The following article reminds me of a story my mother told me some time ago. My family and I lived in the Middle East for three years when I was a child. We were traveling on a flight from London to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia (a city on the Persian Gulf). My mom witnessed a wealthy young Saudi woman who was dressed in sexy western attire, who prior to landing in Saudi Arabia, entered the plane's rest room and covered herself in the typical black head-to-toe garb which Saudi women are required to wear. As a child, I was oblivious to what was taking place before our very eyes so I missed the entire incident.
Decades later, we wondered what kind of lifestyle this woman led when she was in the West. Over the years, I've read of cases of Muslim women living promiscuous lives prior to marriage, and then having surgery to repair their torn hymens so that their husbands will think they are virgins at marriage.
Read this story from Jihad Watch and you will see how wealthy Muslim women often live a double life. And learn about how the British healthcare system is aiding them in their deception.
Sharia Special in the U.K.: National Health Service picks up the tab for "increasing number" of hymen restoration surgeries for Muslim women
"There is a virtually unlimited need, and an unlimited demand for health care the world over. It is a perpetually scarce and costly resource. So, what better way to spend it than in submission to Islamic mores?
Not that the taxpayer-funded virginity 'Mulligan' is new to the U.K. This has been going on for a number of years now.
But along with the matter of resources, this practice enables the non-engagement of the issues of honor killing and penalties enshrined in Islamic law. Indeed, for all parties involved in the transaction, there is much to be swept under the rug.
'NHS pays for Muslim virginity operations,' by Tim Stewart and David Pilditch for the Express, July 30 (thanks to Twostellas):
'AN INCREASING number of Muslim brides are having controversial pre-marriage "virginity repair" operations.
Taxpayers funded 116 hymen replacements on the NHS between 2005 and 2009, official figures revealed.
There were 30 operations in 2009 - up 25 per cent from 24 in 2005, it emerged yesterday.'
You'll want to read this next part sitting down:
'Private clinics report a huge surge in demand for the procedure, costing between £1,800 and £4,000. It means the taxpayer has forked out up to £400,000 over the four years to fund the half-hour operation.
Doctors say the trend is driven by young Muslim women under pressure from future husbands or relatives who insist they should be virgins.
Gynaecologist Dr Magdy Hend charges £1,850 for hymenoplasty at his Regency Clinic in Harley Street. He said: "In the past, we would do one or two a week. Sometimes now we get two or three a day. Demand has tripled."
Imam Dr Taj Hargey, chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre in Oxford, said it was "disappointing" that Muslim women in this country felt the need to resort "to subterfuge surgery".
The NHS says it does the operation only for "clinical need".'
Dear NHS: I've decided I want my tonsils back. Can you hook that up, too?"
Oh, the joys of being a woman in Islam. And to think that the NHS is performing these surgeries at taxpayer expense while denying necessary hip replacements and cataract surgery. Now, doesn't that make a lot of sense?
Saturday, July 31, 2010
The Mystery Continues
Is he or is he not? The question remains. Is President Barack Hussein Obama a closet Muslim?
Muslim expert Usama Dakdok addresses this issue and explains why a Muslim president would support abortion and homosexuality, two issues which Muslims typically oppose.
Dakdok grew up as a Christian in Egypt and now resides in the U.S. and has a ministry trying to reach Muslims in hopes of leading them out of their false cult and to a personal relationship with Jesus. An expert on Islam law, which he studied in college, he is convinced that Obama is indeed a Muslim.
Read what a retired Army general has to say about Obama's faith, via Human Events:
Obama The Muslim
by Major Gen. Jerry Curry
"My mother believed in 'common sense' testing. She said if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and acts like a duck; it’s a duck. She believed that actions speak louder than words and that only a liar said one thing and then did the opposite.
Would President Obama pass my mother’s 'is he a Muslim' test? Let’s see. President Obama says there is nothing more beautiful than the Muslim call to prayer in the evening. He says that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation.
Obama’s father and step-father were Muslims and he spent his childhood living in a Muslim country where his school enrollment records say his religion is Islam. As President of the United States he genuflects to the Muslim King of Saudi Arabia but not the Christian Queen of England. He thumbs his nose at America’s friends and bows to its enemies. In short, Obama quacks like a Muslim, waddles like a Muslim and acts like a Muslim, so is he a Muslim? My mother would say, 'Yes! He’s a Muslim through and through.'
Growing up as a Muslim, Obama must have learned that according to the Qur’an it is acceptable to lie, deceive and live by a double standard provided in so doing one advances Islamic goals. Muslims only pretend to trust and be friends with non-Muslims; in the deepest of their Muslim hearts they have been taught that all non-Muslims are infidels.
Speaking of double standards, Saudi Arabia is building mosques all over the world and Muslims are hoping to build a 13 story mosque at 'Ground Zero' in New York City. At the same time, Islam’s double standard mandates that no non-Muslim churches be built in Saudi Arabia or other Islamic countries.
A good example of this double standard principle in action was Yasser Arafat. He could seemingly enter into genuine peace negotiations with the United States and Israel and, at the same time; lie about it with complete sincerity. Routinely he made all sorts of promises and pronouncements in English, and the very next day said the exact opposite to an Arabic audience -- perhaps to him it wasn’t really lying, just being faithful to the teachings of the Qur’an.
Is it because President Obama is secretly a Muslim that he can so sincerely pretend, like Arafat, that his actions and policies have never put a strain on U.S. Israeli relations? 'If you look at every public statement I have made it has been a constant reaffirmation of the special relationship between the United States and Israel.' This is like President Clinton saying that it depends on what the meaning of is is.
In 2005 the U.S. promised Israel, in writing, that in future negotiations with the Palestinians we would not insist that Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. But last year the Obama Administration said that that promise would no longer be honored.
In the past, both Democrat and Republican Administrations have insisted that negotiations be based on a two-state solution, which means that for Palestinian refugees there can be no open 'right of return' to Israel
With open immigration the number of Palestinians living in Israel would quickly overwhelm the number of Jews, and soon the Jewish state would cease to exist. Candidate Obama, while running for president, made it clear that he did not support a 'right of return' for Palestinian refugees. But now that he’s president, he has reneged on that promise.
Months ago Obama promised to send 1,500 National Guard troops to the Arizona border and to spend at least $500 million on border security. Gov. Brewer is still waiting for the troops and money to arrive.
In a recent Muslim-double-standard speech, President Obama bragged that the southwest American border is as safe as it has ever been. But at the same time his Administration was putting up signs warning American citizens to stay away from the Arizona border area because, 'SMUGGLING AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY BE ENCOUNTERED IN THIS AREA.'
Is Obama a Muslim? You make the call."
Muslim expert Usama Dakdok addresses this issue and explains why a Muslim president would support abortion and homosexuality, two issues which Muslims typically oppose.
Dakdok grew up as a Christian in Egypt and now resides in the U.S. and has a ministry trying to reach Muslims in hopes of leading them out of their false cult and to a personal relationship with Jesus. An expert on Islam law, which he studied in college, he is convinced that Obama is indeed a Muslim.
Read what a retired Army general has to say about Obama's faith, via Human Events:
Obama The Muslim
by Major Gen. Jerry Curry
"My mother believed in 'common sense' testing. She said if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and acts like a duck; it’s a duck. She believed that actions speak louder than words and that only a liar said one thing and then did the opposite.
Would President Obama pass my mother’s 'is he a Muslim' test? Let’s see. President Obama says there is nothing more beautiful than the Muslim call to prayer in the evening. He says that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation.
Obama’s father and step-father were Muslims and he spent his childhood living in a Muslim country where his school enrollment records say his religion is Islam. As President of the United States he genuflects to the Muslim King of Saudi Arabia but not the Christian Queen of England. He thumbs his nose at America’s friends and bows to its enemies. In short, Obama quacks like a Muslim, waddles like a Muslim and acts like a Muslim, so is he a Muslim? My mother would say, 'Yes! He’s a Muslim through and through.'
Growing up as a Muslim, Obama must have learned that according to the Qur’an it is acceptable to lie, deceive and live by a double standard provided in so doing one advances Islamic goals. Muslims only pretend to trust and be friends with non-Muslims; in the deepest of their Muslim hearts they have been taught that all non-Muslims are infidels.
Speaking of double standards, Saudi Arabia is building mosques all over the world and Muslims are hoping to build a 13 story mosque at 'Ground Zero' in New York City. At the same time, Islam’s double standard mandates that no non-Muslim churches be built in Saudi Arabia or other Islamic countries.
A good example of this double standard principle in action was Yasser Arafat. He could seemingly enter into genuine peace negotiations with the United States and Israel and, at the same time; lie about it with complete sincerity. Routinely he made all sorts of promises and pronouncements in English, and the very next day said the exact opposite to an Arabic audience -- perhaps to him it wasn’t really lying, just being faithful to the teachings of the Qur’an.
Is it because President Obama is secretly a Muslim that he can so sincerely pretend, like Arafat, that his actions and policies have never put a strain on U.S. Israeli relations? 'If you look at every public statement I have made it has been a constant reaffirmation of the special relationship between the United States and Israel.' This is like President Clinton saying that it depends on what the meaning of is is.
In 2005 the U.S. promised Israel, in writing, that in future negotiations with the Palestinians we would not insist that Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. But last year the Obama Administration said that that promise would no longer be honored.
In the past, both Democrat and Republican Administrations have insisted that negotiations be based on a two-state solution, which means that for Palestinian refugees there can be no open 'right of return' to Israel
With open immigration the number of Palestinians living in Israel would quickly overwhelm the number of Jews, and soon the Jewish state would cease to exist. Candidate Obama, while running for president, made it clear that he did not support a 'right of return' for Palestinian refugees. But now that he’s president, he has reneged on that promise.
