned Parenthood’s willingness to cover up the sexual abuse of minors with their Mona Lisa Project. They’ve now started a new undercover investigation, The Rosa Acuna Project, to find out if Planned Parenthood is giving medically accurate information to their clients.
They have not done so.
The counselors give manipulative information filled with lies to clients who are scared or confused or unsure. Why? Because they don’t want women choosing to not have an abortion. Abortions are lucrative. Planned Parenthood doesn’t benefit if a woman decides to keep her baby.
And why would seeing an ultrasound before an abortion be emotional torture to a woman? Well, because most women aren’t prepared for the emotional roller coaster ride they’re about to go through with an abortion, for the anguish, regret, and guilt that many women feel. Many women aren’t prepared to confront the life they’ve just destroyed. An ultrasound forces them to confront that reality. Is it perhaps emotional torture because women are killing their children? Because women cannot bear to look at an ultrasound and see the life they are about to take away?
Bernard Nathanson is a prime example of this. Nathanson was once a pro-abortion activist who helped to found the National Abortion Rights Action League. NARAL was originally created to repeal abortion laws, and succeeded with the Roe v. Wade decision. Nathanson says he has performed over 75,000 abortions in his lifetime. However, with the advent of the ultrasound, he found that he couldn’t ignore the barbarity of abortions anymore, and became a staunch pro-life activist.
Ultrasound images are so powerful that Nathanson made two documentaries, The Silent Scream and Eclipse of Reason. 'The Silent Scream' shows an ultrasound of an abortion being performed on a baby eleven weeks after conception. 'Eclipse of Reason' shows a late-term abortion being performed, and is even more horrifying. These ultrasound images were strong enough to convert Dr. Nathanson, the father of the pro-abortion movement still in action today. How would viewing an ultrasound be to an expectant mother who is confused, scared, and probably already feeling slightly guilty? Of course it would be emotional torture. She would look at that ultrasound and it would be like a knife going through her heart. It’s emotional torture because deep down, they know that they’re killing their child, and it’s heartbreaking.
Why would abortion advocates have such a problem with women being forced to view the ultrasound? Apparently, during first trimester abortions, women weren’t much dissuaded from the abortion because an unborn baby at, say, five weeks kind of looks like a little tadpole or something, and not like a baby. Once you start looking at second and third trimester abortions, however, the images are much harder for women to see. And regardless of when in the pregnancy the abortion takes place, women who are unsure about their choice are definitely swayed by viewing the ultrasound. The abortion lobby doesn’t want fewer women to have abortions, so making women view the child they’re about to kill doesn’t sit well with them — not because they care about the welfare of women, but because they don’t want to lose a potential sale. A woman who is already confused and scared and unsure about the choice to have an abortion who views the ultrasound is much more likely to change her mind than the woman who doesn’t see her baby first.
Deep down, their conscience will tell them that this is wrong, but they don’t want to admit that to themselves. That is what brings on the feelings of emotional torture. And it’s what pro-abortion activists don’t want women to know. The abortion lobby does not want women to be fully informed about the realities of abortion, because if women were, a much greater number of them would walk away. So pro-abortion activists try to keep women in the dark, while screeching that they’re only fighting for women’s rights.
But is it really pro-woman to keep women in the dark?"
Monday, May 31, 2010
OK for Iran, But Not Israel
Smooth move, Mr. President. Your Jew-hating disdain of Israel is on display once again. And you wonder why millions of Americans suspect that you are a closet Muslim.
Read about our president's latest stunt, via Joshua Pundit:
New Nuclear 'Action Plan' Agreed To By Obama Singles Out Israel - And Doesn't Even Mention Iran!
"If anybody thought that Netanyahu being invited by Obama to the White House actually signified some kind of change, guess again:
'Washington's unprecedented backing for a UN resolution for a nuclear-free Middle East that singles out Israel has both angered and deeply worried the Jewish state although officials are cagey about openly criticising their biggest ally.
The resolution adopted by the United Nations on Friday calls on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and urges it to open its facilities to inspection.
It also calls for a regional conference in 2012 to advance the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East.
Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, with around 200 warheads, but has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its capabilities since the mid-1960s.
The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran's controversial nuclear programme, drew a furious reaction from the Jewish state who decried it as "deeply flawed and hypocritical."
But it was US backing for the resolution which has caused the most consternation among Israeli officials and commentators, who interpreted the move as "a resounding slap around the face" which has dealt a very public blow to Israel's long-accepted policy of nuclear ambiguity.
Publicly, the Israel government has not criticised the US position but privately, officials expressed deep disappointment over the resolution, which Washington backed despite intensive Israeli efforts to block it.
According to the top-selling Yediot Aharonot daily, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was "furious with the Obama administration for having failed to prevent the resolution from passing... and for choosing to support it."
"The American support for the resolution, after decades in which it supported Israel on this issue, came as a complete surprise," the paper said.
"In the secret talks that Netanyahu held with Obama's men... Israel was promised that the resolution would not focus on Israel and that if it did, the Americans would vote against."'
The Bush Administration, faced with a similar situation back in 2005 simply refused to go further and legitimize this bigotry. Obama, of course is a very different animal.
Obama's NSA Adviser James L. Jones was on the record just last Friday after the einitial draft surfaced saying how the US "deplores" the singling out of Israel and would "not permit a conference or actions that could jeopardize Israel's national security."
Ri-ight.You betcha.
As far as Obama and Netanyahu's meeting goes, look for the president behind closed doors to spend most of his time trying to muscle more unilateral concessions for the Palestinians out of Bibi and warning him Israel had better get used to a Nuclear Iran. It will not be a cordial meeting.
Obama's last minute invite to Netanyahu simply a political dog and pony show using Netanyahu as a prop to try and shore up some of Prez [Obama]'s plummeting support among American Jews.
Mark my words, things are eventually going to get to the point where the Israelis remember that they survived the first twenty years of their national existence without any help from the US whatsoever, and they were less able to do so then than they are now. They're going to Just Say No and sever all but the most basic ties if this nonsense continues.
Ultimately, I think the US will be poorer for the absence of that alliance. I think that many people in our military/intel/diplomatic establishment realize it, and I expect the US to take steps to renew the relationship once Prez [...] and his regime are out of office."
Of course, that meeting has been postponed because Bibi flew back to Israel. But, that meeting will take place sometime in the future, and it will go as anticipated.
Read about our president's latest stunt, via Joshua Pundit:
New Nuclear 'Action Plan' Agreed To By Obama Singles Out Israel - And Doesn't Even Mention Iran!
"If anybody thought that Netanyahu being invited by Obama to the White House actually signified some kind of change, guess again:
'Washington's unprecedented backing for a UN resolution for a nuclear-free Middle East that singles out Israel has both angered and deeply worried the Jewish state although officials are cagey about openly criticising their biggest ally.
The resolution adopted by the United Nations on Friday calls on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and urges it to open its facilities to inspection.
It also calls for a regional conference in 2012 to advance the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East.
Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, with around 200 warheads, but has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its capabilities since the mid-1960s.
The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran's controversial nuclear programme, drew a furious reaction from the Jewish state who decried it as "deeply flawed and hypocritical."
But it was US backing for the resolution which has caused the most consternation among Israeli officials and commentators, who interpreted the move as "a resounding slap around the face" which has dealt a very public blow to Israel's long-accepted policy of nuclear ambiguity.
Publicly, the Israel government has not criticised the US position but privately, officials expressed deep disappointment over the resolution, which Washington backed despite intensive Israeli efforts to block it.
According to the top-selling Yediot Aharonot daily, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was "furious with the Obama administration for having failed to prevent the resolution from passing... and for choosing to support it."
"The American support for the resolution, after decades in which it supported Israel on this issue, came as a complete surprise," the paper said.
"In the secret talks that Netanyahu held with Obama's men... Israel was promised that the resolution would not focus on Israel and that if it did, the Americans would vote against."'
The Bush Administration, faced with a similar situation back in 2005 simply refused to go further and legitimize this bigotry. Obama, of course is a very different animal.
Obama's NSA Adviser James L. Jones was on the record just last Friday after the einitial draft surfaced saying how the US "deplores" the singling out of Israel and would "not permit a conference or actions that could jeopardize Israel's national security."
Ri-ight.You betcha.
As far as Obama and Netanyahu's meeting goes, look for the president behind closed doors to spend most of his time trying to muscle more unilateral concessions for the Palestinians out of Bibi and warning him Israel had better get used to a Nuclear Iran. It will not be a cordial meeting.
Obama's last minute invite to Netanyahu simply a political dog and pony show using Netanyahu as a prop to try and shore up some of Prez [Obama]'s plummeting support among American Jews.
Mark my words, things are eventually going to get to the point where the Israelis remember that they survived the first twenty years of their national existence without any help from the US whatsoever, and they were less able to do so then than they are now. They're going to Just Say No and sever all but the most basic ties if this nonsense continues.
Ultimately, I think the US will be poorer for the absence of that alliance. I think that many people in our military/intel/diplomatic establishment realize it, and I expect the US to take steps to renew the relationship once Prez [...] and his regime are out of office."
Of course, that meeting has been postponed because Bibi flew back to Israel. But, that meeting will take place sometime in the future, and it will go as anticipated.
"Make Memorial Day Every Day"
I'm with Ted.
From Human Events:
Memorial Day, Every Day
by Ted Nugent
"I live to remember.
I have not forgotten that America is still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan and that our finest citizens have volunteered to put themselves in harm’s way in the name of freedom. The media has done a grave disservice to our warriors and their families who have been asked to sacrifice so much. The war is now barely covered by the media.
Maybe so called journalists have forgotten. The media has moved on.
Not me. I have chosen to dig in and never forget. Not a day goes by that I am not reminded, often painfully, that America is at war. The cards, letters, pictures and e-mails I receive on a daily basis from America’s finest and their families embolden me to be a better American, to be even more appreciative of the freedoms, liberties and opportunities provided me and you with the blood of warriors.
These brave American warriors and the warriors who have gone before them humble me to my core. There are no words to express my appreciation for their bravery, commitment and sacrifice. The same goes for their families who are left behind to soldier on while their loved ones go off to war. God bless them all.
We owe it to these brave Americans and their families to win this war with our honor intact, not to telegraph to the enemy when we are packing up and leaving the battlefield. I’m no military tactician, but announcing when we are leaving the battlefield is analogous to putting an ad in your local newspaper to let all local punks and thugs know when you are going on vacation so that they can plunder your home.
I stand with most Americans demanding a victory strategy, not an exit strategy.
When we commit our troops to war, we must make a commitment to them and their families that we will achieve total victory through the application of total war.
Of the thousands of brave American warriors I have met since 9-11, not one has expressed a desire to leave the battlefield without victory. They all want to stay and finish the job. The commander in chief should remember how freedom has been achieved throughout history and let these trained warriors do their job. That's how I remember.
As parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, we owe it to America’s finest to educate our nation’s youth that many brave Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the name of freedom. Teach them that freedom isn’t free. Teach them that the American military has freed more people from the shackles of tyranny and slavery than any other force in the history of the world. Teach them to remember this not just on Memorial Day but every day.
America is at war. Thousands of Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice while thousands of more have been wounded. Pause to remember them this Memorial Day. Say a prayer for the warriors and their families. They are the world’s true freedom fighters.
Never forget them. Make Memorial Day every day."
From Human Events:
Memorial Day, Every Day
by Ted Nugent
"I live to remember.
I have not forgotten that America is still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan and that our finest citizens have volunteered to put themselves in harm’s way in the name of freedom. The media has done a grave disservice to our warriors and their families who have been asked to sacrifice so much. The war is now barely covered by the media.
Maybe so called journalists have forgotten. The media has moved on.
Not me. I have chosen to dig in and never forget. Not a day goes by that I am not reminded, often painfully, that America is at war. The cards, letters, pictures and e-mails I receive on a daily basis from America’s finest and their families embolden me to be a better American, to be even more appreciative of the freedoms, liberties and opportunities provided me and you with the blood of warriors.
These brave American warriors and the warriors who have gone before them humble me to my core. There are no words to express my appreciation for their bravery, commitment and sacrifice. The same goes for their families who are left behind to soldier on while their loved ones go off to war. God bless them all.
We owe it to these brave Americans and their families to win this war with our honor intact, not to telegraph to the enemy when we are packing up and leaving the battlefield. I’m no military tactician, but announcing when we are leaving the battlefield is analogous to putting an ad in your local newspaper to let all local punks and thugs know when you are going on vacation so that they can plunder your home.
I stand with most Americans demanding a victory strategy, not an exit strategy.
When we commit our troops to war, we must make a commitment to them and their families that we will achieve total victory through the application of total war.
Of the thousands of brave American warriors I have met since 9-11, not one has expressed a desire to leave the battlefield without victory. They all want to stay and finish the job. The commander in chief should remember how freedom has been achieved throughout history and let these trained warriors do their job. That's how I remember.
As parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, we owe it to America’s finest to educate our nation’s youth that many brave Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the name of freedom. Teach them that freedom isn’t free. Teach them that the American military has freed more people from the shackles of tyranny and slavery than any other force in the history of the world. Teach them to remember this not just on Memorial Day but every day.
America is at war. Thousands of Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice while thousands of more have been wounded. Pause to remember them this Memorial Day. Say a prayer for the warriors and their families. They are the world’s true freedom fighters.
Never forget them. Make Memorial Day every day."
"Peace Activists" Carrying Guns, Grenades, and Pipes
How many oil spills, coal mining disasters, terror attempts, devastating floods will it take to wake this country up and stop the Israel bashing? Don't forget--the hurricane season begins tomorrow.
God says in Genesis 12:3 that He will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel. We should take His statement as a warning. For years America had been Israel's best friend, and we experienced blessings and prosperity. But, that was then. Currently, we are following in the path of much of the rest of the world and exhibiting anti-Israel rhetoric.