Months ago Obama promised to send 1,500 National Guard troops to the Arizona border and to spend at least $500 million on border security. Gov. Brewer is still waiting for the troops and money to arrive.
In a recent Muslim-double-standard speech, President Obama bragged that the southwest American border is as safe as it has ever been. But at the same time his Administration was putting up signs warning American citizens to stay away from the Arizona border area because, 'SMUGGLING AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY BE ENCOUNTERED IN THIS AREA.'
Is Obama a Muslim? You make the call."
Obama Exposed
All you ever wanted to know about President Barack Hussein Obama, but were unable to discover because the American Pravda refused to vet him, can be found in the new book recently released by Atlas Shrug's Pamela Geller, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America. Co-authored with Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer, it would make a great read as you head out for summer vacation. I know it is on the top of my must-read list as I prepare to go to the beach in a few weeks.
Read an interview of Geller from Front Page Magazine via Atlas Shrugs:
The Post-American Presidency
"Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Pamela Geller, founder, editor and publisher of the popular and award-winning weblog AtlasShrugs.com. She has won acclaim for her interviews with internationally renowned figures, including John Bolton, Geert Wilders, Bat Ye’or, Natan Sharansky, and many others, and has broken numerous important stories — notably the questionable sources of some of the financing of the Obama campaign. Her op-eds have been published in The Washington Times, The American Thinker, Israel National News, Frontpage Magazine, World Net Daily, and New Media Journal, among other publications. She is the co-author (with Robert Spencer) of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (forward by Ambassador John Bolton) — just released on July 27.
FP: Pamela Geller, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Tell us about your new book and what you have discovered about Obama’s war on America.
Geller: Thanks Jamie.
The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America is the product of three years of research I’ve done on Barack Obama: his socialist internationalism, his ties to America-haters and anti-Semites, his race-baiting, and more. As president, Obama is presiding over America’s decline, and is in many important ways the apostle of that decline. He is betraying Israel; warring against free speech; refusing to take real steps to stop Iran’s nuclear program, despite the many genocidal statements Ahmadinejad has made against Israel, and the open contempt the mullahs have shown for his efforts to reach out to them.
Obama is turning allies into enemies and enemies into allies; submitting the U.S. to international law; bankrupting us with socialist schemes both domestically and internationally; bypassing the democratic process and the system of checks and balances by governing through a proliferation of 'czars'; and using global warming as a pretext to redistribute wealth from the First World to the Third World.
He has appointed numerous proponents of the primacy of international law over U.S. law, including Harold Koh, legal adviser for the State Department; Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and now Elena Kagan; John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) – that is, the science czar; Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change – that is, the global-warming czar; and Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or Regulatory Czar.
Obama has never demonstrated any respect for the freedom of speech, the fundamental protection the Bill of Rights gives us against tyranny. He has appointed a proliferation of officials who have in various ways advocated restrictions on the freedom of speech: Kagan, Sunstein, Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission; and Attorney General Eric Holder.
Obama comes from a Muslim background, as detailed in the book, and has numerous friends and associates who are inveterate foes of Israel. Not just Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, but also Samantha Power, the National Security Council’s Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights; Robert Malley and Zbigniew Brzezinski, two key foreign policy advisers; Rosa Brooks, advisor to the undersecretary of Defense for policy; and Chuck Hagel, co-chair of the Intelligence Advisory Board.
The book details all this and much more, including Obama’s betrayal of the freedom movement in Iran and of the democratic forces in Honduras, and his attempts to use climate change to destroy American sovereignty. Everything flows from his core beliefs, which were shaped by some of his earliest experiences and confirmed by his later associations.
The book also makes some shocking new revelations, including details of how Obama took campaign money from Gaza, in violation of federal law; how ACORN, with which Barack Obama has been deeply involved for years, destroyed Republican voter registrations; the full truth about how making America safe for Sharia is not incidental, but is a cornerstone of Obama’s presidential program; and about how Obama is consistently, not just occasionally, anti-democratic and favors authoritarian regimes and measures.
FP: How come Obama’s Muslim background is never discussed in our media? And Obama camouflages it as well, even though it is a fact. Explain to us why this matters.
Geller: Jamie, the media doesn’t discuss it simply because it would reflect poorly on Obama. Yet it matters because Islam has since its inception had a political and expansionist character, and that that would mean that ties to Islam had a greater significance than simple allegiance to this or that religious group.
And Obama himself, with his Muslim father and stepfather and Muslim upbringing in Indonesia, knows the stakes involved. It is impossible in our post-9/11 world to be a leader and not know what Islam means, or at the very least know the hell being wreaked upon the free and not-so-free world by the warriors of Islamic jihad. And Obama has already told us which side he will be on when the lines are fully drawn: 'In the wake of 9/11,' he wrote in The Audacity of Hope, 'my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.' [1]
In the first year of his presidency, he showed in numerous ways that he would indeed stand with them.
FP: Tell us a bit about how anti-Semitism plays into all of this. We know Islam’s disposition to Jews and so, perhaps, Obama’s bullying of Israel is no coincidence at all?
Geller: Indeed Jamie, Islamic anti-Semitism is part of the Koranic imperative and the pervasive influence of Islamic Jew-hatred cannot be ignored when assessing the impact of Barack Obama’s early life experiences upon the later trajectory of his career. If a devout Muslim prays the obligatory five daily prayers, he will repeat the Shehadah, the first chapter of the Koran, seventeen times; that chapter concludes with prayers that Muslims generally understand as asking Allah not to make the believer like the Jews ('those who have earned Allah’s anger') or the Christians ('those who have gone astray'). The prayers generally conclude with the dua qunoot, a prayer that Allah’s wrath would overtake infidels.
Imagine the influence that all this – inculcating contempt for Jews and Christians seventeen times a day – might have on a young mind and a future president. Troubling psychological wiring might have been set in place for a lifetime.
Yet Obama has never spoken about the influence his early experiences with Islam had upon his mind and heart – in sharp contrast to others who were raised in Islam and left the faith. Obama would have had to make a decision to reject Islam.
If so, when did he make that decision? How?
Muslims who have left Islam are generally vocal about why they left: Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Walid Shoebat, and others have spoken out fearlessly on these issues. Obama may not wish to engage in critiques of Islam, but if he left Islam, he must have very definite thoughts about it. And even if this is simply not an important issue to him, then he can still appreciate how important it is – knowing what he knows about Islam and apostasy.
Apostasy is punishable by death in Islam. Yet there have been no calls for Obama’s death from the Islamic world. Why is this? Islam gives no free passes.
Obama’s posture on this is hard to define or understand – all the more so because this is a critical issue.
Transformational issues facing this nation and the world at large – the world at war, creeping Sharia, the perversion of the rights of free men – hang in the balance during the Obama administration as never before. The stakes could not be higher. On foreign policy, Europe has lain down. The political elites have capitulated to Islamists and to multiculturalists. Europe is committing slow cultural and demographic suicide. It seems unclear that they could hold up their end even if America did the heavy lifting. As far as Israel is concerned, Obama has already made it clear that while he is in the White House, Israel is on its own.
As Obama continues to pursue his pro-Islamic and anti-Israel policies, this will only get worse. And so his deception about his Islamic ties must be explored. The potential damage to this country is incalculable.
These are dangerous times. Those consequences are, in this post-American presidency, already becoming apparent."
Read it all.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Allen West on Radical Islam
This man gets it. The real question is: Do southern Floridians get it? Will they elect this brave patriot who is not afraid to stand up for our freedoms, even when it is not politically correct? Only time will tell.
I sure wish I was a resident of his district, so I could go to the voting booth on Election Day and cast my vote for this strongly conservative Christian man of principle.
From New Zeal:
I sure wish I was a resident of his district, so I could go to the voting booth on Election Day and cast my vote for this strongly conservative Christian man of principle.
From New Zeal:
Marxism in Public Schools--UPDATED
The radicalism in our public schools never ceases to amaze me. It's as if we are living in the former Soviet Union. No wonder Diogenes believes as he does. It's in the public school drinking water, the curriculum, the teachers' union, the rest rooms, the extra-curricular activities, the teachers' lounge, etc.
God-fearing, America-loving teachers and students must find it difficult to escape the leftist propaganda being propagated in our government schools.
Read from Gateway Pundit:
NEA Removes Post Encouraging Teachers To Celebrate Chinese Communist Revolution
"After I posted the Article this morning about the National Education Association (NEA) and their recommendation that their members read Saul Alinksy’s 'Rules for Radicals', I decided to do a little digging.
It would appear that Alinsky is not the only Communist the NEA seems to hold in high regard.
According to an Article in the World Net Daily (WND), the NEA is partial to the Communist leader Chairman Mao.
On the NEA website, in the Diversity calendar, there was a posting on October 1st that read this:
'OCT 1
Communist China Established
In Tiananmen Square in 1949, Mao Zedong, Chairman of the Communist Party of China, proclaimed the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. Saying that the “Chinese People have stood up!”'
Here is the Screen shot that was taken by WND (Click here to Enlarge):
After WND posted their Article, the NEA quickly removed the reference to Mao and the Communist take over of China.
Here is a Screen shot of the Diversity Calendar now since it’s been scrubbed(Click here to Enlarge):
Notice how the October 1st posting is now missing from the calendar.
WND says that the NEA was not available for comment about why the original posting was even done or the reason for the removal of it.
Amazing how a large Teachers union, like the NEA, would encourage their teachers to celebrate the Chinese Communist Revolution that killed Millions just because of one of their apparent idols is Mao. The History Channel even did a Series on Mao and his atrocities called Declassified: Chairman Mao. All five parts are on You Tube and can be watched here.
One could say the fact that the NEA is promoting two radical Communists, like Mao and Alinsky, is just a coincidence and that they are only interested in promoting Diversity.
Well if that was the case, then why pull the Mao Posting at all and without an explanation?
Avoiding a fake Controversy?
Or Protecting a Radical Agenda….?"
UPDATED: Here's a juicy tidbit: Howard Zinn, Left’s Favorite Historian Now Proven Member of US Communist Party
God-fearing, America-loving teachers and students must find it difficult to escape the leftist propaganda being propagated in our government schools.
Read from Gateway Pundit:
NEA Removes Post Encouraging Teachers To Celebrate Chinese Communist Revolution
"After I posted the Article this morning about the National Education Association (NEA) and their recommendation that their members read Saul Alinksy’s 'Rules for Radicals', I decided to do a little digging.
It would appear that Alinsky is not the only Communist the NEA seems to hold in high regard.
According to an Article in the World Net Daily (WND), the NEA is partial to the Communist leader Chairman Mao.
On the NEA website, in the Diversity calendar, there was a posting on October 1st that read this:
'OCT 1
Communist China Established
In Tiananmen Square in 1949, Mao Zedong, Chairman of the Communist Party of China, proclaimed the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. Saying that the “Chinese People have stood up!”'
Here is the Screen shot that was taken by WND (Click here to Enlarge):
After WND posted their Article, the NEA quickly removed the reference to Mao and the Communist take over of China.
Here is a Screen shot of the Diversity Calendar now since it’s been scrubbed(Click here to Enlarge):
Notice how the October 1st posting is now missing from the calendar.
WND says that the NEA was not available for comment about why the original posting was even done or the reason for the removal of it.
Amazing how a large Teachers union, like the NEA, would encourage their teachers to celebrate the Chinese Communist Revolution that killed Millions just because of one of their apparent idols is Mao. The History Channel even did a Series on Mao and his atrocities called Declassified: Chairman Mao. All five parts are on You Tube and can be watched here.
One could say the fact that the NEA is promoting two radical Communists, like Mao and Alinsky, is just a coincidence and that they are only interested in promoting Diversity.
Well if that was the case, then why pull the Mao Posting at all and without an explanation?
Avoiding a fake Controversy?
Or Protecting a Radical Agenda….?"
UPDATED: Here's a juicy tidbit: Howard Zinn, Left’s Favorite Historian Now Proven Member of US Communist Party
Fort Hood Killer Continues to Earn Paycheck
Our government really needs to get its act together. As we move closer and closer to going off the cliff with our indebtedness, you may be interested to know that the Fort Hood killer and Soldier of Allah, Major Nidal Hasan, is still pulling in a paycheck, and you and I are paying for it.
Now, I realize that people are considered innocent until proven guilty in this country, which is a good thing. But, this is a special case in that there were many witnesses to his brutal killings. There is no question about his guilt. Should taxpayers be expected to foot his salary when he is not performing the task for which he was hired?
Read from Jihad Watch:
Banks won't take Fort Hood jihadist's paychecks
"One would think that murdering thirteen Americans in the name of Islamic jihad would at least get you suspended without pay, but no such luck. 'Banks won't take Fort Hood shooting suspect's paychecks', by Jeremy Schwartz for the American-Statesman, July 29 (thanks to Roger):
'As he sits in the Bell County Jail, accused of the Nov. 5 Fort Hood shooting that left 13 dead, Maj. Nidal Hasan continues to receive his monthly U.S. Army paycheck, which based on his rank and experience is probably more than $6,000.
That's standard procedure for soldiers who are confined before military trial, according to Army officials.
But Hasan, charged with a shooting spree that shocked the country, is not a standard defendant. And he's having a hard time finding a bank to take his money.
According to his civilian attorney John Galligan, Bank of America notified Hasan last month that it was closing his account and no area bank so far has agreed to open an account for the Army psychiatrist. Military regulations require soldiers to be paid through direct deposit, making a bank account indispensable.
"I think it's just another example of the prejudice that he's been exposed to," Galligan said. "It's money that he's entitled to, that he has a right to."...'
A right to? For reporting his patients for war crimes? For murdering Americans? For jihad?"
At least the local banks are doing their part to make life difficult for this low-life follower of allah. But, be assured some Muslim-friendly bank will step us and rescue Nidal from his dilemma.
Now, I realize that people are considered innocent until proven guilty in this country, which is a good thing. But, this is a special case in that there were many witnesses to his brutal killings. There is no question about his guilt. Should taxpayers be expected to foot his salary when he is not performing the task for which he was hired?
Read from Jihad Watch:
Banks won't take Fort Hood jihadist's paychecks
"One would think that murdering thirteen Americans in the name of Islamic jihad would at least get you suspended without pay, but no such luck. 'Banks won't take Fort Hood shooting suspect's paychecks', by Jeremy Schwartz for the American-Statesman, July 29 (thanks to Roger):
'As he sits in the Bell County Jail, accused of the Nov. 5 Fort Hood shooting that left 13 dead, Maj. Nidal Hasan continues to receive his monthly U.S. Army paycheck, which based on his rank and experience is probably more than $6,000.
That's standard procedure for soldiers who are confined before military trial, according to Army officials.
But Hasan, charged with a shooting spree that shocked the country, is not a standard defendant. And he's having a hard time finding a bank to take his money.
According to his civilian attorney John Galligan, Bank of America notified Hasan last month that it was closing his account and no area bank so far has agreed to open an account for the Army psychiatrist. Military regulations require soldiers to be paid through direct deposit, making a bank account indispensable.
"I think it's just another example of the prejudice that he's been exposed to," Galligan said. "It's money that he's entitled to, that he has a right to."...'
A right to? For reporting his patients for war crimes? For murdering Americans? For jihad?"
At least the local banks are doing their part to make life difficult for this low-life follower of allah. But, be assured some Muslim-friendly bank will step us and rescue Nidal from his dilemma.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Incompetent Feds
I used to believe that radical Islam was the most dangerous enemy we face in this nation, but, as great a danger as this cult-like religion poses, it may be our government which is the greatest threat to our freedoms.
Americans want security from dangerous elements of society, and they are enraged at a government which ignores its most important job: securing its citizens. Our politicians refuse to secure our borders. This is not an attack only against Obama because Bush was also guilty of neglecting security at our borders.
Now, thanks to a Clinton-appointed activist judge (it seems all Democrat-appointed judges fall into this category), Arizonans are forced to continue to live in fear as drug-dealers and other criminals threaten American citizens who just want to go about their daily lives in peace and without fear.
Investors Business Daily makes a good point that based on the activist Judge Bolton's decision, Timothy McVeigh may not have been arrested for the Oklahoma City bombing.
Judging Arizona
"Immigration: A federal judge blocked most of Arizona's immigration law on the grounds that it puts an undue burden on the federal government. That leaves Arizona defenseless to open borders and derelict feds.
One could almost hear the cheers from the badlands of Durango and Sonora, home of the biggest Mexican drug and people-smuggling cartels, to read District Court Judge Susan Bolton's ruling effectively striking down Arizona's immigration law, SB 1070.
Bolton blocked the main provisions of Arizona's law requiring state lawmen to ask people they come into legitimate contact with to show documentation if there's reasonable suspicion they're here illegally.
So now a van driver arrested by a state trooper for driving 120 miles per hour with 30 people stuffed under his floorboards will still get a speeding ticket, but the officer can't ask about his immigration status. Nothing to see here; move along.
Bolton also blocked provisions requiring foreigners to carry papers at all times (as federal law already requires), as well as a section prohibiting public solicitation of work. Likewise, a section allowing warrantless arrests on probable cause was tossed.
She allowed two provisions — one on people-smuggling, the other on the transport of illegal immigrants — to stand. But how effective will they be if officers can't ask questions?
Claiming legal precedent, Bolton wrote that the Feds would be burdened with too many requests to deport illegal immigrants, which would interfere with their 'priorities.' And those here legally also would be 'burdened' by requests to show ID.
Burdened? It's already federal law, the law of the land.
Even so, the Justice Department is 'likely to succeed on the merits' of its challenge of the bill, Bolton wrote. No doubt. Because the next stop is the notorious Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the least consistent and most-overturned court in the land.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer put on a brave face, saying the battle was 'far from over' and her state would fight all the way to the Supreme Court. But this will take decades, giving Mexico's murderous cartels many years of people-smuggling profits.
So the delay itself amounts to a victory for the law's foes. In addition to paying for the expensive litigation, Arizona can look forward to a growing bill for housing, schooling, jailing and providing 'free' health care for the illegals who will now flow into the state.
And it can't say no. Isn't that taxation without representation?
Some 15,000 Arizona state officers could be helping the federal government enforce the laws it isn't enforcing now. Now, they'll do other things instead. By the logic of Bolton's ruling, the state trooper who arrested Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh on a speeding violation in 1995 would now be prohibited from arresting him for the federal crime of the bombing, too.
If it wasn't clear before, it is now: The federal government has no intent of enforcing the laws against rampant and brazen illegal immigration. Indeed, it will punish those states that try, leaving them at the mercy of the kidnappers, terrorists, gangsters, drug dealers and human traffickers that now freely cross our southern border."
Americans want security from dangerous elements of society, and they are enraged at a government which ignores its most important job: securing its citizens. Our politicians refuse to secure our borders. This is not an attack only against Obama because Bush was also guilty of neglecting security at our borders.
Now, thanks to a Clinton-appointed activist judge (it seems all Democrat-appointed judges fall into this category), Arizonans are forced to continue to live in fear as drug-dealers and other criminals threaten American citizens who just want to go about their daily lives in peace and without fear.
Investors Business Daily makes a good point that based on the activist Judge Bolton's decision, Timothy McVeigh may not have been arrested for the Oklahoma City bombing.