Read an interesting article from Right Wing News, which nails the situation for what it is, via Atlas Shrugs:
Comparison: Liberal Reaction Vs. Conservative Reaction To The Israel/Flotilla Story
"Honestly, I don't find the Palestinian people to be the least bit sympathetic. They're backwards, genocidal, hyper-violent, sad sack Nazi wannabes led by terrorists who would happily murder every Jew on the planet if they could get away with it.
Then there are the Israelis. They're a tiny Western democracy surrounded by backwards savages who want to murder them down to the last child because they're Jews. Moreover, despite all the claims to the contrary, they're the most restrained people on earth. If you don't believe that, consider the fact that they could simply drive the Palestinians off their land and take it at any point, but instead, they've chosen to permanently live beside of millions of people who make the Manson family look sane. If the Israelis were somehow replaced by Americans, we'd drive the Palestinians off their land at gunpoint in six months tops -- and we'd be perfectly justified in doing so.
So, that brings us to the relief flotillas. Note that I say flotillas. This is the 9th time that they've tried to send a flotilla through Israel's blockade. Incidentally, Israel has that blockade in place for a very good reason: to keep weapons that will be used to murder Israelis from being shipped through to the Palestinians. So, since aid can be sent through the UN -- where it'll be checked for weapons -- what's the real point of these floatillas? It's an attempt to embarass the Israelis into giving up the blockade, so that weapons can be shipped to the Palestinians, so that more Jews can be killed.
In any case, this time around, the Jew haters on the flotilla made a critical Darwin Award worthy error: they assaulted an Israeli commando team with knives, sticks, and guns. The Israeli commandos responded, quite correctly in my opinion, by killing AT LEAST 10 of them.
Now, it's worth noting that the Left and Right have had a VERY different reaction to this incident. Let's take a look at some typical responses from the Right:
'Let’s get this situation in perspective. ”Free Gaza” is a bunch of lunatics that’s tried to violate the blockade nine times in less than two years. They got precisely what they deserved – precisely. This is nothing but a public relations stunt.
Their “humanitarian aid” can go overland. They know it. They purposely loaded up with cement for Gaza in violation of the supplies allowed into Hamas-controlled Gaza, an organization that launches missiles daily into Israel civilian areas. Can cement go into Gaza? Yes, but only for declared projects. Otherwise, it will be used for military purposes. Everything on those ships could go into Gaza after inspection.
“Free Gaza” created this confrontation and paid the price.
...Israel did nothing wrong. Nothing. Not a single thing.' -- Liberty Pundits
'The so-called “peace activists” from Gaza AKA Hamas, use violence against the Israeli Navy Soldiers. What the h*** were “peace activists” doing with guns, grenades, metal pipes? This was all to provoke. Israel was right in defending itself.' -- Cubachi
'Let's be clear, this flotilla had nothing to do with humanitarian supplies, which could have been shipped by land. The flotilla, if successful, would have opened the door to military supplies to Hamas concealed in later shipments.
Iranian desire to turn Gaza into the equivalent of the Hezbollah missile arsenal was the real purpose of the flotilla, with European useful idiots tagging along. That Turkey played a leading role as proxy for Iran in breaking the blockade is yet another sign that Turkey's growing alignment with Iran is a harbinger of bad things to come.
The flotilla was a collective human shield operation in which civilians, including reportedly including an 18 month old child, were put on the ships either to dissuade the Israelis from stopping the ships, or alternatively, to create an international incident. Prior to the flotilla launching, the leader of Hamas announced that it would be a triumph regardless of whether the flotilla landed or was stopped by Israel.
And it worked. While the exact death toll is not known as of this writing, when the Israelis attempted to board the ships, they were attacked and at least several passengers were killed.' -- Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
'Get ready for a tsunami of Jew-hating propaganda from the jihad-loving media. This marks the first time EU lawmakers were involved in an open attack on Israel...19 EUROPEAN LEGISLATORS WERE ALONG FOR THE RIDE IN PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACK AGAINST THE ISRAELI NAVY.
...Israel should sink those ships.' -- Atlas Shrugs
'You are about to witness a blood libel take shape in real time. By the time you read this, you will no doubt have been informed that the Israeli navy stormed the pro-Palestinian flotilla headed for Gaza and wantonly fired upon the peaceful activists within, killing many.
This is a lie. But it is a lie that will be repeated ad nauseum over the coming days, until it takes on all the appearance of truth. As you watch this happen, note well what it says about the people who repeat this lie, and the ease with which it is accepted by many ostensibly sensible and right thinking people. And note as well what this says about their claims to be compassionate, liberal, concerned citizens of the world.
...The Israeli soldiers reacted as anyone would react when attacked by a club and knife-wielding mob. And lastly, that they and Israel are about to be internationally crucified, once again, for doing precisely this.
...Moreover, it is already clear that this violence was undertaken with one purpose in mind and one purpose only – to provoke the political/media assault on Israel which is about to ensue.' -- The New Ledger
Now, let's take a look at the some typical reactions from the Left side of the blogosphere,
'Like segregation in the American South, the siege of Gaza (and the entire Israeli occupation, for that matter) is a moral abomination that should be intolerable to anyone claiming progressive values. It’s sad that it should require the deaths of non-Palestinians to finally shake the international community from apathy and inaction, but, as with the tragic murders of Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner, if it contributes to ending the situation then that’s a positive outcome.' -- Think Progress
'Even so, Israel’s cavalier disregard for its own, already battered PR image is surprising. To attack a convoy of unarmed peace activists in international waters, and then to claim that it was the peace activists who committed the aggression, is so manifestly absurd that one wonders whether Israel truly has, as Chomsky recently implied, entered the "irrational" phase. I would caution against this conclusion. In the run-up to the voyage Israeli officials showed a keen awareness of the difficult PR situation they were in. It’s not that the Israeli government doesn’t care about its international image – far from it. Rather, the most plausible explanation is that, after a cost-benefit analysis, it determined that it would be able to attack the peace activists on the flotilla, take the concomitant day or two of bad media coverage in its stride, muddy the waters as much as possible with PR spin, and then move on without suffering too much damage as a result. Yousef Munayyer recently observed that ‘Palestinian non-violence requires global non-silence’. Evidently, the Israeli government took the risk of attacking the flotilla on the presumption that the world would be muted in its response.
It is time to disabuse them of that notion. Protests have been planned outside Israeli embassies worldwide - including across the US and in Israel - and Stop the War has called an emergency demonstration outside Downing Street today at 2pm. Make it if you can.' -- Daily Kos
'Israeli Commandos Kill Unarmed Civilians in International Waters
...Within minutes of the reports of the killings of the aid activists, the Israeli PR machine started spreading tales – claiming the activists were violent, attacked the Israelis and more.
...All reports place the ships outside Israeli waters making the attack a violation of international navigation laws and, in effect, piracy.
So, will Obama cancel the “friendly” meeting with Netanyahu this Tuesday planned by Rahm who is currently in Israel? Will NATO challenge Israel over this act of piracy against one of its member companies?' -- Firedoglake
'If it weren't so despicable, it would be laughable: To the outside world, the government of Benyamin Netanyahu is doing a perfect imitation of North Korea in its murderous assault last night on flotilla of peace activists bringing humanitarian supplies to Gaza. The activists aren't all pure, but Israel's government has just purified them. If it was bone-headed in barring Noam Chomsky from the West Bank at the Allenby Bridge last week, now it might as well be taking tips from Pyongyang.' -- TPMCafe
'I'll have more in the morning, especially on reactions from around the world, but this is a shocking crime against humanity showing no conscience whatsoever. President Obama has to realise at this point that supporting Israel is akin to Reagan's support for the Botha regime in South Africa in the 80's.' -- Newshoggers
Let me tell you something, folks: it's at times like these when you get to see which side really supports Israel and, newsflash, it isn't the political party that's in charge in this country today.
Update #1 After seeing this footage, I think Israel didn't kill nearly enough of the thugs on that ship,
Watch it. It's AMAZING footage."
Can't wait to hear what Jew haters like Obama and his look-alike Jimmy Carter have to say about this.
God says in Genesis 12:3 that He will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel. We should take His statement as a warning. For years America had been Israel's best friend, and we experienced blessings and prosperity. But, that was then. Currently, we are following in the path of much of the rest of the world and exhibiting anti-Israel rhetoric.
Read an interesting article from Right Wing News, which nails the situation for what it is, via Atlas Shrugs:
Comparison: Liberal Reaction Vs. Conservative Reaction To The Israel/Flotilla Story
"Honestly, I don't find the Palestinian people to be the least bit sympathetic. They're backwards, genocidal, hyper-violent, sad sack Nazi wannabes led by terrorists who would happily murder every Jew on the planet if they could get away with it.
Then there are the Israelis. They're a tiny Western democracy surrounded by backwards savages who want to murder them down to the last child because they're Jews. Moreover, despite all the claims to the contrary, they're the most restrained people on earth. If you don't believe that, consider the fact that they could simply drive the Palestinians off their land and take it at any point, but instead, they've chosen to permanently live beside of millions of people who make the Manson family look sane. If the Israelis were somehow replaced by Americans, we'd drive the Palestinians off their land at gunpoint in six months tops -- and we'd be perfectly justified in doing so.
So, that brings us to the relief flotillas. Note that I say flotillas. This is the 9th time that they've tried to send a flotilla through Israel's blockade. Incidentally, Israel has that blockade in place for a very good reason: to keep weapons that will be used to murder Israelis from being shipped through to the Palestinians. So, since aid can be sent through the UN -- where it'll be checked for weapons -- what's the real point of these floatillas? It's an attempt to embarass the Israelis into giving up the blockade, so that weapons can be shipped to the Palestinians, so that more Jews can be killed.
In any case, this time around, the Jew haters on the flotilla made a critical Darwin Award worthy error: they assaulted an Israeli commando team with knives, sticks, and guns. The Israeli commandos responded, quite correctly in my opinion, by killing AT LEAST 10 of them.
Now, it's worth noting that the Left and Right have had a VERY different reaction to this incident. Let's take a look at some typical responses from the Right:
'Let’s get this situation in perspective. ”Free Gaza” is a bunch of lunatics that’s tried to violate the blockade nine times in less than two years. They got precisely what they deserved – precisely. This is nothing but a public relations stunt.
Their “humanitarian aid” can go overland. They know it. They purposely loaded up with cement for Gaza in violation of the supplies allowed into Hamas-controlled Gaza, an organization that launches missiles daily into Israel civilian areas. Can cement go into Gaza? Yes, but only for declared projects. Otherwise, it will be used for military purposes. Everything on those ships could go into Gaza after inspection.
“Free Gaza” created this confrontation and paid the price.
...Israel did nothing wrong. Nothing. Not a single thing.' -- Liberty Pundits
'The so-called “peace activists” from Gaza AKA Hamas, use violence against the Israeli Navy Soldiers. What the h*** were “peace activists” doing with guns, grenades, metal pipes? This was all to provoke. Israel was right in defending itself.' -- Cubachi
'Let's be clear, this flotilla had nothing to do with humanitarian supplies, which could have been shipped by land. The flotilla, if successful, would have opened the door to military supplies to Hamas concealed in later shipments.
Iranian desire to turn Gaza into the equivalent of the Hezbollah missile arsenal was the real purpose of the flotilla, with European useful idiots tagging along. That Turkey played a leading role as proxy for Iran in breaking the blockade is yet another sign that Turkey's growing alignment with Iran is a harbinger of bad things to come.
The flotilla was a collective human shield operation in which civilians, including reportedly including an 18 month old child, were put on the ships either to dissuade the Israelis from stopping the ships, or alternatively, to create an international incident. Prior to the flotilla launching, the leader of Hamas announced that it would be a triumph regardless of whether the flotilla landed or was stopped by Israel.
And it worked. While the exact death toll is not known as of this writing, when the Israelis attempted to board the ships, they were attacked and at least several passengers were killed.' -- Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
'Get ready for a tsunami of Jew-hating propaganda from the jihad-loving media. This marks the first time EU lawmakers were involved in an open attack on Israel...19 EUROPEAN LEGISLATORS WERE ALONG FOR THE RIDE IN PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACK AGAINST THE ISRAELI NAVY.
...Israel should sink those ships.' -- Atlas Shrugs
'You are about to witness a blood libel take shape in real time. By the time you read this, you will no doubt have been informed that the Israeli navy stormed the pro-Palestinian flotilla headed for Gaza and wantonly fired upon the peaceful activists within, killing many.
This is a lie. But it is a lie that will be repeated ad nauseum over the coming days, until it takes on all the appearance of truth. As you watch this happen, note well what it says about the people who repeat this lie, and the ease with which it is accepted by many ostensibly sensible and right thinking people. And note as well what this says about their claims to be compassionate, liberal, concerned citizens of the world.
...The Israeli soldiers reacted as anyone would react when attacked by a club and knife-wielding mob. And lastly, that they and Israel are about to be internationally crucified, once again, for doing precisely this.
...Moreover, it is already clear that this violence was undertaken with one purpose in mind and one purpose only – to provoke the political/media assault on Israel which is about to ensue.' -- The New Ledger
Now, let's take a look at the some typical reactions from the Left side of the blogosphere,
'Like segregation in the American South, the siege of Gaza (and the entire Israeli occupation, for that matter) is a moral abomination that should be intolerable to anyone claiming progressive values. It’s sad that it should require the deaths of non-Palestinians to finally shake the international community from apathy and inaction, but, as with the tragic murders of Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner, if it contributes to ending the situation then that’s a positive outcome.' -- Think Progress
'Even so, Israel’s cavalier disregard for its own, already battered PR image is surprising. To attack a convoy of unarmed peace activists in international waters, and then to claim that it was the peace activists who committed the aggression, is so manifestly absurd that one wonders whether Israel truly has, as Chomsky recently implied, entered the "irrational" phase. I would caution against this conclusion. In the run-up to the voyage Israeli officials showed a keen awareness of the difficult PR situation they were in. It’s not that the Israeli government doesn’t care about its international image – far from it. Rather, the most plausible explanation is that, after a cost-benefit analysis, it determined that it would be able to attack the peace activists on the flotilla, take the concomitant day or two of bad media coverage in its stride, muddy the waters as much as possible with PR spin, and then move on without suffering too much damage as a result. Yousef Munayyer recently observed that ‘Palestinian non-violence requires global non-silence’. Evidently, the Israeli government took the risk of attacking the flotilla on the presumption that the world would be muted in its response.