Judging Arizona
"Immigration: A federal judge blocked most of Arizona's immigration law on the grounds that it puts an undue burden on the federal government. That leaves Arizona defenseless to open borders and derelict feds.
One could almost hear the cheers from the badlands of Durango and Sonora, home of the biggest Mexican drug and people-smuggling cartels, to read District Court Judge Susan Bolton's ruling effectively striking down Arizona's immigration law, SB 1070.
Bolton blocked the main provisions of Arizona's law requiring state lawmen to ask people they come into legitimate contact with to show documentation if there's reasonable suspicion they're here illegally.
So now a van driver arrested by a state trooper for driving 120 miles per hour with 30 people stuffed under his floorboards will still get a speeding ticket, but the officer can't ask about his immigration status. Nothing to see here; move along.
Bolton also blocked provisions requiring foreigners to carry papers at all times (as federal law already requires), as well as a section prohibiting public solicitation of work. Likewise, a section allowing warrantless arrests on probable cause was tossed.
She allowed two provisions — one on people-smuggling, the other on the transport of illegal immigrants — to stand. But how effective will they be if officers can't ask questions?
Claiming legal precedent, Bolton wrote that the Feds would be burdened with too many requests to deport illegal immigrants, which would interfere with their 'priorities.' And those here legally also would be 'burdened' by requests to show ID.
Burdened? It's already federal law, the law of the land.
Even so, the Justice Department is 'likely to succeed on the merits' of its challenge of the bill, Bolton wrote. No doubt. Because the next stop is the notorious Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the least consistent and most-overturned court in the land.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer put on a brave face, saying the battle was 'far from over' and her state would fight all the way to the Supreme Court. But this will take decades, giving Mexico's murderous cartels many years of people-smuggling profits.
So the delay itself amounts to a victory for the law's foes. In addition to paying for the expensive litigation, Arizona can look forward to a growing bill for housing, schooling, jailing and providing 'free' health care for the illegals who will now flow into the state.
And it can't say no. Isn't that taxation without representation?
Some 15,000 Arizona state officers could be helping the federal government enforce the laws it isn't enforcing now. Now, they'll do other things instead. By the logic of Bolton's ruling, the state trooper who arrested Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh on a speeding violation in 1995 would now be prohibited from arresting him for the federal crime of the bombing, too.
If it wasn't clear before, it is now: The federal government has no intent of enforcing the laws against rampant and brazen illegal immigration. Indeed, it will punish those states that try, leaving them at the mercy of the kidnappers, terrorists, gangsters, drug dealers and human traffickers that now freely cross our southern border."
Our Troops Are the True Victims
Our politicians need to come up with some tough legislation to discourage the leaking of classified info about our war efforts. We have a vicious enemy in radical Islam who sits patiently waiting for the right moment to attack us. Let's not make it any easier for them. Any person who leaks this type of secret information which helps our enemies should be hung for treason.
Not surprisingly, while the media has been discussing the classified information coming from WikiLeaks, they have not given enough attention to the added danger our troops now face. Sadly, brave Afghans who have risked their lives to work with us against the Taliban will pay the price for siding with the Americans. They must feel betrayed, and what's the likelihood we will receive more intel from Afghan residents in the future?
Read from the New York Post:
Forgotten soldiers
Ignoring WikiLeaks' real victims
Ralph Peters
"If we needed yet another example of Washington's self-absorption, we sure got it with the WikiLeaks dump of classified data on AfPak.
Government officials promptly freaked about the political consequences. The rush to insist that 'there's nothing new here' and that the leaks 'really don't change anything' was dishonest even by DC standards.
Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies!
The victims of this tragic event aren't punch-drunk White House staffers or members of Congress up for re-election. They're not the wed-to-Pakistan wonks at State or even the Pentagon's hide-the-bad-news generals.
The forgotten victims are our troops on the ground. And the Afghans who've risked everything to help them.
If I hear one more senator from either party tell us that the WikiLeaks betrayal won't make a significant difference, I'm going to violate security to puke on the Capitol's steps.
No difference? These leaked documents are an immeasurably valuable gift to the Taliban and al Qaeda -- as well as to other enemies, present and potential.
An alert reader -- and the terrorists have plenty on the case -- can harvest vital information about our special operations, unit locations, logistics vulnerabilities, fire-support system, response times, medevac procedures, command-and-control weaknesses, intelligence deficiencies, physical security, weapons limitations, internal policy debates . . . and that's just the start.
American service members will die because of the WikiLeaks 'service to humanity.' And nobody in Washington seems to have noticed.
Afghans will die, too. A lot of them. In just a few hours of data-mining, Britain's The Times unearthed the names of hundreds of Afghans who've helped us. Information about their families and home villages is in there, too.
Think the Taliban will give a free pass to Afghans who've supported us? Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Afghan lives are newly at risk. It's a huge gift to the terrorists: Our collaborators will run for cover -- and recruiting informants will be immeasurably more difficult.
Thanks to WikiLeaks -- and the treasonous leaker himself -- our enemies will gain a more-detailed picture of how we operate than we'll ever have of them. There hasn't been a bigger war-time intelligence coup since ULTRA, when the Brits got their hands on the key Nazi encryption device in World War II.
And what troubles Washington? The administration, which blithely assured voters it knew how to fix Afghanistan, is worried about eroding poll numbers. Congressional Democrats tied to the president's AfPak policies to prove their toughness on national security are panicked about voter backlash.
Republicans, who bluster about a mission they haven't defined, worry that truth will lessen support for the war. State fears diplomatic repercussions, and the Pentagon's been caught cheating on its AfPak midterm. The
intelligence community worries (justifiably) that sources will
dry up, since we obviously can't protect our secrets.
Yet how many voices raised concerns about the increased danger to which our troops will be exposed? Precious few.
The bad, horrible, terrible news is that the WikiLeaks drama is still in its opening act. As enemies and journalists (not so concerned about our troops, either) dig through these vast files, the revelations are going to get worse.
Of course, our government lawyers wouldn't let us take WikiLeaks down. We won't even go after Mr. WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, whose release of this data will facilitate Taliban war crimes and assassinations.
Folks, don't be bamboozled: This leak is the biggest geo-strategic event in the short history of the Internet, potentially altering the course of a war and changing the dynamics of an entire region. No Web-publicized political scandal, no breathless war-crime allegations, not even those old pictures of your girlfriend that popped up on shamelesskittens.com come close.
What can we do, now that the terrorists have downloaded the data? We could get a grip on the harsh new realities of war in the age of the Web. But we won't. It's too hard. It upsets too many rice bowls.
Our leaders can't even be honest about the damage done. And the troops get screwed again."
Not surprisingly, while the media has been discussing the classified information coming from WikiLeaks, they have not given enough attention to the added danger our troops now face. Sadly, brave Afghans who have risked their lives to work with us against the Taliban will pay the price for siding with the Americans. They must feel betrayed, and what's the likelihood we will receive more intel from Afghan residents in the future?
Read from the New York Post:
Forgotten soldiers
Ignoring WikiLeaks' real victims
Ralph Peters
"If we needed yet another example of Washington's self-absorption, we sure got it with the WikiLeaks dump of classified data on AfPak.
Government officials promptly freaked about the political consequences. The rush to insist that 'there's nothing new here' and that the leaks 'really don't change anything' was dishonest even by DC standards.
Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies!
The victims of this tragic event aren't punch-drunk White House staffers or members of Congress up for re-election. They're not the wed-to-Pakistan wonks at State or even the Pentagon's hide-the-bad-news generals.
The forgotten victims are our troops on the ground. And the Afghans who've risked everything to help them.
If I hear one more senator from either party tell us that the WikiLeaks betrayal won't make a significant difference, I'm going to violate security to puke on the Capitol's steps.
No difference? These leaked documents are an immeasurably valuable gift to the Taliban and al Qaeda -- as well as to other enemies, present and potential.
An alert reader -- and the terrorists have plenty on the case -- can harvest vital information about our special operations, unit locations, logistics vulnerabilities, fire-support system, response times, medevac procedures, command-and-control weaknesses, intelligence deficiencies, physical security, weapons limitations, internal policy debates . . . and that's just the start.
American service members will die because of the WikiLeaks 'service to humanity.' And nobody in Washington seems to have noticed.
Afghans will die, too. A lot of them. In just a few hours of data-mining, Britain's The Times unearthed the names of hundreds of Afghans who've helped us. Information about their families and home villages is in there, too.
Think the Taliban will give a free pass to Afghans who've supported us? Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Afghan lives are newly at risk. It's a huge gift to the terrorists: Our collaborators will run for cover -- and recruiting informants will be immeasurably more difficult.
Thanks to WikiLeaks -- and the treasonous leaker himself -- our enemies will gain a more-detailed picture of how we operate than we'll ever have of them. There hasn't been a bigger war-time intelligence coup since ULTRA, when the Brits got their hands on the key Nazi encryption device in World War II.
And what troubles Washington? The administration, which blithely assured voters it knew how to fix Afghanistan, is worried about eroding poll numbers. Congressional Democrats tied to the president's AfPak policies to prove their toughness on national security are panicked about voter backlash.
Republicans, who bluster about a mission they haven't defined, worry that truth will lessen support for the war. State fears diplomatic repercussions, and the Pentagon's been caught cheating on its AfPak midterm. The
intelligence community worries (justifiably) that sources will
dry up, since we obviously can't protect our secrets.
Yet how many voices raised concerns about the increased danger to which our troops will be exposed? Precious few.
The bad, horrible, terrible news is that the WikiLeaks drama is still in its opening act. As enemies and journalists (not so concerned about our troops, either) dig through these vast files, the revelations are going to get worse.
Of course, our government lawyers wouldn't let us take WikiLeaks down. We won't even go after Mr. WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, whose release of this data will facilitate Taliban war crimes and assassinations.