It is time to disabuse them of that notion. Protests have been planned outside Israeli embassies worldwide - including across the US and in Israel - and Stop the War has called an emergency demonstration outside Downing Street today at 2pm. Make it if you can.' -- Daily Kos
'Israeli Commandos Kill Unarmed Civilians in International Waters
...Within minutes of the reports of the killings of the aid activists, the Israeli PR machine started spreading tales – claiming the activists were violent, attacked the Israelis and more.
...All reports place the ships outside Israeli waters making the attack a violation of international navigation laws and, in effect, piracy.
So, will Obama cancel the “friendly” meeting with Netanyahu this Tuesday planned by Rahm who is currently in Israel? Will NATO challenge Israel over this act of piracy against one of its member companies?' -- Firedoglake
'If it weren't so despicable, it would be laughable: To the outside world, the government of Benyamin Netanyahu is doing a perfect imitation of North Korea in its murderous assault last night on flotilla of peace activists bringing humanitarian supplies to Gaza. The activists aren't all pure, but Israel's government has just purified them. If it was bone-headed in barring Noam Chomsky from the West Bank at the Allenby Bridge last week, now it might as well be taking tips from Pyongyang.' -- TPMCafe
'I'll have more in the morning, especially on reactions from around the world, but this is a shocking crime against humanity showing no conscience whatsoever. President Obama has to realise at this point that supporting Israel is akin to Reagan's support for the Botha regime in South Africa in the 80's.' -- Newshoggers
Let me tell you something, folks: it's at times like these when you get to see which side really supports Israel and, newsflash, it isn't the political party that's in charge in this country today.
Update #1 After seeing this footage, I think Israel didn't kill nearly enough of the thugs on that ship,
Watch it. It's AMAZING footage."
Can't wait to hear what Jew haters like Obama and his look-alike Jimmy Carter have to say about this.
Israel Defends Itself
The anti-Zionist, al Jazeera-like American Pravda is in attack mode accusing Israel of viciously attacking a ship bringing "aid" to Gaza. Prepare for an all-out assault against the Jewish nation as the leftist media spins the story to make Israel look like the villain, when in reality, Israel was defending itself as the ships were attempting to break a blockade.
Read from Liberty Pundits:
We’re all Jews today – deal with it
"Israel has shown the greatest restraint since 1948. She’s has been invaded directly and indirectly. She’s been the victim of concerted efforts to destroy her. She’s the sworn enemy of 200 million Arabs living around her. This tiny state, about the size of New Jersey, has never once been the initial aggressor.
Yet to listen to the 'pacifists' of the world, to the 'intelligentsia,' and to the 'peace-loving Muslims' there can be no peace until Israel turns itself into a defenseless punching bag.
[...]
When the Jewish people returned to their homeland and the state was declared, they were greeted with the armies of five Arab countries – Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq – who attacked Israel, launching the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. When? Within 24 hours of the UN declaration. They tried again in 1967 and 1973. Perhaps afterward, they finally learned that no one can unseat the Jewish state. So they shifted tactics from invasion to lobbing missiles from afar.
When Israel went after Gaza in 2009, it followed years of missile attacks with the complete absence of condemnation by the United Nations. And what of Gaza? Hamas killed, threatened, and drove out its political opponents, and then held 'democratic' elections. And the Jew-hater Jimmy Carter blessed the elections? Where’s the fairness here? Arabs hold not just full citizenship rights in Israel, they have their own political parties and hold office. Israel is the only member country in the UN that is not allowed a rotating seat on the UN Security Council. Can anyone say 'apartheid'?
Concerning these 'Free Gaza' clowns, their gesture of humanitarian aid was welcomed. All they had to do was use approved channels – trucks, not ships. We have documented episodes of ships with false hulls trying to smuggle arms in Gaza. It’s not OK for Israel to protect itself, but it is if it is your country? [...] Anyway, the ships are now at or near port in Ashdod. The contents will be inspected and turned over the UN for transport to Gaza. Just the way it should have been to begin with.
As always, Israel did not pick the fight, they just refused to be a hapless bystander. Good rule: Don’t swing an iron rod at an armed soldier.
The press reports in the next cycle will be overwhelmingly against Israel. That’s because the world is overwhelmingly anti-Semitic. It’s a reality. Don’t fight it. If you condemn Israel, then I ask you to review the facts more dispassionately. A declared blockade is just that. Stop with the nine attempts in two years to break it. We’ve had enough.
I support Israel with every fiber of my being. It is not a blind backing. I believe in her [...]
I ask you to join in supporting Israel today. She needs us."
And yes, Diogenes, Benjamin Netanyahu cut his foreign trip short and returned to Israel. What was he supposed to do? He knew what was coming--an all-out brutal condemnation of the Jewish nation for daring to defend itself from "peace activists".
Watch from Atlas Shrugs:
Also from Atlas Shrugs:
Read from Liberty Pundits:
We’re all Jews today – deal with it
"Israel has shown the greatest restraint since 1948. She’s has been invaded directly and indirectly. She’s been the victim of concerted efforts to destroy her. She’s the sworn enemy of 200 million Arabs living around her. This tiny state, about the size of New Jersey, has never once been the initial aggressor.
Yet to listen to the 'pacifists' of the world, to the 'intelligentsia,' and to the 'peace-loving Muslims' there can be no peace until Israel turns itself into a defenseless punching bag.
[...]
When the Jewish people returned to their homeland and the state was declared, they were greeted with the armies of five Arab countries – Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq – who attacked Israel, launching the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. When? Within 24 hours of the UN declaration. They tried again in 1967 and 1973. Perhaps afterward, they finally learned that no one can unseat the Jewish state. So they shifted tactics from invasion to lobbing missiles from afar.
When Israel went after Gaza in 2009, it followed years of missile attacks with the complete absence of condemnation by the United Nations. And what of Gaza? Hamas killed, threatened, and drove out its political opponents, and then held 'democratic' elections. And the Jew-hater Jimmy Carter blessed the elections? Where’s the fairness here? Arabs hold not just full citizenship rights in Israel, they have their own political parties and hold office. Israel is the only member country in the UN that is not allowed a rotating seat on the UN Security Council. Can anyone say 'apartheid'?
Concerning these 'Free Gaza' clowns, their gesture of humanitarian aid was welcomed. All they had to do was use approved channels – trucks, not ships. We have documented episodes of ships with false hulls trying to smuggle arms in Gaza. It’s not OK for Israel to protect itself, but it is if it is your country? [...] Anyway, the ships are now at or near port in Ashdod. The contents will be inspected and turned over the UN for transport to Gaza. Just the way it should have been to begin with.
As always, Israel did not pick the fight, they just refused to be a hapless bystander. Good rule: Don’t swing an iron rod at an armed soldier.
The press reports in the next cycle will be overwhelmingly against Israel. That’s because the world is overwhelmingly anti-Semitic. It’s a reality. Don’t fight it. If you condemn Israel, then I ask you to review the facts more dispassionately. A declared blockade is just that. Stop with the nine attempts in two years to break it. We’ve had enough.
I support Israel with every fiber of my being. It is not a blind backing. I believe in her [...]
I ask you to join in supporting Israel today. She needs us."
And yes, Diogenes, Benjamin Netanyahu cut his foreign trip short and returned to Israel. What was he supposed to do? He knew what was coming--an all-out brutal condemnation of the Jewish nation for daring to defend itself from "peace activists".
Watch from Atlas Shrugs:
Also from Atlas Shrugs:
Memorial Day
A tribute on this Memorial Day to those who paid the ultimate price to secure our freedoms, via Michelle Malkin:
Sunday, May 30, 2010
"Unconscionable Incompetence"
It's been a rough couple of weeks for President Obama with the incompetent handling of the Gulf oil spill, the Sestak bribe, and the opposition to the new Arizona immigration law which most Americans support.
Once upon a time, Obama accused Bush of "unconscionable incompetence" in dealing with Hurricane Katrina. What's that saying? What goes around comes around. If it were not for the tragedy the Gulf residents are experiencing, Obama's own "unconscionable incompetence" would be comical.
Toby Harnden from the UK Telegraph excoriates the president for his incompetence.
Barack Obama's credibility hits rock bottom after oil spill and Sestak scandal
The combination of Obama's passivity over the Gulf oil spill catastrophe and his cynical political manoeuvrings could spell disaster for him, argues Toby Harnden
By Toby Harnden
"The first thing Barack Obama probably should have done was to order the livestreaming Oil Spill Cam to be turned off. As the President insisted to Americans that he was 'singularly focused' on staunching the flow, there was that mesmerising image on their television screens of plumes of hydrocarbons gushing relentlessly into the Gulf of Mexico.
When any political leader feels they have to declare that they are 'fully engaged' in an issue, it is clear that they are in trouble. Talking about it undermines the very point you are trying to make - not to mention that pesky Oil Spill Cam showing that, 38 days into the Deepwater Horizon disaster, not a whole lot had been achieved.
Even judging Obama by his words, he has fallen woefully short over what has now eclipsed the 1989 Exxon Valdez wreck as biggest oil spill catastrophe in American history. He may have described it as an 'unprecedented disaster' in last Thursday's press conference but a week into the crisis he was blithely stating that 'this incident is of national significance' and rest assured he was receiving 'frequent briefings' about it.
George W Bush's unpopularity and perceived incompetence was encapsulated by the way he dealt with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Candidate Obama branded it 'unconscionable incompetence'.
Central to Obama's appeal was his promise to be truly different. His failure to achieve that is now at the core of the deep disappointment Americans feel about him. At the press conference - the first full-scale affair he had deigned to give for 309 days - he appeared uncomfortable and petulant.
His approach to the issue was that of the law student suddenly fascinated by a science project. He displayed none of the visceral indignation Americans feel about pretty much everything these days - two-thirds now say they are 'angry' about the way things are going - resorting instead to Spock-like technocratic language and legalese. 'I'm not contradicting my prior point,' he stated at one juncture. During those 63 minutes of soporific verbosity, about 800 barrels of oil poured into the Gulf.
Obama engaged in the obligatory populist bashing of Big Oil and, of course, demonstrated the Obama administration's version of Tourette's Syndrome, blaming the previous administration for the situation when, by my reckoning, it's a full 16 months since Bush left office.
By Friday, he was sticking his finger in the sand at Grand Isle, Louisiana as part of a photo op self-consciously designed to contrast with Bush's famous looking down on the Katrina devastation from Air Force One. It was Obama's second visit to Louisiana in the 39 days since disaster struck. According to CBS's Mark Knoller, in the same period Bush visited the post-Katrina region seven times.
But perhaps the most dangerous sign during the press conference for Democrats fearful of an unprecedented electoral disaster in November's mid-term elections was the evasion and opacity of the man who promised a new era of transparency and a different kind of politics.
When asked about the resignation of the director of the Minerals Management Service - an agency he had excoriated - he professed that 'I don't know the circumstances in which this occurred'. She had, of course, been fired.
Even worse was Obama's refusal to say anything about the growing furore over White House attempts to persuade Congressman Joe Sestak to pull out of the Democratic Senate primary contest in Pennsylvania. Obama's advisers had preferred the Republican turncoat Senator Arlen Specter - and Sestak inconveniently let slip that he'd been offered a government job to step aside.
That was potentially illegal and for weeks the White House stonewalled. When, even more inconveniently, Sestak beat Specter, the trust-us-nothing-untoward-happened approach would no longer wash. But still Obama declined to answer the question on Thursday, fobbing the reporter – and America – off with the promise that 'there will be an official response shortly on the Sestak issue'.
This did indeed come the following day – conveniently timed for that Friday afternoon news void before the Memorial Day holiday weekend. Lo and behold, it turns out that none other than former President Bill Clinton was asked by Obama's chief of staff and Chicago enforcer Rahm Emanuel to offer Sestak a place on a presidential board.
Whether or not the law was broken, the cynicism of this is breathtaking. Obama offered a break from the Clinton-Bush past and an end to the shoddy backroom deals of Washington. So what does he do? He tries to deny Pennsylvania voters a chance to decide for themselves by using his former foe Clinton to offer a grubby inducement.
It was perhaps a fitting end to one of the worst weeks of Obama presidency, in which a Rasmussen one poll pegged his popularity at a new low of 42 percent. In an environment in which Americans are disillusioned and cynical about Washington and all it stands for, the Clinton-Sestak manoeuvre could be a political calamity for Obama.
Perhaps he should be grateful after all that the Oil Spill Cam was still beaming up footage from the sea bed."
Once upon a time, Obama accused Bush of "unconscionable incompetence" in dealing with Hurricane Katrina. What's that saying? What goes around comes around. If it were not for the tragedy the Gulf residents are experiencing, Obama's own "unconscionable incompetence" would be comical.
Toby Harnden from the UK Telegraph excoriates the president for his incompetence.
Barack Obama's credibility hits rock bottom after oil spill and Sestak scandal
The combination of Obama's passivity over the Gulf oil spill catastrophe and his cynical political manoeuvrings could spell disaster for him, argues Toby Harnden
By Toby Harnden
"The first thing Barack Obama probably should have done was to order the livestreaming Oil Spill Cam to be turned off. As the President insisted to Americans that he was 'singularly focused' on staunching the flow, there was that mesmerising image on their television screens of plumes of hydrocarbons gushing relentlessly into the Gulf of Mexico.
When any political leader feels they have to declare that they are 'fully engaged' in an issue, it is clear that they are in trouble. Talking about it undermines the very point you are trying to make - not to mention that pesky Oil Spill Cam showing that, 38 days into the Deepwater Horizon disaster, not a whole lot had been achieved.
Even judging Obama by his words, he has fallen woefully short over what has now eclipsed the 1989 Exxon Valdez wreck as biggest oil spill catastrophe in American history. He may have described it as an 'unprecedented disaster' in last Thursday's press conference but a week into the crisis he was blithely stating that 'this incident is of national significance' and rest assured he was receiving 'frequent briefings' about it.
George W Bush's unpopularity and perceived incompetence was encapsulated by the way he dealt with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Candidate Obama branded it 'unconscionable incompetence'.
Central to Obama's appeal was his promise to be truly different. His failure to achieve that is now at the core of the deep disappointment Americans feel about him. At the press conference - the first full-scale affair he had deigned to give for 309 days - he appeared uncomfortable and petulant.
His approach to the issue was that of the law student suddenly fascinated by a science project. He displayed none of the visceral indignation Americans feel about pretty much everything these days - two-thirds now say they are 'angry' about the way things are going - resorting instead to Spock-like technocratic language and legalese. 'I'm not contradicting my prior point,' he stated at one juncture. During those 63 minutes of soporific verbosity, about 800 barrels of oil poured into the Gulf.
Obama engaged in the obligatory populist bashing of Big Oil and, of course, demonstrated the Obama administration's version of Tourette's Syndrome, blaming the previous administration for the situation when, by my reckoning, it's a full 16 months since Bush left office.
By Friday, he was sticking his finger in the sand at Grand Isle, Louisiana as part of a photo op self-consciously designed to contrast with Bush's famous looking down on the Katrina devastation from Air Force One. It was Obama's second visit to Louisiana in the 39 days since disaster struck. According to CBS's Mark Knoller, in the same period Bush visited the post-Katrina region seven times.
But perhaps the most dangerous sign during the press conference for Democrats fearful of an unprecedented electoral disaster in November's mid-term elections was the evasion and opacity of the man who promised a new era of transparency and a different kind of politics.
When asked about the resignation of the director of the Minerals Management Service - an agency he had excoriated - he professed that 'I don't know the circumstances in which this occurred'. She had, of course, been fired.
Even worse was Obama's refusal to say anything about the growing furore over White House attempts to persuade Congressman Joe Sestak to pull out of the Democratic Senate primary contest in Pennsylvania. Obama's advisers had preferred the Republican turncoat Senator Arlen Specter - and Sestak inconveniently let slip that he'd been offered a government job to step aside.
That was potentially illegal and for weeks the White House stonewalled. When, even more inconveniently, Sestak beat Specter, the trust-us-nothing-untoward-happened approach would no longer wash. But still Obama declined to answer the question on Thursday, fobbing the reporter – and America – off with the promise that 'there will be an official response shortly on the Sestak issue'.
This did indeed come the following day – conveniently timed for that Friday afternoon news void before the Memorial Day holiday weekend. Lo and behold, it turns out that none other than former President Bill Clinton was asked by Obama's chief of staff and Chicago enforcer Rahm Emanuel to offer Sestak a place on a presidential board.
Whether or not the law was broken, the cynicism of this is breathtaking. Obama offered a break from the Clinton-Bush past and an end to the shoddy backroom deals of Washington. So what does he do? He tries to deny Pennsylvania voters a chance to decide for themselves by using his former foe Clinton to offer a grubby inducement.
It was perhaps a fitting end to one of the worst weeks of Obama presidency, in which a Rasmussen one poll pegged his popularity at a new low of 42 percent. In an environment in which Americans are disillusioned and cynical about Washington and all it stands for, the Clinton-Sestak manoeuvre could be a political calamity for Obama.
Perhaps he should be grateful after all that the Oil Spill Cam was still beaming up footage from the sea bed."
The Desperate Louisianans
The Gulf Coast is experiencing a crisis. While Southerners' livelihood hangs in the balance, what is the president doing to show solidarity for those affected by this catastrophe? A little golf here and there, some basketball, and a vacation to Chicago.
The hypocritical American Pravda was all over George W. Bush for playing golf during a time of war. However, they are absolutely fine with Obama and all of his extracurricular activities during a time of crisis.
Read about the dire situation in Louisiana and the indifferent president, via Gateway Pundit:
Louisiana Official to Obama: Your Oil Drilling Suspension “Will Kill Us”
"A Louisiana official pleaded with far left President Obama to lift his moratorium on new oil drilling and exploration. With the unemployment rate at 9.9% President Obama set up the moratorium after the BP oil spill in the Gulf.
CNN reported, via Free Republic:
'A Gulf Coast official is pleading with President Barack Obama to scrap the moratorium on new oil drilling and exploration as the investigation of the massive oil spill continues, saying the economic impact to her Louisiana parish would be too much to bear.
Charlotte Randolph, president of LaFourche Parish, said she spoke to Obama in person during his visit to the oil-stricken region Friday.
“I expressed to the president that we are dying because of the oil spill, but if he allows this suspension to happen it will kill us,” she told reporters Saturday, noting that her parish has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country.
“First I’m hearing from fisherman who are dying because of the oil spill,” she said. “Now I’m hearing from the oil and gas industry and all of those associated services that they will be put out of business.”
Obama’s tour of the oil damage along the Gulf Coast came a day after he announced steps to limit new oil drilling and exploration during the oil spill. The president said he is “fully engaged” and ultimately responsible for what he called a catastrophe.'
The president is vacationing in Chicago this weekend."
The hypocritical American Pravda was all over George W. Bush for playing golf during a time of war. However, they are absolutely fine with Obama and all of his extracurricular activities during a time of crisis.
Read about the dire situation in Louisiana and the indifferent president, via Gateway Pundit:
Louisiana Official to Obama: Your Oil Drilling Suspension “Will Kill Us”
"A Louisiana official pleaded with far left President Obama to lift his moratorium on new oil drilling and exploration. With the unemployment rate at 9.9% President Obama set up the moratorium after the BP oil spill in the Gulf.
CNN reported, via Free Republic:
'A Gulf Coast official is pleading with President Barack Obama to scrap the moratorium on new oil drilling and exploration as the investigation of the massive oil spill continues, saying the economic impact to her Louisiana parish would be too much to bear.
Charlotte Randolph, president of LaFourche Parish, said she spoke to Obama in person during his visit to the oil-stricken region Friday.
“I expressed to the president that we are dying because of the oil spill, but if he allows this suspension to happen it will kill us,” she told reporters Saturday, noting that her parish has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country.
“First I’m hearing from fisherman who are dying because of the oil spill,” she said. “Now I’m hearing from the oil and gas industry and all of those associated services that they will be put out of business.”
Obama’s tour of the oil damage along the Gulf Coast came a day after he announced steps to limit new oil drilling and exploration during the oil spill. The president said he is “fully engaged” and ultimately responsible for what he called a catastrophe.'
The president is vacationing in Chicago this weekend."
Saturday, May 29, 2010
"Puerto Rican Statehood Doesn't Strengthen America"
Where on earth is the mainstream media? The United States has not added a state to its union in over fifty years. Shouldn't the possibility of a 51st state be a huge news story? One would think so, but not in the age of a corrupt American Pravda covering for a stealth-like administration and its Democratic comrades.
Read from the American Thinker:
Stealth task force on Puerto Rican statehood moving bill forward
Greg Halvorson
"Call it 'Amnesty, East Coast style,' call it 'the Bilingual Express,' but in keeping with the theme of 'fundamental transformation,' the task force on Puerto Rican statehood (yes, there is one) has been quietly scheming to move this ball forward.
Associate Attorney General, Thomas Perrelli, addressing 'taskers,' recently shared some high-level thoughts:
'"President Obama is open to the idea of Puerto Rico becoming a state," he said. "He strongly believes that the status question is a significant one. He believes that Puerto Rican status must be based on self-determination by the people of Puerto Rico. And we on the task force have open minds on the issue."'
Wonderful. It's good to know what your president believes, but it's also good to know the end-game. Puerto Rican statehood will add permanent House seats and a pair of liberal senators to the current Dem-count. It will transform America into a bilingual nation. The average income of Puerto Ricans is less than half of our poorest state, unemployment is high, so it will require increased spending.
No doubt, the president knows all of this. You might say he 'believes' it. Puerto Rican statehood doesn't strengthen America, it strengthens Democrats. And that is the truth."
Read from the American Thinker:
Stealth task force on Puerto Rican statehood moving bill forward
Greg Halvorson
"Call it 'Amnesty, East Coast style,' call it 'the Bilingual Express,' but in keeping with the theme of 'fundamental transformation,' the task force on Puerto Rican statehood (yes, there is one) has been quietly scheming to move this ball forward.
Associate Attorney General, Thomas Perrelli, addressing 'taskers,' recently shared some high-level thoughts:
'"President Obama is open to the idea of Puerto Rico becoming a state," he said. "He strongly believes that the status question is a significant one. He believes that Puerto Rican status must be based on self-determination by the people of Puerto Rico. And we on the task force have open minds on the issue."'
Wonderful. It's good to know what your president believes, but it's also good to know the end-game. Puerto Rican statehood will add permanent House seats and a pair of liberal senators to the current Dem-count. It will transform America into a bilingual nation. The average income of Puerto Ricans is less than half of our poorest state, unemployment is high, so it will require increased spending.
No doubt, the president knows all of this. You might say he 'believes' it. Puerto Rican statehood doesn't strengthen America, it strengthens Democrats. And that is the truth."
An Armed Society Reduces Crime
During the 2008 presidential campaign, when Barack Obama stated that he was not coming after our guns, he was lying. Actually, his exact words were: "If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it. Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress."
It has always been the goal of leftists to disarm average Americans because they are all about gaining power over us little peons. As they take over more and more of our economy and we lose more and more of our freedoms, tyranny descends upon us, and tyrannical rulers fear an armed citizenry because, at some point, we may rise up to stop their grab for power.
When the Left speaks of the danger of guns and how they want to disarm us for our own protection, that's complete poppycock. Those without guns are unable to defend themselves and their loved ones, whereas an armed society results in reduced crime.
Read the evidence which supports my claim, via Human Events:
More Guns Mean Less Crime
by David Alan Coia
"In the new edition of More Guns, Less Crime, economist John R. Lott, Jr., easily dispels any lingering doubt that allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns is strongly associated with—if not a direct cause for—lowering the rates of violent crime.
'The hypothesis that more guns connects to less crime has stood up against massive efforts to criticize it,' Lott writes in the book’s third edition, now available from the University of Chicago Press in the United States and on June 14 in the United Kingdom. He backs that statement with cold, hard facts.
The new edition, which includes data and analysis from 39 states and now covers 29 years (1977-2005), will make it much more difficult for Lott’s critics and anti-gun groups to continue their attempts to disarm law-abiding Americans. In fact, Lott frequently turns the tables on his critics by demonstrating how their own data actually support the More Guns, Less Crime thesis.
'There are large drops in overall violent crime, murder, rape, and aggravated assault that begin right after the right-to-carry laws have gone into effect,' Lott writes. 'In all those crime categories, the crime rates consistently stay much lower than they were before the law.'
From the time states passed right-to-carry concealed handgun laws, the average murder rate dropped from 6.3 per 100,000 to 5.2 per 100,000 nine-to-ten years later—'about a 1.7% drop in the murder rate per year for ten years.'
Overall violent crime rates similarly dropped from 475 crimes per 100,000 people to a range of 415-440 after the second full year that concealed-carry laws were passed. Rapes dropped from 40.2 per 100,000 people to 35.7 per 100,000 nine to 10 years later (a 12% drop).
'Of all the methods studied so far by economists, the carrying of concealed handguns appears to be the most cost-effective method for reducing crime,' Lott wrote in the second edition of his book.
Based on National Institute of Justice figures, Lott estimates in the new edition that the economic loss resulting from a murder in 2007 dollars at $3.9 million, with the average loss from rape and robbery at $115,260 and $10,758 respectively. 'If we use these figures [including the costs of aggravated assault and property crimes], the 29 states that we study save over $30 billion a year, with over half of that coming just from the reduction in murder rates.'
Dozens of academics have published studies that 'have either confirmed the beneficial link between gun ownership and crime or at least not found any information that ownership increases crime,' Lott says, adding that 'not a single refereed study finds the opposite result.'
Lott demonstrates that not only does the presence of concealed handgun carriers—just more than 2% of American adults—lower rates of violent crime, but where gun bans are imposed, violent crime has consistently risen—in the United States and abroad.
'Great Britain banned handguns in January 1997. But the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased an incredible 340% in seven years from 1998 to 2005,' Lott writes, identifying detrimental effects of gun bans in many other countries including India, Jamaica, Germany, Finland, and Greece.
'One big difference between the earlier work on right-to-carry laws and the current discussion on gun bans is that with 39 states passing right-to-carry laws we have had the same experiment over and over again in many different years in many different places,' Lott points out.
Unfortunately, most mainstream media reports do not focus on instances in which armed citizens defend themselves successfully without firing a shot, but instead focus on criminal shootings or shootings in self defense.
A national survey conducted by Lott in 2002 'indicates that about 95% of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack.'
Other survey results 'indicate that citizens use guns to stop violent crime about 2.5 million times each year—a large order of magnitude bigger than the reported number of crimes committed with guns.'
However, news organizations typically report the atypical event in which a shooting ends in a fatality, leaving the impression that 'some events appear to be much more common than they actually are,' Lott writes.
Gun Control Advocates Lack Credibility
Lott is troubled by the way so many reporters’ uncritically accept opinions of groups that aim to disarm Americans , groups that are dishonest in their presentation of facts.
Lott illustrates how 'the Brady Campaign and other gun-control organizations cherry pick a few cases, while omitting important facts, such as whether the permit holder was found to have used justifiable force.'
'Probably most telling,' he writes, 'is that the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center keep track of arrests of permit holders, not convictions—ignoring that defensive uses frequently result in arrests simply because a police officer can’t be sure what happened.'
Accurate accounts contradict the points the Brady Campaign attempts to make and show that 'concealed handguns, in fact, help to protect people from getting killed when attacked.'