Folks, don't be bamboozled: This leak is the biggest geo-strategic event in the short history of the Internet, potentially altering the course of a war and changing the dynamics of an entire region. No Web-publicized political scandal, no breathless war-crime allegations, not even those old pictures of your girlfriend that popped up on shamelesskittens.com come close.
What can we do, now that the terrorists have downloaded the data? We could get a grip on the harsh new realities of war in the age of the Web. But we won't. It's too hard. It upsets too many rice bowls.
Our leaders can't even be honest about the damage done. And the troops get screwed again."
Christian Persecution in Georgia University
You know America is in trouble when Christians are openly persecuted for daring to follow God's teachings on homosexuality. No wonder God has turned His back on us.
Read from Red State:
Christians Discriminated Against at Augusta State University?
"Hot Air has the story about Jennifer Keeton. Keeton, trying to graduate from Augusta State University in Augusta, Georgia, has been told she cannot get certification in counseling unless she abandons orthodox teachings of her Christian faith.
You guessed it — Keeton, a Christian, is not supportive of 'gay rights'.
'CNN has an interesting roundtable on the case of Jennifer Keeton, who has sued Augusta State University to keep from getting expelled for not repudiating her statements about homosexuality. Keeton expressed her biblical perspective on the subject in and out of class while working toward a degree in counseling, and the school mandated a “remediation plan” that appears to have required her to renounce her Christian doctrine in order to gain a diploma from the school. The school has responded that a bias against homosexuality would disqualify Keeton from certification, a position that would put most Christians in Keeton’s position.'
Christians should be more than a little troubled by the University’s bias.
I hope Georgia’s legislators are paying attention. Augusta State’s position seems to be that a bias against Christians is preferable to Christians holding on to orthodox teachings of their faith.
You can call President Bloodworth over at August State at 706-737-1440 and let him know what you think.
[UPDATE:] In Michigan, a federal judge has upheld the expulsion of a graduate school student for believing homosexuality is morally wrong."
Read from Red State:
Christians Discriminated Against at Augusta State University?
"Hot Air has the story about Jennifer Keeton. Keeton, trying to graduate from Augusta State University in Augusta, Georgia, has been told she cannot get certification in counseling unless she abandons orthodox teachings of her Christian faith.
You guessed it — Keeton, a Christian, is not supportive of 'gay rights'.
'CNN has an interesting roundtable on the case of Jennifer Keeton, who has sued Augusta State University to keep from getting expelled for not repudiating her statements about homosexuality. Keeton expressed her biblical perspective on the subject in and out of class while working toward a degree in counseling, and the school mandated a “remediation plan” that appears to have required her to renounce her Christian doctrine in order to gain a diploma from the school. The school has responded that a bias against homosexuality would disqualify Keeton from certification, a position that would put most Christians in Keeton’s position.'
Christians should be more than a little troubled by the University’s bias.
I hope Georgia’s legislators are paying attention. Augusta State’s position seems to be that a bias against Christians is preferable to Christians holding on to orthodox teachings of their faith.
You can call President Bloodworth over at August State at 706-737-1440 and let him know what you think.
[UPDATE:] In Michigan, a federal judge has upheld the expulsion of a graduate school student for believing homosexuality is morally wrong."
Arab Hypocrisy
So who's mistreating the Palestinians? Israel can't be blamed this time.
More hypocrisy coming out of the Arab world where Palestinians are being treated like second-class citizens. The Muslim world is making it perfectly clear that they don't give a rip about the Palestinian people. But, they sure do like to use them in their constant propaganda war against Israel.
Read from Israel Matzav:
The flotilla hypocrisy
"Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, goes after Lebanon for flotilla hypocrisy in Thursday's Wall Street Journal.
'Today, there are more than 400,000 Palestinians in Lebanon who are deprived of their most basic rights. The Lebanese government has a list of tens of professions that a Palestinian is forbidden from being engaged in, including professions such as medicine, law and engineering. Palestinians are forbidden from owning property and need a special permit to leave their towns. Unlike all other foreign nationals in Lebanon, they are denied access to the health-care system. According to Amnesty international, the Palestinians in Lebanon suffer from "discrimination and marginalization" and are treated like "second class citizens' and "denied their full range of human rights."
Amnesty also states that most Palestinian refugees in Lebanon have little choice but to live in overcrowded and deteriorating camps and informal gatherings that lack basic infrastructure.
In view of the worsening plight of the Palestinians in Lebanon, it is the height of irony that a Lebanese flotilla is organizing to leave the port of Tripoli in the next few days to bring aid to Palestinians in Gaza. According to one of the organizers, the participants are "united by a feeling of stark injustice."
This attitude exposes the dishonesty of the whole flotilla exercise. Whether it is from Turkey, Ireland or Cyprus, those that participate in these flotillas reek of hypocrisy. There are currently 100 armed conflicts and dozens of territorial disputes around the world. There have been millions of people killed and hundreds of millions live in abject poverty without access to basic staples. And yet hundreds of high-minded 'humanitarian activists' are spending millions of dollars to reach Gaza and hand money to Hamas that will never reach the innocent civilians of Gaza.
This is the same Gaza that just opened a sparkling new shopping mall that would not look out of place in any capital in Europe. Gaza, where a new Olympic-sized swimming pool was recently inaugurated and five-star hotels and restaurants offer luxurious fare.
Markets brimming with all manner of foods dot the landscape of Gaza, where Lauren Booth, journalist and "human rights activist," was pictured buying chocolate and luxurious items from a well-stocked supermarket before stating with a straight face that the "situation in Gaza is a humanitarian crisis on the scale of Darfur."'
For those who don't recognize them, the pictures(here) are all from Gaza; the last picture is a 2008 photo of Lauren Booth (Tony Blair's sister-in-law) in a Gaza supermarket.
The truth is that there are only two places in the Middle East where 'Palestinians' are better off than they are in Gaza. One is Judea and Samaria, which has one of the fastest growing economies in the World. The place in the Middle East where 'Palestinians' are treated best? You guessed it: Israel. Their treatment in Arab countries is far worse - even than Gaza.
Read the whole thing."
Now that we are on the topic of Israel, President Obama is apparently not through kicking Israel around. What a surprise!
Sources: Obama Administration to Support Anti-Israel Resolution at UN Next Week
More hypocrisy coming out of the Arab world where Palestinians are being treated like second-class citizens. The Muslim world is making it perfectly clear that they don't give a rip about the Palestinian people. But, they sure do like to use them in their constant propaganda war against Israel.
Read from Israel Matzav:
The flotilla hypocrisy
"Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, goes after Lebanon for flotilla hypocrisy in Thursday's Wall Street Journal.
'Today, there are more than 400,000 Palestinians in Lebanon who are deprived of their most basic rights. The Lebanese government has a list of tens of professions that a Palestinian is forbidden from being engaged in, including professions such as medicine, law and engineering. Palestinians are forbidden from owning property and need a special permit to leave their towns. Unlike all other foreign nationals in Lebanon, they are denied access to the health-care system. According to Amnesty international, the Palestinians in Lebanon suffer from "discrimination and marginalization" and are treated like "second class citizens' and "denied their full range of human rights."
Amnesty also states that most Palestinian refugees in Lebanon have little choice but to live in overcrowded and deteriorating camps and informal gatherings that lack basic infrastructure.
In view of the worsening plight of the Palestinians in Lebanon, it is the height of irony that a Lebanese flotilla is organizing to leave the port of Tripoli in the next few days to bring aid to Palestinians in Gaza. According to one of the organizers, the participants are "united by a feeling of stark injustice."
This attitude exposes the dishonesty of the whole flotilla exercise. Whether it is from Turkey, Ireland or Cyprus, those that participate in these flotillas reek of hypocrisy. There are currently 100 armed conflicts and dozens of territorial disputes around the world. There have been millions of people killed and hundreds of millions live in abject poverty without access to basic staples. And yet hundreds of high-minded 'humanitarian activists' are spending millions of dollars to reach Gaza and hand money to Hamas that will never reach the innocent civilians of Gaza.
This is the same Gaza that just opened a sparkling new shopping mall that would not look out of place in any capital in Europe. Gaza, where a new Olympic-sized swimming pool was recently inaugurated and five-star hotels and restaurants offer luxurious fare.
Markets brimming with all manner of foods dot the landscape of Gaza, where Lauren Booth, journalist and "human rights activist," was pictured buying chocolate and luxurious items from a well-stocked supermarket before stating with a straight face that the "situation in Gaza is a humanitarian crisis on the scale of Darfur."'
For those who don't recognize them, the pictures(here) are all from Gaza; the last picture is a 2008 photo of Lauren Booth (Tony Blair's sister-in-law) in a Gaza supermarket.
The truth is that there are only two places in the Middle East where 'Palestinians' are better off than they are in Gaza. One is Judea and Samaria, which has one of the fastest growing economies in the World. The place in the Middle East where 'Palestinians' are treated best? You guessed it: Israel. Their treatment in Arab countries is far worse - even than Gaza.
Read the whole thing."
Now that we are on the topic of Israel, President Obama is apparently not through kicking Israel around. What a surprise!
Sources: Obama Administration to Support Anti-Israel Resolution at UN Next Week
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Is the DoJ Suppressing Military Votes?
In the minds of liberal politicians, if you cannot win an election legally, then cheat. To be perfectly honest, they will do WHATEVER it takes to win an election. ACORN ring a bell? Registering dead people? Mickey Mouse? Black Panther voter intimidation?
Liberals will have no qualms doing so on the backs of our troops. Yes, our troops, those who daily risk their lives for all Americans. I can't think of anyone who deserves the right to have his vote counted more than an American soldier.
Of course, Democrats are fully aware of the fact that military personnel are patriotic Americans who tend to vote Republican, so it's in the president's best interests to block their vote.
How is that possible? Get the details from Hot Air:
DoJ stalling on protecting voting rights of military?
"After complaints from several election cycles that thousands of men and women stationed abroad in our military had trouble getting their ballots counted, Congress passed the MOVE Act to force states into compliance. According to one of its authors, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), the language is unambiguous and creates a mandate for enforcement by the Department of Justice. However, two whistleblowers formerly within the voting-rights section of the DoJ claim that the Obama administration is stalling on enforcement:
'The MOVE Act, enacted last October, ensures that servicemen and women serving overseas have ample time to get in their absentee ballots. The result of the DOJ’s alleged inaction in enforcing the act, say Eric Eversole and J. Christian Adams — both former litigation attorneys for the DOJ’s Voting Section — could be that thousands of soldiers’ ballots will arrive too late to be counted.
“It is an absolute shame that the section appears to be spending more time finding ways to avoid the MOVE Act, rather than finding ways to ensure that military voters will have their votes counted,” said Eversole, director of the Military Voter Protection Project, a new organization devoted to ensuring military voting rights. “The Voting Section seems to have forgotten that it has an obligation to enforce federal law, not to find and raise arguments for states to avoid these laws.”'
Cornyn has fired off a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding an explanation:
'In his letter to Holder, Cornyn cites minutes from the 2010 winter meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), during which Rebecca Wertz, deputy chief of the DOJ’s voting section, told state election officials that the legislative language regarding waivers is not completely clear. Wertz described the provisions of the law as “fairly general” and “somewhat of an open question as to what type of information” a state needs to submit in order to for their waiver application to be granted. She said it was also unclear whether waivers are for one election only, or if they apply to future elections.
According to the meeting’s minutes, obtained by FoxNews.com, Wertz also said “that the DOJ is working to find effective ways to disseminate any information guidance that can help states with different questions about MOVE interpretation. She invited questions and dialogue from states, and said that litigation is always the last resort.”
Cornyn wrote, “If these are the positions of the DOJ, then they fly in the face of the clear statutory language, undermine the provisions in question, and jeopardize the voting rights of our men and women in uniform.”
He said the language of the law makes it clear that there is no ambiguity when it comes to states’ eligibility for being granted a waiver, and that the statute does not leave room for the Justice Department to decide whether to enforce its requirements.'
Adams notes that the DoJ website has an entire section for felons looking to recover their voting rights, but nothing at all on MOVE. Their information on military voting pre-dates MOVE and is now inaccurate, Fox News reports, and the DoJ doesn’t appear to consider fixing that a priority.
Several states have either applied for waivers or have indicated that they will, including Washington, Hawaii, New York, Delaware, Maryland, and Alaska. It would be interesting to see why these states (almost all blue states) feel the need to avoid complying with MOVE, and whether they actually qualify for the exemption. It should be a non-partisan notion that every effort to count ballots from military members overseas should be made, which is exactly what MOVE intended. If there’s something wrong with the law, the DoJ should have gone back to Congress rather than start advising states how to avoid compliance.
Congress needs to add this to their list of oversight items that will have to wait for a Congress that bothers to conduct oversight at all."
Liberals will have no qualms doing so on the backs of our troops. Yes, our troops, those who daily risk their lives for all Americans. I can't think of anyone who deserves the right to have his vote counted more than an American soldier.
Of course, Democrats are fully aware of the fact that military personnel are patriotic Americans who tend to vote Republican, so it's in the president's best interests to block their vote.
How is that possible? Get the details from Hot Air:
DoJ stalling on protecting voting rights of military?
"After complaints from several election cycles that thousands of men and women stationed abroad in our military had trouble getting their ballots counted, Congress passed the MOVE Act to force states into compliance. According to one of its authors, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), the language is unambiguous and creates a mandate for enforcement by the Department of Justice. However, two whistleblowers formerly within the voting-rights section of the DoJ claim that the Obama administration is stalling on enforcement:
'The MOVE Act, enacted last October, ensures that servicemen and women serving overseas have ample time to get in their absentee ballots. The result of the DOJ’s alleged inaction in enforcing the act, say Eric Eversole and J. Christian Adams — both former litigation attorneys for the DOJ’s Voting Section — could be that thousands of soldiers’ ballots will arrive too late to be counted.
“It is an absolute shame that the section appears to be spending more time finding ways to avoid the MOVE Act, rather than finding ways to ensure that military voters will have their votes counted,” said Eversole, director of the Military Voter Protection Project, a new organization devoted to ensuring military voting rights. “The Voting Section seems to have forgotten that it has an obligation to enforce federal law, not to find and raise arguments for states to avoid these laws.”'
Cornyn has fired off a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding an explanation:
'In his letter to Holder, Cornyn cites minutes from the 2010 winter meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), during which Rebecca Wertz, deputy chief of the DOJ’s voting section, told state election officials that the legislative language regarding waivers is not completely clear. Wertz described the provisions of the law as “fairly general” and “somewhat of an open question as to what type of information” a state needs to submit in order to for their waiver application to be granted. She said it was also unclear whether waivers are for one election only, or if they apply to future elections.
According to the meeting’s minutes, obtained by FoxNews.com, Wertz also said “that the DOJ is working to find effective ways to disseminate any information guidance that can help states with different questions about MOVE interpretation. She invited questions and dialogue from states, and said that litigation is always the last resort.”
Cornyn wrote, “If these are the positions of the DOJ, then they fly in the face of the clear statutory language, undermine the provisions in question, and jeopardize the voting rights of our men and women in uniform.”
He said the language of the law makes it clear that there is no ambiguity when it comes to states’ eligibility for being granted a waiver, and that the statute does not leave room for the Justice Department to decide whether to enforce its requirements.'
Adams notes that the DoJ website has an entire section for felons looking to recover their voting rights, but nothing at all on MOVE. Their information on military voting pre-dates MOVE and is now inaccurate, Fox News reports, and the DoJ doesn’t appear to consider fixing that a priority.
Several states have either applied for waivers or have indicated that they will, including Washington, Hawaii, New York, Delaware, Maryland, and Alaska. It would be interesting to see why these states (almost all blue states) feel the need to avoid complying with MOVE, and whether they actually qualify for the exemption. It should be a non-partisan notion that every effort to count ballots from military members overseas should be made, which is exactly what MOVE intended. If there’s something wrong with the law, the DoJ should have gone back to Congress rather than start advising states how to avoid compliance.
Congress needs to add this to their list of oversight items that will have to wait for a Congress that bothers to conduct oversight at all."
Time Is Not on His Side
And to think that liberals accused President Bush of dividing the country. The war in Iraq did cause much friction within the country, but nowhere to the level that this White House has done.
With all the progress this nation has made in the issue of race since the turbulent 60s, Obama and company have taken us back decades in racial relations, and it's all intentional, I might add. Anything to get the voters' minds distracted from the abysmal job Obama has done in handling our economic troubles.
Throw in the issue of illegal immigration, the new Arizona law, and Obama's lawsuit to stop the governor of Arizona from enforcing the law, which in reality, is his job to do, though he will not do so, and he's just caused more turmoil.
When it's all said and done, Obama is not doing himself any favors on this one. A huge majority of Americans want the Arizona law enforced in its entirety. He may have won round one, thanks to the ruling by an activist Clinton-appointed judge. But, now this case will be appealed and dragged through the legal system until it goes all the way to the Supreme Court.
Time is not on his side; Americans will grow even more enraged by his pandering to Hispanics, while Arizonans and other border state citizens are left to deal with an influx of dangerous illegals.
Read from Dick Morris:
IMMIGRATION DECISION WILL ERODE OBAMA SUPPORT
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann
"When Judge Susan Bolton granted an injunction halting the enforcement of key provisions of the Arizona immigration enforcement law, she ruled in favor of the Justice Department’s position, but against the president’s political interest.
Had the judge sustained this law, it would have made moot Obama’s opposition to the Arizona law. As it is, she has transformed the law into a big campaign issue against Obama. Now the president is standing in the way of a state that wants to enforce the law that he won’t.
The Arizona law is massively popular in the United States. Over 60 percent of all American voters support it. But the president has sought and has succeeded in stopping it from taking effect. Now this majority — close to two-thirds of the electorate — that backs the law will be able to focus their blame for its non-enforcement squarely on the president of the United States.
In the long term, the Bolton decision will likely be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court and Arizona will find itself vindicated. But, in the meantime, the decision endangers the re-election chances of three Democratic Congressmen from Arizona. Their constituents will not be satisfied with statements from these Democrats supporting the Arizona law. They will become embittered because Obama’s Justice Department has overridden their will.
Why did Obama bring the suit in the first place if it hurts him? Because he was seeking to increase the turnout of Latino voters and trying to win them by the same huge margin (2:1) that they delivered to him in 2008. Since he took office, Obama’s approval among Hispanics has dropped to 54%, foreshadowing a massive abandonment of his Congressional candidates in November.
But what Obama miscalculated was the intense support from among most voters that the Arizona law has elicited. As he bid for Latino votes, he has sacrificed much of his liberal, Democratic base.
This decision hurts him badly."
There is some truth to the following statement: "he has sacrificed much of his liberal, Democratic base". I nearly fell over in shock when my ultra-liberal father shared with me that he was disappointed in Obama and that he started out as a conservative, became a liberal, and now doesn't know what he is. Why the sudden change? It was primarily about illegal immigration.
With all the progress this nation has made in the issue of race since the turbulent 60s, Obama and company have taken us back decades in racial relations, and it's all intentional, I might add. Anything to get the voters' minds distracted from the abysmal job Obama has done in handling our economic troubles.