Law-Abiding Citizens
Lott shows that 'concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding.' For example, 'Permit holders committed murder at 1/182 of the rate of the general public.' And permit revocation rates are typically well below one-half of one percent, with the revocations almost never relating to the use or misuse of a gun.
A National Association of Chiefs of Police mail survey of 22,200 police chiefs and sheriffs found that 92% believed law-abiding citizens should be able to purchase guns for self defense. Furthermore, 'support among the rank-and-file police officers and the general population for the right of individuals to carry guns for self-protection is even higher than it is among police chiefs,' Lott says.
HUMAN EVENTS reported in December that the number of police officer deaths declined with the rise in concealed handgun permits.
Many lawmakers have heard the message. Lott notes the 'surprising fact' that many state legislators now have concealed carry permits. 'In South Carolina, 20% of the state legislature had permits [to carry concealed handguns] in 2008. In Tennessee, 25% have permits. Exactly a third of the 24 Virginia state legislators from the area around Norfolk, Va., have permits.'
However, Lott points out that reductions in crime rates do not occur evenly in all locations. Clearly other factors exert an influence, such as the extent to which crimes are prosecuted and the liberality of the right-to-carry laws. States that reluctantly allow citizens to carry concealed handguns—requiring high fees, inordinately long training periods or that require frequent renewal of permits—do not experience the same level of crime rate reduction as states that impose fewer restrictions.
Unfortunately, only two states—Alaska and Vermont—impose no restrictions on citizens’ rights to carry concealed handguns.
Lott presents the most thorough and credible analysis of the effects of concealed handguns and crime rates. Any serious discussion by the media, legislative bodies and the courts must include a thorough reading of the 2010 edition of More Guns, Less Crime. The opinion of anyone who has not read the book but who professes an understanding of the effects of concealed handguns on crime rates should not be taken seriously."
It has always been the goal of leftists to disarm average Americans because they are all about gaining power over us little peons. As they take over more and more of our economy and we lose more and more of our freedoms, tyranny descends upon us, and tyrannical rulers fear an armed citizenry because, at some point, we may rise up to stop their grab for power.
When the Left speaks of the danger of guns and how they want to disarm us for our own protection, that's complete poppycock. Those without guns are unable to defend themselves and their loved ones, whereas an armed society results in reduced crime.
Read the evidence which supports my claim, via Human Events:
More Guns Mean Less Crime
by David Alan Coia
"In the new edition of More Guns, Less Crime, economist John R. Lott, Jr., easily dispels any lingering doubt that allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns is strongly associated with—if not a direct cause for—lowering the rates of violent crime.
'The hypothesis that more guns connects to less crime has stood up against massive efforts to criticize it,' Lott writes in the book’s third edition, now available from the University of Chicago Press in the United States and on June 14 in the United Kingdom. He backs that statement with cold, hard facts.
The new edition, which includes data and analysis from 39 states and now covers 29 years (1977-2005), will make it much more difficult for Lott’s critics and anti-gun groups to continue their attempts to disarm law-abiding Americans. In fact, Lott frequently turns the tables on his critics by demonstrating how their own data actually support the More Guns, Less Crime thesis.
'There are large drops in overall violent crime, murder, rape, and aggravated assault that begin right after the right-to-carry laws have gone into effect,' Lott writes. 'In all those crime categories, the crime rates consistently stay much lower than they were before the law.'
From the time states passed right-to-carry concealed handgun laws, the average murder rate dropped from 6.3 per 100,000 to 5.2 per 100,000 nine-to-ten years later—'about a 1.7% drop in the murder rate per year for ten years.'
Overall violent crime rates similarly dropped from 475 crimes per 100,000 people to a range of 415-440 after the second full year that concealed-carry laws were passed. Rapes dropped from 40.2 per 100,000 people to 35.7 per 100,000 nine to 10 years later (a 12% drop).
'Of all the methods studied so far by economists, the carrying of concealed handguns appears to be the most cost-effective method for reducing crime,' Lott wrote in the second edition of his book.
Based on National Institute of Justice figures, Lott estimates in the new edition that the economic loss resulting from a murder in 2007 dollars at $3.9 million, with the average loss from rape and robbery at $115,260 and $10,758 respectively. 'If we use these figures [including the costs of aggravated assault and property crimes], the 29 states that we study save over $30 billion a year, with over half of that coming just from the reduction in murder rates.'
Dozens of academics have published studies that 'have either confirmed the beneficial link between gun ownership and crime or at least not found any information that ownership increases crime,' Lott says, adding that 'not a single refereed study finds the opposite result.'
Lott demonstrates that not only does the presence of concealed handgun carriers—just more than 2% of American adults—lower rates of violent crime, but where gun bans are imposed, violent crime has consistently risen—in the United States and abroad.
'Great Britain banned handguns in January 1997. But the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased an incredible 340% in seven years from 1998 to 2005,' Lott writes, identifying detrimental effects of gun bans in many other countries including India, Jamaica, Germany, Finland, and Greece.
'One big difference between the earlier work on right-to-carry laws and the current discussion on gun bans is that with 39 states passing right-to-carry laws we have had the same experiment over and over again in many different years in many different places,' Lott points out.
Unfortunately, most mainstream media reports do not focus on instances in which armed citizens defend themselves successfully without firing a shot, but instead focus on criminal shootings or shootings in self defense.
A national survey conducted by Lott in 2002 'indicates that about 95% of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack.'
Other survey results 'indicate that citizens use guns to stop violent crime about 2.5 million times each year—a large order of magnitude bigger than the reported number of crimes committed with guns.'
However, news organizations typically report the atypical event in which a shooting ends in a fatality, leaving the impression that 'some events appear to be much more common than they actually are,' Lott writes.
Gun Control Advocates Lack Credibility
Lott is troubled by the way so many reporters’ uncritically accept opinions of groups that aim to disarm Americans , groups that are dishonest in their presentation of facts.
Lott illustrates how 'the Brady Campaign and other gun-control organizations cherry pick a few cases, while omitting important facts, such as whether the permit holder was found to have used justifiable force.'
'Probably most telling,' he writes, 'is that the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center keep track of arrests of permit holders, not convictions—ignoring that defensive uses frequently result in arrests simply because a police officer can’t be sure what happened.'
Accurate accounts contradict the points the Brady Campaign attempts to make and show that 'concealed handguns, in fact, help to protect people from getting killed when attacked.'
Law-Abiding Citizens
Lott shows that 'concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding.' For example, 'Permit holders committed murder at 1/182 of the rate of the general public.' And permit revocation rates are typically well below one-half of one percent, with the revocations almost never relating to the use or misuse of a gun.
A National Association of Chiefs of Police mail survey of 22,200 police chiefs and sheriffs found that 92% believed law-abiding citizens should be able to purchase guns for self defense. Furthermore, 'support among the rank-and-file police officers and the general population for the right of individuals to carry guns for self-protection is even higher than it is among police chiefs,' Lott says.
HUMAN EVENTS reported in December that the number of police officer deaths declined with the rise in concealed handgun permits.
Many lawmakers have heard the message. Lott notes the 'surprising fact' that many state legislators now have concealed carry permits. 'In South Carolina, 20% of the state legislature had permits [to carry concealed handguns] in 2008. In Tennessee, 25% have permits. Exactly a third of the 24 Virginia state legislators from the area around Norfolk, Va., have permits.'
However, Lott points out that reductions in crime rates do not occur evenly in all locations. Clearly other factors exert an influence, such as the extent to which crimes are prosecuted and the liberality of the right-to-carry laws. States that reluctantly allow citizens to carry concealed handguns—requiring high fees, inordinately long training periods or that require frequent renewal of permits—do not experience the same level of crime rate reduction as states that impose fewer restrictions.
Unfortunately, only two states—Alaska and Vermont—impose no restrictions on citizens’ rights to carry concealed handguns.
Lott presents the most thorough and credible analysis of the effects of concealed handguns and crime rates. Any serious discussion by the media, legislative bodies and the courts must include a thorough reading of the 2010 edition of More Guns, Less Crime. The opinion of anyone who has not read the book but who professes an understanding of the effects of concealed handguns on crime rates should not be taken seriously."
Obama to Punish Muslim Who Converted to Christianity
That's it, Mr. President, kowtow to the Muslim community, the one place where you will find real terrorists, and go after the Christians. So typical of you. Or perhaps, the "Son of Hamas" must be punished for working with your archenemy, Israel.
Read from Jihad Watch:
U.S. trying to deport [...] 'Son of Hamas'
"A convert to Christianity and spy for Israel -- now that's the kind of guy the Obama DHS thinks of when it pictures a terrorist. 'U.S. trying to deport "Son of Hamas": Feds see "terrorist" in Christian convert who spied for Israel,' by Art Moore for WorldNetDaily, May 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):
'The Department of Homeland Security is trying to deport the son of a Hamas founder who told of his conversion to Christianity and decade of spying for Israel in a New York Times best-seller.
"Son of Hamas" author Mosab Hassan Yousef revealed on a blog hosted by his publisher he is scheduled to appear June 30 before Immigration Judge Rico J. Bartolomei at the DHS Immigration Court in San Diego.
Yousef said the DHS informed him Feb. 23, 2009, he was barred from asylum in the U.S. because there were reasonable grounds for believing he was "a danger to the security of the United States" and "engaged in terrorist activity."
An incredulous Yousef said the U.S. government's belief he is a terrorist is based on a complete misinterpretation of passages of his book in which he describes his work as a counterterrorism agent for the Israeli internal intelligence service Shin Bet.
Yousef said he's not so much worried about himself as he is "outraged" about "a security system that is so primitive and naive that it endangers the lives of countless Americans."
"If Homeland Security cannot tell the difference between a terrorist and a man who spent his life fighting terrorism, how can they protect their own people?" he asked in his blog post.
Yousef said whatever Judge Bartolomei decides will be appealed, "and this insane merry-go-round can go on like that for decades."...'"
Read from Jihad Watch:
U.S. trying to deport [...] 'Son of Hamas'
"A convert to Christianity and spy for Israel -- now that's the kind of guy the Obama DHS thinks of when it pictures a terrorist. 'U.S. trying to deport "Son of Hamas": Feds see "terrorist" in Christian convert who spied for Israel,' by Art Moore for WorldNetDaily, May 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):
'The Department of Homeland Security is trying to deport the son of a Hamas founder who told of his conversion to Christianity and decade of spying for Israel in a New York Times best-seller.
"Son of Hamas" author Mosab Hassan Yousef revealed on a blog hosted by his publisher he is scheduled to appear June 30 before Immigration Judge Rico J. Bartolomei at the DHS Immigration Court in San Diego.
Yousef said the DHS informed him Feb. 23, 2009, he was barred from asylum in the U.S. because there were reasonable grounds for believing he was "a danger to the security of the United States" and "engaged in terrorist activity."
An incredulous Yousef said the U.S. government's belief he is a terrorist is based on a complete misinterpretation of passages of his book in which he describes his work as a counterterrorism agent for the Israeli internal intelligence service Shin Bet.
Yousef said he's not so much worried about himself as he is "outraged" about "a security system that is so primitive and naive that it endangers the lives of countless Americans."
"If Homeland Security cannot tell the difference between a terrorist and a man who spent his life fighting terrorism, how can they protect their own people?" he asked in his blog post.
Yousef said whatever Judge Bartolomei decides will be appealed, "and this insane merry-go-round can go on like that for decades."...'"
Lies, Lies, and More Lies
More evidence that they are lying to us.
Read from the American Thinker:
Sestak cover story starts to unravel
Ed Lasky
"Crafting a cover story that is consistent with awkward facts is hard. Did the best and the brightest miss this? Sestak was not eligible to serve on the Intelligence Advisory Board. Byron York of the Washington Examiner reports:
'In a little-noticed passage Friday, the New York Times reported that Rep. Joe Sestak was not eligible for a place on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, the job he was reportedly offered by former President Bill Clinton. And indeed a look at the Board's website reveals this restriction:
"The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors."
As a sitting member of Congress, Sestak was not eligible for the job. [....]
The statement from White House counsel Robert Bauer did not specifically mention the intelligence board, but speaking to reporters Friday, Sestak said of his conversation with Clinton, "At the time, I heard the words ‘presidential board,' and that's all I heard...I heard ‘presidential board,' and I think it was intel." In addition, the Times reported that "people briefed on the matter said one option was an appointment" to the intelligence board. But the White House could not legally have placed Sestak on the board.'
An already implausible story has become much harder to believe."
I guess we are supposed to believe that the Obama Administration was not aware that a government worker could not be appointed to the Intelligence Advisory Board. What a bunch of incompetents! Don't worry, Diogenes, the American Pravda will ignore this little tidbit.
Read from the American Thinker:
Sestak cover story starts to unravel
Ed Lasky
"Crafting a cover story that is consistent with awkward facts is hard. Did the best and the brightest miss this? Sestak was not eligible to serve on the Intelligence Advisory Board. Byron York of the Washington Examiner reports:
'In a little-noticed passage Friday, the New York Times reported that Rep. Joe Sestak was not eligible for a place on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, the job he was reportedly offered by former President Bill Clinton. And indeed a look at the Board's website reveals this restriction:
"The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors."
As a sitting member of Congress, Sestak was not eligible for the job. [....]
The statement from White House counsel Robert Bauer did not specifically mention the intelligence board, but speaking to reporters Friday, Sestak said of his conversation with Clinton, "At the time, I heard the words ‘presidential board,' and that's all I heard...I heard ‘presidential board,' and I think it was intel." In addition, the Times reported that "people briefed on the matter said one option was an appointment" to the intelligence board. But the White House could not legally have placed Sestak on the board.'
An already implausible story has become much harder to believe."
I guess we are supposed to believe that the Obama Administration was not aware that a government worker could not be appointed to the Intelligence Advisory Board. What a bunch of incompetents! Don't worry, Diogenes, the American Pravda will ignore this little tidbit.
Joke of the Day: Obama and the Virginians
This is the closest Obama will get to the Pearly Gates, unless he recognizes that Jesus is Lord and not himself.
Read from Liberty Pundits:
"When Obama died, George Washington met him at the Pearly Gates. He slapped him across the face and yelled, 'How dare you try to destroy the Nation I helped conceive?'
Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted, 'You wanted to end our liberties but you failed.'
James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, 'This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!'
Thomas Jefferson was next, beat Obama with a long cane and snarled, 'It was evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence.'
The beatings and thrashings continued as George Mason, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the radical, socialist, leader.
As Obama lay bleeding and in pain, an Angel appeared. Obama wept and Said, 'This is not what you promised me.'
The Angel replied, 'I told you there would be 72 VIRGINIANS waiting for you in Heaven. What did you think I said?'…..'You really need to listen when someone is trying to tell you something!'"
Read from Liberty Pundits:
"When Obama died, George Washington met him at the Pearly Gates. He slapped him across the face and yelled, 'How dare you try to destroy the Nation I helped conceive?'
Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted, 'You wanted to end our liberties but you failed.'
James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, 'This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!'
Thomas Jefferson was next, beat Obama with a long cane and snarled, 'It was evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence.'
The beatings and thrashings continued as George Mason, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the radical, socialist, leader.
As Obama lay bleeding and in pain, an Angel appeared. Obama wept and Said, 'This is not what you promised me.'
The Angel replied, 'I told you there would be 72 VIRGINIANS waiting for you in Heaven. What did you think I said?'…..'You really need to listen when someone is trying to tell you something!'"
Friday, May 28, 2010
The Thrill Is Gone!
No more thrill up his leg? Wow! What a sudden turn-around! Chris Matthews is now comparing Obama's weak response to the Gulf oil spill to Jimmy Carter's Iranian hostage crisis. You can't get much worse than that.
Charles Krauthammer brings up some interesting points regarding the off-shore oil drilling in the Gulf. Read from Human Events:
Whose Blowout Is It, Anyway?
by Charles Krauthammer
"Here’s my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?
Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there.
As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we’ve had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
So we go deep, ultra deep -- to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.
There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That’s a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?
Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they’ve escaped any mention at all.
The other culprits are pretty obvious. It starts with BP, which seems not only to have had an amazing string of perfect-storm engineering lapses but no contingencies to deal with a catastrophic system failure.
However, the railing against BP for its performance since the accident is harder to understand. I attribute no virtue to BP, just self-interest. What possible interest can it have to do anything but cap the well as quickly as possible? Every day that oil is spilled means millions more in losses, cleanup and restitution.
Federal officials who rage against BP would like to deflect attention from their own role in this disaster. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, whose department’s laxity in environmental permitting and safety oversight renders it among the many bearing responsibility, expresses outrage at BP’s inability to stop the leak, and even threatens to 'push them out of the way.'
'To replace them with what?' asked the estimable, admirably candid Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander. No one has the assets and expertise of BP. The federal government can fight wars, conduct a census and hand out billions in earmarks, but it has not a clue how to cap a one-mile-deep out-of-control oil well.
Obama didn't help much with his finger-pointing Rose Garden speech in which he denounced finger-pointing, then proceeded to blame everyone but himself. Even the grace note of admitting some federal responsibility turned sour when he reflexively added that these problems have been going on 'for a decade or more' -- translation: Bush did it -- while, in contrast, his own interior secretary had worked diligently to solve the problem 'from the day he took office.'
Really? Why hadn't we heard a thing about this? What about the September 2009 letter from Obama's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration accusing Interior's Minerals Management Service of understating the 'risk and impacts' of a major oil spill? When you get a blowout 15 months into your administration, and your own Interior Department had given BP a 'categorical' environmental exemption in April 2009, the buck stops.
In the end, speeches will make no difference. If BP can cap the well in time to prevent an absolute calamity in the Gulf, the president will escape politically. If it doesn't -- if the gusher isn't stopped before the relief wells are completed in August -- it will become Obama's Katrina.
That will be unfair, because Obama is no more responsible for the damage caused by this than Bush was for the damage caused by Katrina. But that's the nature of American politics and its presidential cult of personality: We expect our presidents to play Superman. Helplessness, however undeniable, is no defense.
Moreover, Obama has never been overly modest about his own powers. Two years ago next week, he declared that history will mark his ascent to the presidency as the moment when 'our planet began to heal' and 'the rise of the oceans began to slow.'
Well, when you anoint yourself King Canute, you mustn’t be surprised when your subjects expect you to command the tides."
Since Obama is clueless regarding what action to take down in the Gulf, perhaps he should seek advice from someone who is well informed with the oil industry: Sarah Palin. Imagine such a scenario. Obama would permit the entire Gulf Coast to be destroyed before he would humble himself and ask her for advice.
Read from Joshua Pundit:
Sarah Palin: Passing The Buck Doesn’t “Plug the D#*! Hole”
"To repeat a point I made earlier, whatever you might think of Governor Sarah Palin she's proven that knows oil and she knows how to slap oil companies around and get action. Does anyone doubt that if she were in the White House, even as a sitting Vice President that this would have been handled a lot quicker and a lot better?
Here she shows you exactly what I mean:
Nearly 40 days in, our President finally addressed the American people’s growing concerns about the Gulf Coast oil spill. Listening to today’s press conference, you’d think the administration has been working with single-minded focus on the Gulf gusher since the start of the disaster. In reality, their focus has been anything but singular to help solve this monumental problem.
If the President really was fully focused on this issue from day one, why did it take nine whole days before the administration asked the Department of Defense for help in deploying equipment needed for the extreme depth spill site?
Why was the expert group assembled by Energy Commissioner Steven Chu only set up three weeks after the start of this disaster?
Why was Governor Jindal forced more than a month after the start of the disaster to go on national television to beg for materials needed to tackle the oil spill and for federal approval to build offshore sand barriers that are imperative to protect his state’s coastline?
Why was no mention of the spill made by our President for days on end while Americans waited to hear if he grasped the import of his leadership on this energy issue?
Why have several countries and competent organizations who offered help or expertise in dealing with the spill not even received a response back from the Unified Area Command to this day?"
Read it all.
Charles Krauthammer brings up some interesting points regarding the off-shore oil drilling in the Gulf. Read from Human Events:
Whose Blowout Is It, Anyway?
by Charles Krauthammer
"Here’s my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?
Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there.
As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we’ve had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
So we go deep, ultra deep -- to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.
There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That’s a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?
Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they’ve escaped any mention at all.
The other culprits are pretty obvious. It starts with BP, which seems not only to have had an amazing string of perfect-storm engineering lapses but no contingencies to deal with a catastrophic system failure.
However, the railing against BP for its performance since the accident is harder to understand. I attribute no virtue to BP, just self-interest. What possible interest can it have to do anything but cap the well as quickly as possible? Every day that oil is spilled means millions more in losses, cleanup and restitution.
Federal officials who rage against BP would like to deflect attention from their own role in this disaster. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, whose department’s laxity in environmental permitting and safety oversight renders it among the many bearing responsibility, expresses outrage at BP’s inability to stop the leak, and even threatens to 'push them out of the way.'
'To replace them with what?' asked the estimable, admirably candid Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander. No one has the assets and expertise of BP. The federal government can fight wars, conduct a census and hand out billions in earmarks, but it has not a clue how to cap a one-mile-deep out-of-control oil well.
Obama didn't help much with his finger-pointing Rose Garden speech in which he denounced finger-pointing, then proceeded to blame everyone but himself. Even the grace note of admitting some federal responsibility turned sour when he reflexively added that these problems have been going on 'for a decade or more' -- translation: Bush did it -- while, in contrast, his own interior secretary had worked diligently to solve the problem 'from the day he took office.'
Really? Why hadn't we heard a thing about this? What about the September 2009 letter from Obama's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration accusing Interior's Minerals Management Service of understating the 'risk and impacts' of a major oil spill? When you get a blowout 15 months into your administration, and your own Interior Department had given BP a 'categorical' environmental exemption in April 2009, the buck stops.
In the end, speeches will make no difference. If BP can cap the well in time to prevent an absolute calamity in the Gulf, the president will escape politically. If it doesn't -- if the gusher isn't stopped before the relief wells are completed in August -- it will become Obama's Katrina.
That will be unfair, because Obama is no more responsible for the damage caused by this than Bush was for the damage caused by Katrina. But that's the nature of American politics and its presidential cult of personality: We expect our presidents to play Superman. Helplessness, however undeniable, is no defense.
Moreover, Obama has never been overly modest about his own powers. Two years ago next week, he declared that history will mark his ascent to the presidency as the moment when 'our planet began to heal' and 'the rise of the oceans began to slow.'
Well, when you anoint yourself King Canute, you mustn’t be surprised when your subjects expect you to command the tides."
Since Obama is clueless regarding what action to take down in the Gulf, perhaps he should seek advice from someone who is well informed with the oil industry: Sarah Palin. Imagine such a scenario. Obama would permit the entire Gulf Coast to be destroyed before he would humble himself and ask her for advice.
Read from Joshua Pundit:
Sarah Palin: Passing The Buck Doesn’t “Plug the D#*! Hole”
"To repeat a point I made earlier, whatever you might think of Governor Sarah Palin she's proven that knows oil and she knows how to slap oil companies around and get action. Does anyone doubt that if she were in the White House, even as a sitting Vice President that this would have been handled a lot quicker and a lot better?
Here she shows you exactly what I mean:
Nearly 40 days in, our President finally addressed the American people’s growing concerns about the Gulf Coast oil spill. Listening to today’s press conference, you’d think the administration has been working with single-minded focus on the Gulf gusher since the start of the disaster. In reality, their focus has been anything but singular to help solve this monumental problem.
If the President really was fully focused on this issue from day one, why did it take nine whole days before the administration asked the Department of Defense for help in deploying equipment needed for the extreme depth spill site?
Why was the expert group assembled by Energy Commissioner Steven Chu only set up three weeks after the start of this disaster?
Why was Governor Jindal forced more than a month after the start of the disaster to go on national television to beg for materials needed to tackle the oil spill and for federal approval to build offshore sand barriers that are imperative to protect his state’s coastline?
Why was no mention of the spill made by our President for days on end while Americans waited to hear if he grasped the import of his leadership on this energy issue?
Why have several countries and competent organizations who offered help or expertise in dealing with the spill not even received a response back from the Unified Area Command to this day?"
Read it all.
What a Load of Crap!
Most transparent administration ever, huh?
Isn't it interesting that President Obama meets with a known perjurer to concoct a story to cover his tracks in the Sestak scandal? Are we supposed to actually believe that, on behalf of the White House, Bill Clinton offered Joe Sestak a non-paying job to keep him from running against Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Senate race?
I see a few problems with this story. Back in February, Joe Sestak stated that he was contacted by "somebody in the White House" and offered a "high ranking job" if he would refrain from running against Specter. Since when is Bill Clinton "somebody in the White House," and why on earth would the Obama Administration involve him? Since when is a non-paying job on an advisory board considered a "high ranking job"? And what incentive would Sestak have to give up his Senate run for a lousy job on an advisory board? If it were as simple as they say, why didn't they address this in February when the story first made the news?
It should be interesting to see how Pennsylvanians will react to this farce. Early on, Joe Sestak appeared to be an honorable man for his willingness to expose the Obama Administration's bribe, especially since this came from fellow Democrats. But now, with pressure from the regime, Sestak has lowered his standards and is taking marching orders from the Obama corruptocrats. He's caved in to Washington politics and its dishonesty and corruption.
However, there may be a way to hold Sestak accountable for his obvious lie. Tom Corbett, the Republican attorney general in Pennsylvania who happens to be running for governor, may just be the key, and he needs to get Sestak under oath.
Read from Dick Morris:
PENN AG TOM CORBETT SHOULD EMPANEL GRAND JURY IN SESTAK AFFAIR
By Dick Morris and Judge Andrew Napolitano
"With the Democrats in contol of Washington, don't look for any investigation into this controversy.
With a Democratic Attorney General in Washington, a Democratic president, and both houses of Congress solidly in Democratic control, it is obviously futile to hope that the possible bribery of Joe Sestak to induce him to withdraw from the Senate race against Arlen Specter will be fully investigated. But, as the facts of this scandal grudgingly emerge from the White House and from Congressman Sestak, there is an alternative way to pursue justice.
The Pennsylvania Attorney General, Tom Corbett — who is the Republican nominee for Governor this year — has ample jurisdiction to convene a grand jury to get to the bottom of the scandal and answer the key questions:
1. Who offered a job to Sestak?
2. What job was proffered?
3. And did the president know of the offer?
Corbett’s jurisdiction stems from the concept of universal jurisdiction, now accepted virtually everywhere. The concept is simple. If someone on the New Jersey side of the Hudson River fires a pistol across the Hudson and the bullet from the pistol hits someone on the NY side, where did the crime take place? For about 600 years, the answer would have been in NY, where the harm was caused. Under the Reagan administration, and in response to urgings from the Meese Justice Department, the courts began to accept the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. This principle gives jurisdiction to law enforcement in the place wherever any act occurred that may have resulted in a crime. Thus, under our scenario above, the shooter could be prosecuted in NJ or NY.
Thus, if Cong. Sestak was in one of his homes, in PA or VA, when he received a telephone call offering him a job if he withdrew from the PA Senate primary against Sen. Arlen Specter, law enforcement authorities in PA and VA — both of which have Republican state Attorneys General — can subpoena Cong. Sestak to testify before a state grand jury and compel him to answer the who, what, when, and where that everyone has a right to know.
The people of the United States and, particularly the people of Pennsylvania, want these questions to be answered honestly. They will not settle for a Democratic stonewall that refuses to let the truth emerge.
Under our federal system, we need not tolerate giving one party the power to be the prosecutor, judge, defendant, defense attorney, and jury. We can open the process to checks and balances.
Corbett should make it possible for the truth to emerge by convening a grand jury and summoning Sestak, Emanuel, and anyone else who may have been involved to answer questions under oath."