Throw in the issue of illegal immigration, the new Arizona law, and Obama's lawsuit to stop the governor of Arizona from enforcing the law, which in reality, is his job to do, though he will not do so, and he's just caused more turmoil.
When it's all said and done, Obama is not doing himself any favors on this one. A huge majority of Americans want the Arizona law enforced in its entirety. He may have won round one, thanks to the ruling by an activist Clinton-appointed judge. But, now this case will be appealed and dragged through the legal system until it goes all the way to the Supreme Court.
Time is not on his side; Americans will grow even more enraged by his pandering to Hispanics, while Arizonans and other border state citizens are left to deal with an influx of dangerous illegals.
Read from Dick Morris:
IMMIGRATION DECISION WILL ERODE OBAMA SUPPORT
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann
"When Judge Susan Bolton granted an injunction halting the enforcement of key provisions of the Arizona immigration enforcement law, she ruled in favor of the Justice Department’s position, but against the president’s political interest.
Had the judge sustained this law, it would have made moot Obama’s opposition to the Arizona law. As it is, she has transformed the law into a big campaign issue against Obama. Now the president is standing in the way of a state that wants to enforce the law that he won’t.
The Arizona law is massively popular in the United States. Over 60 percent of all American voters support it. But the president has sought and has succeeded in stopping it from taking effect. Now this majority — close to two-thirds of the electorate — that backs the law will be able to focus their blame for its non-enforcement squarely on the president of the United States.
In the long term, the Bolton decision will likely be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court and Arizona will find itself vindicated. But, in the meantime, the decision endangers the re-election chances of three Democratic Congressmen from Arizona. Their constituents will not be satisfied with statements from these Democrats supporting the Arizona law. They will become embittered because Obama’s Justice Department has overridden their will.
Why did Obama bring the suit in the first place if it hurts him? Because he was seeking to increase the turnout of Latino voters and trying to win them by the same huge margin (2:1) that they delivered to him in 2008. Since he took office, Obama’s approval among Hispanics has dropped to 54%, foreshadowing a massive abandonment of his Congressional candidates in November.
But what Obama miscalculated was the intense support from among most voters that the Arizona law has elicited. As he bid for Latino votes, he has sacrificed much of his liberal, Democratic base.
This decision hurts him badly."
There is some truth to the following statement: "he has sacrificed much of his liberal, Democratic base". I nearly fell over in shock when my ultra-liberal father shared with me that he was disappointed in Obama and that he started out as a conservative, became a liberal, and now doesn't know what he is. Why the sudden change? It was primarily about illegal immigration.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Under Bush Tax Cuts, Rich Paid More in Taxes
Liberals have every right to their own opinion, but they do not have the right to rewrite history, which is exactly what they have done when it comes to tales about the Bush tax cuts. Contrary to what they say, wealthy American did indeed pay more taxes after the the tax cuts were implemented.
If the Obama regime's goal is to lower deficits, then they need to utilize the strategy which best achieves this purpose, and that is to keep taxes low.
Read from Red State:
The Facts About the Bush Tax Cuts
"A lot of the media and all of the Democrats seem to forget one simple fact about the Bush tax cuts: they were passed in response to a recession occurring as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney entered office.
Moe Lane wrote an excellent post about the impact of the Democrats not extending the Bush tax cuts, but what about what they actually did.
We should not forget that.
The 2001 Economic Growth and Recovery Tax Act was George Bush’s version of Barack Obama’s stimulus plan. However, instead of creating a bunch of temporary government jobs and subsidizing the expansion of government, it cut tax rates, increased the child tax credit, increased the standard deduction for married couples, and increasing contribution caps for a variety of savings programs. The result? The recession ended in November of 2001. (Source)
But, September 11, 2001, happened as the economy was recovering and throughout 2002, the economy grew at an anemic rate. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 revved up the 2001 tax cut package and cut taxes again on dividends and capital gains.
The result?
Under George W. Bush’s 'tax cuts for the rich' the rich paid more in taxes in 2005 than any time in the prior 20 years. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal noted, thanks to George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, the richest one percent went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% went from paying 44% of all income taxes in 1990 to paying 60% of all income taxes in 2005.
'In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share.'
More crucially, after the 2001 initial tax cuts, the annual growth rate went from 0.3% in 2001 to 2.5% in 2002. By 2004, GDP growth was the highest in 20 years. (Source)
Likewise, after the 2003 tax cuts, the unemployment rate fell to the lowest level since World War II. Let me repeat that: the Bush economic program created the lowest unemployment level ever. In fact, economists liken it to full employment given the demographic composition of those who were left on the unemployment line.
This is but a bit of what the Bush tax cuts did.
Why then the collapse? There are lots of reasons for the collapse. For one thing, contrary to what economists would have you believe, they are not scientists and the economy is not a science. There have been upturns and downturns in the economy since economies first developed several millennia ago. But also, massive new regulations in Sarbanes-Oxley and the continuing incursion of the government via Fannie and Freddie into private lending markets forcing private lenders to launch even riskier ventures to stay profitable led to a lot of schemes collapsing in on themselves and taking the economy out too.
That has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts, objectively, helped the economy both recovery from the 2000-2001 recession and spur some of the greatest economic activity the nation has ever seen.
In their efforts to end the Bush tax cuts during a prolonged recession, the Democrats risk making the economy worse and introducing greater uncertainty into the market."
If the Obama regime's goal is to lower deficits, then they need to utilize the strategy which best achieves this purpose, and that is to keep taxes low.
Read from Red State:
The Facts About the Bush Tax Cuts
"A lot of the media and all of the Democrats seem to forget one simple fact about the Bush tax cuts: they were passed in response to a recession occurring as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney entered office.
Moe Lane wrote an excellent post about the impact of the Democrats not extending the Bush tax cuts, but what about what they actually did.
We should not forget that.
The 2001 Economic Growth and Recovery Tax Act was George Bush’s version of Barack Obama’s stimulus plan. However, instead of creating a bunch of temporary government jobs and subsidizing the expansion of government, it cut tax rates, increased the child tax credit, increased the standard deduction for married couples, and increasing contribution caps for a variety of savings programs. The result? The recession ended in November of 2001. (Source)
But, September 11, 2001, happened as the economy was recovering and throughout 2002, the economy grew at an anemic rate. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 revved up the 2001 tax cut package and cut taxes again on dividends and capital gains.
The result?
Under George W. Bush’s 'tax cuts for the rich' the rich paid more in taxes in 2005 than any time in the prior 20 years. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal noted, thanks to George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, the richest one percent went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% went from paying 44% of all income taxes in 1990 to paying 60% of all income taxes in 2005.
'In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share.'
More crucially, after the 2001 initial tax cuts, the annual growth rate went from 0.3% in 2001 to 2.5% in 2002. By 2004, GDP growth was the highest in 20 years. (Source)
Likewise, after the 2003 tax cuts, the unemployment rate fell to the lowest level since World War II. Let me repeat that: the Bush economic program created the lowest unemployment level ever. In fact, economists liken it to full employment given the demographic composition of those who were left on the unemployment line.
This is but a bit of what the Bush tax cuts did.
Why then the collapse? There are lots of reasons for the collapse. For one thing, contrary to what economists would have you believe, they are not scientists and the economy is not a science. There have been upturns and downturns in the economy since economies first developed several millennia ago. But also, massive new regulations in Sarbanes-Oxley and the continuing incursion of the government via Fannie and Freddie into private lending markets forcing private lenders to launch even riskier ventures to stay profitable led to a lot of schemes collapsing in on themselves and taking the economy out too.
That has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts, objectively, helped the economy both recovery from the 2000-2001 recession and spur some of the greatest economic activity the nation has ever seen.
In their efforts to end the Bush tax cuts during a prolonged recession, the Democrats risk making the economy worse and introducing greater uncertainty into the market."
Britain's New Neville Chamberlain
For months I've been writing about how the British are caving to the demands of Islam. When you don't think it can get any worse, you find yourself surprised because the Brits have taken a steep step toward insanity.
Why on earth would British Prime Minister David Cameron want Turkey to join the EU? Has he not noticed the sudden move on the part of the Turkish prime minister toward cozying up with enemies of the West? If this is conservatism in the UK, they are in deep trouble.
Read from Atlas Shrugs about why permitting Turkey to join the EU is such a dangerous move:
He's Worse Than Brown
"The Brits can't catch a break. I never thought I'd say it, but despite having defeated the leftist Brown and elected the Conservative party candidate, David Cameron, who would have thought he'd be .....worse.
Yesterday Cameron made shocking and disastrous remarks, the implications of which are disastrous for freedom-loving peoples of the world. First, Cameron's vigorous insistence that Turkey be granted membership in the EU. Turkey would be the first Muslim majority country granted admittance into the EU. This would, in one stealth action, result in the radical islamization of the EU. Larger states have more votes than smaller ones in the EU and Turkey would be the largest, most populated country in the organization.
When decisions are not being taken by consensus, votes are weighted so that a country with a greater population has more votes within the Council than a smaller country (although not exact, smaller countries have more votes than their population would allow relative to the largest countries) .....more here
Fait accompli.
Further, EU members must have democratic, free market governments together with the corresponding freedoms and institutions, and respect the rule of law. Clearly Turkey's continued aggressive hostilities with Greece and Cyprus preclude that. And the rapid re-islamization of Turkey, the move away from Ataturk's reforms of secularization, should make Turkey's denial of membership a foregone conclusion.
Cameron speaks of 'an extreme' Islam, what he actually is referring to is pure Islam, original Islam. Prime Minister of Turkey Erdogan said back in 2007,
'First of all, the "moderate Islam" concept is wrong. The word "Islam" is a simple word -- it is only Islam. If you say "moderate Islam," then an alternative is created, and that is "immoderate Islam." I cannot accept such a concept as a Muslim'
And he said this:
'The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and Muslims our soldiers…' said the Prime Minister of the increasingly Islamic Turkey Recipe Tayyip Erdogan, as he publicly read an Islamic poem.'