Thursday, May 27, 2010
The Incompetent John Brennan
The Islamic terrorists do not need their own version of Comedy Central. If they want to get a few chuckles, all they need to do is listen to what comes out of the mouths of the incompetents in the Obama regime.
The president's top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan is a total nitwit. This is one of the guys who is in charge of keeping us safe. We are headed for another 9/11 with fools like Brennan running the show.
Lesson of the day: We cannot, I repeat, we cannot trust Democrats with the security of our nation. Our lives and the lives of those we love are at stake.
Pamela Geller is absolutely right; you can't make this stuff up.
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
Obama's Counterterrorism Adviser Calls Jihad "Legitimate Tenet of Islam"
"The caliphate in the White House. It makes you wonder what the Obama administration would have called the 19 jihadis on 911. Frustrated illegal alien ......pilots?
Direct from the 'you can't make this stuff up' department,
Counterterror Adviser Defends Jihad as 'Legitimate Tenet of Islam' FOX
'The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.
During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."
He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not "terrorism," because terrorism is a "tactic," and not terror, because terror is a "state of mind" -- though Brennan's title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word "terrorism" in it. But then Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either.
"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.
The technical, broadest definition of jihad is a "struggle" in the name of Islam and the term does not connote "holy war" for all Muslims. However, jihad frequently connotes images of military combat or warfare, and some of the world's most wanted terrorists including Usama bin Laden commonly use the word to call for war against the West.
Brennan defined the enemy as members of bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and "its terrorist affiliates."
But Brennan argued that it would be "counterproductive" for the United States to use the term, as it would "play into the false perception" that the "murderers" leading war against the West are doing so in the name of a "holy cause."
"Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism -- that the United States is somehow at war against Islam," he said.
The comment comes after Brennan, in a February speech in which he described his respect for the tolerance and devotion of Middle Eastern nations, referred to Jerusalem on first reference by its Arabic name, Al-Quds.
"In all my travels the city I have come to love most is al-Quds, Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together," Brennan said at an event co-sponsored by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Islamic Center at New York University and the Islamic Law Students Association at NYU.'"
"those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in 'religious terms'" Oh really! Hey, Mr. Brennan, I believe these individuals all have one thing in common: Islam. It's their religion which calls them to these dastardly deeds. Wake up!
The president's top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan is a total nitwit. This is one of the guys who is in charge of keeping us safe. We are headed for another 9/11 with fools like Brennan running the show.
Lesson of the day: We cannot, I repeat, we cannot trust Democrats with the security of our nation. Our lives and the lives of those we love are at stake.
Pamela Geller is absolutely right; you can't make this stuff up.
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
Obama's Counterterrorism Adviser Calls Jihad "Legitimate Tenet of Islam"
"The caliphate in the White House. It makes you wonder what the Obama administration would have called the 19 jihadis on 911. Frustrated illegal alien ......pilots?
Direct from the 'you can't make this stuff up' department,
Counterterror Adviser Defends Jihad as 'Legitimate Tenet of Islam' FOX
'The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.
During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."
He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not "terrorism," because terrorism is a "tactic," and not terror, because terror is a "state of mind" -- though Brennan's title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word "terrorism" in it. But then Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either.
"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.
The technical, broadest definition of jihad is a "struggle" in the name of Islam and the term does not connote "holy war" for all Muslims. However, jihad frequently connotes images of military combat or warfare, and some of the world's most wanted terrorists including Usama bin Laden commonly use the word to call for war against the West.
Brennan defined the enemy as members of bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and "its terrorist affiliates."
But Brennan argued that it would be "counterproductive" for the United States to use the term, as it would "play into the false perception" that the "murderers" leading war against the West are doing so in the name of a "holy cause."
"Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism -- that the United States is somehow at war against Islam," he said.
The comment comes after Brennan, in a February speech in which he described his respect for the tolerance and devotion of Middle Eastern nations, referred to Jerusalem on first reference by its Arabic name, Al-Quds.
"In all my travels the city I have come to love most is al-Quds, Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together," Brennan said at an event co-sponsored by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Islamic Center at New York University and the Islamic Law Students Association at NYU.'"
"those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in 'religious terms'" Oh really! Hey, Mr. Brennan, I believe these individuals all have one thing in common: Islam. It's their religion which calls them to these dastardly deeds. Wake up!
The Sestak Controversy Continues
It's the Chicago way. First, Rod Blagojevich tried to sell Obama's Senate seat. Now, we have someone in the Obama regime who attempted to bribe Joe Sestak with a job offer in exchange for him withdrawing from the Pennsylvania Senate primary race against Arlen Specter. And that ain't all, folks. This same action took place in Colorado, with Democratic candidate, Andrew Romanoff, though little has been said about it, thanks to the corrupt American Pravda. Chicago thug-style politics, pure and simple, and Obama excels at it.
Read from The Hill:
Issa: Sestak scandal could be Obama's 'Watergate'
"An e-mail from Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) campaign suggested Wednesday that the controversy over Rep. Joe Sestak's (D-Pa.) alleged administration job offer could be President Barack Obama's Watergate scandal.
In an e-mail with the subject line 'The Sestak Affair - Obama's Watergate?', the ranking member on the Oversight and Government Reform committee focused on 'long-standing questions' about the offer Sestak says was made to him to urge him to drop out of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary.
The campaign e-mail says the allegations would amount to three felony charges of bribery and corruption.
'Congressman Sestak has continued to repeat his story whenever asked without varying from the original version. The White House however has arrogantly and wrongly assumed that they can sweep this matter under the rug,' Issa, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, says in the e-mail.
'This may be the way business is done in Chicago, but it’s not the way things are done in our nation’s capitol [sic] and I am intent on getting to the bottom of this.'
The congressman noted that Sestak has otherwise been mum on the details of the job offer, but added that it is 'widely speculated' that Secretary of the Navy was the job in question.
'Joe Sestak realized that he made a mistake by letting the cat out of the bag. It’s a mistake that might end his bid for U.S. Senate and damage President Barack Obama,' Issa continues. 'He doesn’t want to make things worse than they are, so he’s sticking to his story to maintain his own credibility, but will not cooperate with investigators to bring charges against the guilty White House official.
'If he’s telling the truth, an investigation must take place and justice must be served. If he’s lying, then he should immediately resign the race for Senate.'
A Senate GOP aide said the comparison was perhaps a bit 'melodramatic.'
'This is why we can’t have nice things,' the aide said. 'If the White House is lying, then they’re liars -- no melodramatic comparisons are necessary.'"
Read from The Hill:
Issa: Sestak scandal could be Obama's 'Watergate'
"An e-mail from Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) campaign suggested Wednesday that the controversy over Rep. Joe Sestak's (D-Pa.) alleged administration job offer could be President Barack Obama's Watergate scandal.
In an e-mail with the subject line 'The Sestak Affair - Obama's Watergate?', the ranking member on the Oversight and Government Reform committee focused on 'long-standing questions' about the offer Sestak says was made to him to urge him to drop out of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary.
The campaign e-mail says the allegations would amount to three felony charges of bribery and corruption.
'Congressman Sestak has continued to repeat his story whenever asked without varying from the original version. The White House however has arrogantly and wrongly assumed that they can sweep this matter under the rug,' Issa, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, says in the e-mail.
'This may be the way business is done in Chicago, but it’s not the way things are done in our nation’s capitol [sic] and I am intent on getting to the bottom of this.'
The congressman noted that Sestak has otherwise been mum on the details of the job offer, but added that it is 'widely speculated' that Secretary of the Navy was the job in question.
'Joe Sestak realized that he made a mistake by letting the cat out of the bag. It’s a mistake that might end his bid for U.S. Senate and damage President Barack Obama,' Issa continues. 'He doesn’t want to make things worse than they are, so he’s sticking to his story to maintain his own credibility, but will not cooperate with investigators to bring charges against the guilty White House official.
'If he’s telling the truth, an investigation must take place and justice must be served. If he’s lying, then he should immediately resign the race for Senate.'
A Senate GOP aide said the comparison was perhaps a bit 'melodramatic.'
'This is why we can’t have nice things,' the aide said. 'If the White House is lying, then they’re liars -- no melodramatic comparisons are necessary.'"
Freedom of Speech in Jeopardy
Fascism is on the march. Obama and his Marxists colleagues have big plans to transform America into a socialist "paradise". However, there is one huge obstacle blocking their ambitions, and that is the American people who cherish their freedoms.
What to do? That's an easy one--silence the opposition. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what they are working to achieve.
Woodrow Wilson faced the same problem, and his solution was to imprison those who spoke out against his regime. Is this something we need to fear will happen again under the fascist Obama regime?
Read from Big Government:
Bloggers Beware – They’re Coming After You!
by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)
"Just when you thought it was safe to start expressing your right to free speech, Democrats in Congress are gearing up for a vote on a new piece of legislation to blatantly undermine the First Amendment. Known as the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175), this bill – written by the head of the Democrats’ congressional campaign committee – is their response to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In short, the Supreme Court found that the government could not restrict the free speech rights of individuals or other entities wishing to participate in the political dialogue.
It is hard to see how establishing a level playing field for free speech – as our Founding Fathers did by making it a right under the Constitution and which the Supreme Court upheld – is a threat to our democracy. Nevertheless, the White House and their allies on Capitol Hill see honest criticism as a threat to forcing their big government, liberal agenda through Congress. So, there is no time like the present – namely five months before an election – to start putting the muzzle on those individuals and organizations not sticking to the Democrats’ talking points.
Under the DISCLOSE Act, certain incorporated entities would be restricted in how they can exercise their free speech rights. There is an exemption for some in the media sphere like newspapers, TV news, and the like. However, there is one driving force in today’s public debate that is NOT exempt. Bloggers will not have the same exemption provided to other media sources. Never mind that the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Citizens United case stated, 'Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment.'
For many bloggers to exercise their free speech rights, they would have to jump through the same onerous new hoops as many businesses, nonprofit groups, and even such threats to democracy as your local chamber of commerce. If this sounds like an absurd overreach by one party in power, I invite you to take a look at their government takeover of health care, taxpayer-funded bailouts, and general hostility to private sector economic growth.
The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats have not racked up a stellar record of transparency and openness. For a White House that touted its willingness to engage critics openly in hopes of staving off greater partisan rancor, Obama’s team has endorsed backroom deal-making, special giveaways to garner support for their agenda, and a closed-door decision-making process that has the American people more fed up with Washington. Now, under their brand of leadership, they stand ready to stifle free speech via legislative fiat.
Democrats should not be allowed to give themselves carte blanche to shut down the ability of those in the blogosphere or elsewhere to participate in our nation’s collective dialogue. That flies in the face of our most sacred rights as American citizens."
What to do? That's an easy one--silence the opposition. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what they are working to achieve.
Woodrow Wilson faced the same problem, and his solution was to imprison those who spoke out against his regime. Is this something we need to fear will happen again under the fascist Obama regime?
Read from Big Government:
Bloggers Beware – They’re Coming After You!
by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)
"Just when you thought it was safe to start expressing your right to free speech, Democrats in Congress are gearing up for a vote on a new piece of legislation to blatantly undermine the First Amendment. Known as the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175), this bill – written by the head of the Democrats’ congressional campaign committee – is their response to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In short, the Supreme Court found that the government could not restrict the free speech rights of individuals or other entities wishing to participate in the political dialogue.
It is hard to see how establishing a level playing field for free speech – as our Founding Fathers did by making it a right under the Constitution and which the Supreme Court upheld – is a threat to our democracy. Nevertheless, the White House and their allies on Capitol Hill see honest criticism as a threat to forcing their big government, liberal agenda through Congress. So, there is no time like the present – namely five months before an election – to start putting the muzzle on those individuals and organizations not sticking to the Democrats’ talking points.
Under the DISCLOSE Act, certain incorporated entities would be restricted in how they can exercise their free speech rights. There is an exemption for some in the media sphere like newspapers, TV news, and the like. However, there is one driving force in today’s public debate that is NOT exempt. Bloggers will not have the same exemption provided to other media sources. Never mind that the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Citizens United case stated, 'Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment.'
For many bloggers to exercise their free speech rights, they would have to jump through the same onerous new hoops as many businesses, nonprofit groups, and even such threats to democracy as your local chamber of commerce. If this sounds like an absurd overreach by one party in power, I invite you to take a look at their government takeover of health care, taxpayer-funded bailouts, and general hostility to private sector economic growth.
The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats have not racked up a stellar record of transparency and openness. For a White House that touted its willingness to engage critics openly in hopes of staving off greater partisan rancor, Obama’s team has endorsed backroom deal-making, special giveaways to garner support for their agenda, and a closed-door decision-making process that has the American people more fed up with Washington. Now, under their brand of leadership, they stand ready to stifle free speech via legislative fiat.
Democrats should not be allowed to give themselves carte blanche to shut down the ability of those in the blogosphere or elsewhere to participate in our nation’s collective dialogue. That flies in the face of our most sacred rights as American citizens."
Unarmed National Guard Sent to the Mexican Border
It was wrong when President Bush refused to secure our borders, just as it is wrong now that President Obama is in charge. Political stunts by both parties are endangering Americans, and it's absolutely unexcusable. A president's first and most important priority should be securing our nation. But, politicians care more about victories at the voting booth than they do about our safety.
With the new Arizona immigration bill, we constantly hear about Mexicans coming across our borders. Unfortunately, there are more than just Hispanics entering our country illegally. In this age of Islamic terror, we cannot afford to not secure our borders.
Read about the latest political stunt from the Obama Administration to pretend to do something about the crisis at the border, via Gateway Pundit:
Confirmed: Unarmed National Guard Troops Won’t Be Used to Stop Illegal Immigrants
"The illegal immigrants aren’t just from Mexico:
(FOX News)
Mexican President Calderon was right.
Those 1,200 National Guard troops who are being sent to the border… Will not be used to curb illegal immigration.
The AFP reported:
'US National Guard troops being sent to the Mexican border will be used to stem the flow of guns and drugs across the frontier and not to enforce US immigration laws, the State Department said Wednesday.