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's position is that the EU should offer Turkey a 'privileged partnership' instead of full membership. Turkey has dismissed that offer. French President Nicolas Sarkozy also opposes Turkey joining the EU. And rightly so.
Turkey must join EU, says Cameron: 'Those who are against are playing on fears of Islam'
'David Cameron today accused critics of Turkey’s membership of the EU of playing on fears of Islam - as he pledged to "pave the road from Ankara to Brussels".
In a speech in the Turkish capital the Prime Minister promised to "fight" to help the Islamic state achieve its 50-year goal of EU membership.
He said that, by embracing the moderate Muslim nation, the EU can improve relations with the rest of the Islamic world.
And he hit out at those who "wilfully misunderstand Islam" in order to oppose Turkey’s membership.
He said: "They see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists.
"They think the values of Islam can never be compatible with the values of other religions, societies or cultures.
"All these arguments are just plain wrong. I want us to be at the forefront of an international effort to defeat them."
Mr Cameron’s words put him at odds with France, Germany and Tory Right-wingers who believe Turkey may be incompatible with the EU.
EU countries are in a position to use their veto to block a move for Turkish accession. But they are now coming under pressure from the U.S. as well as Britain.
The Prime Minister hit out at "protectionists" who see Turkey as an "economic threat".
And he criticised those who see the world as a "clash of civilisations" in which Turkey must choose sides.'
So do we not defend our civilization? Do we just acquiesce? Is this what the Brits elected when they ushered in the new era of the Conservatives?
But Cameron did not stop there. He launched into an attack on the Jews (what Muslim trip is complete without a good dose of Islamic anti-semitism?).
Did Cameron not see the the video? Did Cameron not view the bloody attacks on the Jewish soldiers? Is Jewish self defense now a crime in the modern era of the new barbarians?
The thing is, the bloody jihad convoy flotilla was launched in Turkey by the IHH. The State department will be designating the IHH a terrorist organization. What is Cameron doing? And who is he serving?
David Cameron today described Gaza as a 'prison camp' and appealed to the Israeli Government to allow the free flow of humanitarian goods and people in and out of the Palestinian territory.
An open air prison camp? More of the Islamic anti-semitic narrative. Britain is an open air prison!
There's an obesity problem in Gaza, for pete's sake. Gaza is free. Perhaps if they removed their teeth from Israel's neck and set about to live, work, create, invent, etc., and left the Jews alone, all would be well.
'The situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp.
'The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. And I have told PM Netanyahu we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous.'
The Prime Minister said he hoped that direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians would take place within the coming weeks and urged Turkey to press the parties to come together by 'making the case for peace'.
He said: 'Turkey's relationships in the region, both with Israel and with the Arab world, are of incalculable value."
UPDATE: Cameron is lecturing the Jewish people but has not trouble with this: The forgotten Holocaust: The Armenian massacre that inspired Hitler
Why on earth would British Prime Minister David Cameron want Turkey to join the EU? Has he not noticed the sudden move on the part of the Turkish prime minister toward cozying up with enemies of the West? If this is conservatism in the UK, they are in deep trouble.
Read from Atlas Shrugs about why permitting Turkey to join the EU is such a dangerous move:
He's Worse Than Brown
"The Brits can't catch a break. I never thought I'd say it, but despite having defeated the leftist Brown and elected the Conservative party candidate, David Cameron, who would have thought he'd be .....worse.
Yesterday Cameron made shocking and disastrous remarks, the implications of which are disastrous for freedom-loving peoples of the world. First, Cameron's vigorous insistence that Turkey be granted membership in the EU. Turkey would be the first Muslim majority country granted admittance into the EU. This would, in one stealth action, result in the radical islamization of the EU. Larger states have more votes than smaller ones in the EU and Turkey would be the largest, most populated country in the organization.
When decisions are not being taken by consensus, votes are weighted so that a country with a greater population has more votes within the Council than a smaller country (although not exact, smaller countries have more votes than their population would allow relative to the largest countries) .....more here
Fait accompli.
Further, EU members must have democratic, free market governments together with the corresponding freedoms and institutions, and respect the rule of law. Clearly Turkey's continued aggressive hostilities with Greece and Cyprus preclude that. And the rapid re-islamization of Turkey, the move away from Ataturk's reforms of secularization, should make Turkey's denial of membership a foregone conclusion.
Cameron speaks of 'an extreme' Islam, what he actually is referring to is pure Islam, original Islam. Prime Minister of Turkey Erdogan said back in 2007,
'First of all, the "moderate Islam" concept is wrong. The word "Islam" is a simple word -- it is only Islam. If you say "moderate Islam," then an alternative is created, and that is "immoderate Islam." I cannot accept such a concept as a Muslim'
And he said this:
'The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and Muslims our soldiers…' said the Prime Minister of the increasingly Islamic Turkey Recipe Tayyip Erdogan, as he publicly read an Islamic poem.'
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's position is that the EU should offer Turkey a 'privileged partnership' instead of full membership. Turkey has dismissed that offer. French President Nicolas Sarkozy also opposes Turkey joining the EU. And rightly so.
Turkey must join EU, says Cameron: 'Those who are against are playing on fears of Islam'
'David Cameron today accused critics of Turkey’s membership of the EU of playing on fears of Islam - as he pledged to "pave the road from Ankara to Brussels".
In a speech in the Turkish capital the Prime Minister promised to "fight" to help the Islamic state achieve its 50-year goal of EU membership.
He said that, by embracing the moderate Muslim nation, the EU can improve relations with the rest of the Islamic world.
And he hit out at those who "wilfully misunderstand Islam" in order to oppose Turkey’s membership.
He said: "They see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists.
"They think the values of Islam can never be compatible with the values of other religions, societies or cultures.
"All these arguments are just plain wrong. I want us to be at the forefront of an international effort to defeat them."
Mr Cameron’s words put him at odds with France, Germany and Tory Right-wingers who believe Turkey may be incompatible with the EU.
EU countries are in a position to use their veto to block a move for Turkish accession. But they are now coming under pressure from the U.S. as well as Britain.
The Prime Minister hit out at "protectionists" who see Turkey as an "economic threat".
And he criticised those who see the world as a "clash of civilisations" in which Turkey must choose sides.'
So do we not defend our civilization? Do we just acquiesce? Is this what the Brits elected when they ushered in the new era of the Conservatives?
But Cameron did not stop there. He launched into an attack on the Jews (what Muslim trip is complete without a good dose of Islamic anti-semitism?).
Did Cameron not see the the video? Did Cameron not view the bloody attacks on the Jewish soldiers? Is Jewish self defense now a crime in the modern era of the new barbarians?
The thing is, the bloody jihad convoy flotilla was launched in Turkey by the IHH. The State department will be designating the IHH a terrorist organization. What is Cameron doing? And who is he serving?
David Cameron today described Gaza as a 'prison camp' and appealed to the Israeli Government to allow the free flow of humanitarian goods and people in and out of the Palestinian territory.
An open air prison camp? More of the Islamic anti-semitic narrative. Britain is an open air prison!
There's an obesity problem in Gaza, for pete's sake. Gaza is free. Perhaps if they removed their teeth from Israel's neck and set about to live, work, create, invent, etc., and left the Jews alone, all would be well.
'The situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp.
'The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. And I have told PM Netanyahu we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous.'
The Prime Minister said he hoped that direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians would take place within the coming weeks and urged Turkey to press the parties to come together by 'making the case for peace'.
He said: 'Turkey's relationships in the region, both with Israel and with the Arab world, are of incalculable value."
UPDATE: Cameron is lecturing the Jewish people but has not trouble with this: The forgotten Holocaust: The Armenian massacre that inspired Hitler
Stateside Assassinations
Somehow, I remember a wild case of hysteria coming from the Left when they discovered that President Bush was wiretapping Americans who were thought to have ties to terrorism. How is that unacceptable when President Obama has come up with an "assassination program" for suspected terrorists in America? Where are the demonstrations? Where is the outrage?
Now, I'm no brain surgeon, but isn't an assassination program a bigger grab of power than wiretapping a phone, especially when the Obama regime wouldn't recognize a terrorist if he was sitting in their presence with his bomb vest exposed? But, the regime sure would be quick to identify someone from the Tea Party as an extremist and a threat to the country.
Read more from Human Events:
Obama's US Assassination Program? Part 1
by Chuck Norris
"Sound too conspiratorial to be true? Like the cover-up ops of spy novels? Well, it's reality. And it is possibly the most bizarre, inhumane and abusive way that the White House is expanding its power over the American people.
It's not an extremist belief or theory of the far right. It's a fact that has been confirmed by The New York Times, The Washington Post and MSNBC and even documented by the far-left online magazine Salon.com.
And it's the gravest nightmare of U.S. citizens and abandonment of our Constitution to date: a presidential assassination program in which U.S. citizens are in the literal scopes of the executive branch based upon nothing more than allegations of terrorism involvement as the branch defines it.
Of course, the CIA has executed covert assassinations of foreigners for decades. But tragically, Obama is expanding this program to include American, non-Islamic, stateside, homegrown terrorists.
It all started in January, when The Washington Post reported: 'As part of the operations, Obama approved a Dec. 24 strike against a (Yemeni) compound where a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, was thought to be meeting with other regional al-Qaeda leaders. Although he was not the focus of the strike and was not killed, he has since been added to a shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing or capture.'
'A shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing'?
That's right. No arrest. No Miranda rights. No due process. No trial. Just a bullet.
While the Obama administration continues its