The clarification came after the Mexican government urged Washington not to use the additional troops to go after illegal immigrants.
President Barack Obama on Tuesday authorized the deployment of up to 1,200 additional troops to border areas but State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters, “It’s not about immigration.”
He said the move was “fully consistent with our efforts to do our part to stem, you know, violence, to interdict the flow of dangerous people and dangerous goods — drugs, guns, people.”
He said the extra troops would be used to free up civilians engaged in support functions so that law enforcement personnel can be increased along the 2,000-mile-long (3,200 kilometer) border.
Nearly 13 million Mexicans live in the United States, more than half of them illegally.
“We have explained the president’s announcement to the government of Mexico, and they fully understand the rationale behind it,” Crowley said.'
Oh… And, the National Guard troops will not be armed."
1200 unarmed National Guard soldiers at the Mexican border. Oh, that should accomplish much. The people running our country, you know, the best and brightest, are acting like total morons.
With the new Arizona immigration bill, we constantly hear about Mexicans coming across our borders. Unfortunately, there are more than just Hispanics entering our country illegally. In this age of Islamic terror, we cannot afford to not secure our borders.
Read about the latest political stunt from the Obama Administration to pretend to do something about the crisis at the border, via Gateway Pundit:
Confirmed: Unarmed National Guard Troops Won’t Be Used to Stop Illegal Immigrants
"The illegal immigrants aren’t just from Mexico:
(FOX News)
Mexican President Calderon was right.
Those 1,200 National Guard troops who are being sent to the border… Will not be used to curb illegal immigration.
The AFP reported:
'US National Guard troops being sent to the Mexican border will be used to stem the flow of guns and drugs across the frontier and not to enforce US immigration laws, the State Department said Wednesday.
The clarification came after the Mexican government urged Washington not to use the additional troops to go after illegal immigrants.
President Barack Obama on Tuesday authorized the deployment of up to 1,200 additional troops to border areas but State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters, “It’s not about immigration.”
He said the move was “fully consistent with our efforts to do our part to stem, you know, violence, to interdict the flow of dangerous people and dangerous goods — drugs, guns, people.”
He said the extra troops would be used to free up civilians engaged in support functions so that law enforcement personnel can be increased along the 2,000-mile-long (3,200 kilometer) border.
Nearly 13 million Mexicans live in the United States, more than half of them illegally.
“We have explained the president’s announcement to the government of Mexico, and they fully understand the rationale behind it,” Crowley said.'
Oh… And, the National Guard troops will not be armed."
1200 unarmed National Guard soldiers at the Mexican border. Oh, that should accomplish much. The people running our country, you know, the best and brightest, are acting like total morons.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Biography on the "Manchurian President"
Time to visit the library or the local bookstore. A revealing book about President Obama's ties to radicals, written by investigative journalist Aaron Klein, is hot off the press. Just in time for Father's Day.
Read from Bellalu0:
"The book uncovers a far-leftist, anti-American nexus that has been instrumental in not only helping build Obama’s political career but in securing his presidency. Klein, with Brenda J. Elliott details with shocking precision how this nexus continues to influence Obama and the White House and is involved in drafting policy aimed at reshaping our country.
Highlights of The Manchurian President:
*Obama’s mysterious college years unearthed
*Shocking new details of Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers and other Weathermen terrorists
*Obama’s ties to Islam and black liberation theology
*Startling facts about Obama’s eligibility to serve as president
*Obama’s membership in a socialist party probed
*How Obama’s 'hope,' 'change' slogans stem from communist activism
*Radical socalists involved in drafting stimulus bill, ObamaCare
*Communists, socialists and other radicals on team Obama, including an expose on Obama’s top guns in the White House
*Never-before-revealed depth of Obama’s relationship with ACORN"
Meet the author, via Fox News:
President Obama's Radical Network Exposed
"This is a rush transcript from 'Hannity,' May 4, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Ever since Barack Obama arrived on the national political stage, this program has shined the spotlight on his connections to controversial figures like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. And now a new book delves deeper into the president's radical associations.
It's called 'The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists.'
The author, Aaron Klein, has a radio show and often writes for World Net Daily. He joins us now.
Aaron, good to see you. Thanks for being here.
AARON KLEIN, AUTHOR, 'THE MANCHURIAN PRESIDENT': Thanks so much for having me.
HANNITY: Alright. Even the title, it's going to make liberals' head explode. And what we just — explain what you mean, Manchurian candidate and the title of the book?
KLEIN: I know it's a very sensational title. The book, though, is extremely well documented. We're talking about almost 900 footnotes.
And by Manchurian what we mean, we don't believe, me and my co-author, Brenda J. Elliott, we don't that Obama is a sleeper agent for communism, which is what the original book was about.
But we document thoroughly — it's not our opinion, it's fact — that Obama is tied to an anti-American fringe nexus that was instrumental in building his political career from the beginning, all the way through now with the White House.
We expose extremists currently in the White House. And also outside helping to draft different legislation that's affecting everyday American lives.
HANNITY: I've chronicled the appointment of these 'czars,' Kevin Jennings and Van Jones and Holdren and Anita Dunn. I mean, one person after another; I mean, the list goes on and on. Very extreme. Most Americans don't understand this. And I've chronicled it.
Go back to the Ayers connection, for example. I always thought 'just a guy in the neighborhood' was total baloney. And yet he got away with that throughout the entire campaign.
KLEIN: He did. And actually, Ayers is key. We can go back to the beginning to Obama's childhood when we found out we — it's actually exclusive to the book — that he went to a certain Sunday school that was affiliated with the ideology of Bill Ayers. It was in Hawaii, where deserters from the Students for a Democratic Society from Bill Ayers' organization used to hole up in this church. But OK, so you can't hold him responsible for that.
And then we find out where he first met Bill Ayers, which was in 1988.
HANNITY: Right.
KLEIN: Actually. And very interestingly, in Obama's book, in 'Dreams From My Father,' he talks about his first job at what's called the ABC Coalition. And he says that he was hired by a guy named Marty Kaufman. Well, Kaufman doesn't exist. It's Kellman (ph), a Marxist Alinsky-ite. And so the thing with Ayers is that it's just the beginning of a radical nexus.
HANNITY: You — and you even talk about the connection to the Nation of Islam. Does he have a relationship with Louis Farrakhan?
KLEIN: We know certainly that he attended Louie Farrakhan's Million Man March. And we know, as well, that Obama, for 20-something years, went to the Trinity United Church of Christ, where Farrakhan gave guest lectures. And we went through, actually, the church correspondence where the Nation of Islam, Louie Farrakhan, was listed many times. Actually, Obama was — they were on the cover.
HANNITY: They were on the front cover together.
KLEIN: They were on the front cover. But it goes on. The Nation of Islam actually was, in part, on Obama's payroll in Chicago in the early days.
And David Axelrod, by the way, he was — he sides with the Nation of Islam. I know everybody believes he's a Jew and he's Jewish, but he's on the board of St. Sabinas, which is in Chicago. That was where you and I were reporting during the campaign of Michael Pfleger, the guy who said that Hillary cries because she's white.
So the bottom line is that there's this extreme nexus that is currently drafting White House policies, not just when Obama was a child. It's not just when Obama was being politically mentored in college. And we actually uncover a lot of his college years in the book.
But it's here; it's now. And Americans need to understand who is drafting this key legislation and what's behind them.
HANNITY: You go into detail that these radicals actually drafted the stimulus bill, which you talk about in some detail.
Look, we're only touching the surface here.
KLEIN: Yes.
HANNITY: So I guess in a broader sense people are going to have to read the book to get the specifics. But one last important question: how radical is he?
In other words, all your research, what you've come to conclude about Barack Obama, is he far more radical than — than even people like me and others that were on this case day in and day out ever imagined?
KLEIN: Absolutely. And here's what we need to be concerned about. It's about Alinsky ideology. It's boring from within in order to bring down the U.S. capitalist system.
And we uncover in the book Obama's extensive ties to Alinsky, including during the campaign, by the way, where his first trainers were trained by those from the Midwest Academy, which is an Alinsky-ite academy. So we have to worry about boring from within to bring down the U.S. system and a capitalist system. And I believe that that is Obama's ideology.
HANNITY: Alright, Aaron Klein. Your column's often on World Net Daily. The book is on World Net Daily and now in bookstores everywhere.
KLEIN: Everywhere. Amazon.com, as well.
HANNITY: Alright. 'The Manchurian President.' And thanks for being with us."
Read from Bellalu0:
"The book uncovers a far-leftist, anti-American nexus that has been instrumental in not only helping build Obama’s political career but in securing his presidency. Klein, with Brenda J. Elliott details with shocking precision how this nexus continues to influence Obama and the White House and is involved in drafting policy aimed at reshaping our country.
Highlights of The Manchurian President:
*Obama’s mysterious college years unearthed
*Shocking new details of Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers and other Weathermen terrorists
*Obama’s ties to Islam and black liberation theology
*Startling facts about Obama’s eligibility to serve as president
*Obama’s membership in a socialist party probed
*How Obama’s 'hope,' 'change' slogans stem from communist activism
*Radical socalists involved in drafting stimulus bill, ObamaCare
*Communists, socialists and other radicals on team Obama, including an expose on Obama’s top guns in the White House
*Never-before-revealed depth of Obama’s relationship with ACORN"
Meet the author, via Fox News:
President Obama's Radical Network Exposed
"This is a rush transcript from 'Hannity,' May 4, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Ever since Barack Obama arrived on the national political stage, this program has shined the spotlight on his connections to controversial figures like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. And now a new book delves deeper into the president's radical associations.
It's called 'The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists.'
The author, Aaron Klein, has a radio show and often writes for World Net Daily. He joins us now.
Aaron, good to see you. Thanks for being here.
AARON KLEIN, AUTHOR, 'THE MANCHURIAN PRESIDENT': Thanks so much for having me.
HANNITY: Alright. Even the title, it's going to make liberals' head explode. And what we just — explain what you mean, Manchurian candidate and the title of the book?
KLEIN: I know it's a very sensational title. The book, though, is extremely well documented. We're talking about almost 900 footnotes.
And by Manchurian what we mean, we don't believe, me and my co-author, Brenda J. Elliott, we don't that Obama is a sleeper agent for communism, which is what the original book was about.
But we document thoroughly — it's not our opinion, it's fact — that Obama is tied to an anti-American fringe nexus that was instrumental in building his political career from the beginning, all the way through now with the White House.
We expose extremists currently in the White House. And also outside helping to draft different legislation that's affecting everyday American lives.
HANNITY: I've chronicled the appointment of these 'czars,' Kevin Jennings and Van Jones and Holdren and Anita Dunn. I mean, one person after another; I mean, the list goes on and on. Very extreme. Most Americans don't understand this. And I've chronicled it.
Go back to the Ayers connection, for example. I always thought 'just a guy in the neighborhood' was total baloney. And yet he got away with that throughout the entire campaign.
KLEIN: He did. And actually, Ayers is key. We can go back to the beginning to Obama's childhood when we found out we — it's actually exclusive to the book — that he went to a certain Sunday school that was affiliated with the ideology of Bill Ayers. It was in Hawaii, where deserters from the Students for a Democratic Society from Bill Ayers' organization used to hole up in this church. But OK, so you can't hold him responsible for that.
And then we find out where he first met Bill Ayers, which was in 1988.
HANNITY: Right.
KLEIN: Actually. And very interestingly, in Obama's book, in 'Dreams From My Father,' he talks about his first job at what's called the ABC Coalition. And he says that he was hired by a guy named Marty Kaufman. Well, Kaufman doesn't exist. It's Kellman (ph), a Marxist Alinsky-ite. And so the thing with Ayers is that it's just the beginning of a radical nexus.
HANNITY: You — and you even talk about the connection to the Nation of Islam. Does he have a relationship with Louis Farrakhan?
KLEIN: We know certainly that he attended Louie Farrakhan's Million Man March. And we know, as well, that Obama, for 20-something years, went to the Trinity United Church of Christ, where Farrakhan gave guest lectures. And we went through, actually, the church correspondence where the Nation of Islam, Louie Farrakhan, was listed many times. Actually, Obama was — they were on the cover.
HANNITY: They were on the front cover together.
KLEIN: They were on the front cover. But it goes on. The Nation of Islam actually was, in part, on Obama's payroll in Chicago in the early days.
And David Axelrod, by the way, he was — he sides with the Nation of Islam. I know everybody believes he's a Jew and he's Jewish, but he's on the board of St. Sabinas, which is in Chicago. That was where you and I were reporting during the campaign of Michael Pfleger, the guy who said that Hillary cries because she's white.
So the bottom line is that there's this extreme nexus that is currently drafting White House policies, not just when Obama was a child. It's not just when Obama was being politically mentored in college. And we actually uncover a lot of his college years in the book.
But it's here; it's now. And Americans need to understand who is drafting this key legislation and what's behind them.
HANNITY: You go into detail that these radicals actually drafted the stimulus bill, which you talk about in some detail.
Look, we're only touching the surface here.
KLEIN: Yes.
HANNITY: So I guess in a broader sense people are going to have to read the book to get the specifics. But one last important question: how radical is he?
In other words, all your research, what you've come to conclude about Barack Obama, is he far more radical than — than even people like me and others that were on this case day in and day out ever imagined?
KLEIN: Absolutely. And here's what we need to be concerned about. It's about Alinsky ideology. It's boring from within in order to bring down the U.S. capitalist system.
And we uncover in the book Obama's extensive ties to Alinsky, including during the campaign, by the way, where his first trainers were trained by those from the Midwest Academy, which is an Alinsky-ite academy. So we have to worry about boring from within to bring down the U.S. system and a capitalist system. And I believe that that is Obama's ideology.
HANNITY: Alright, Aaron Klein. Your column's often on World Net Daily. The book is on World Net Daily and now in bookstores everywhere.
KLEIN: Everywhere. Amazon.com, as well.
HANNITY: Alright. 'The Manchurian President.' And thanks for being with us."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
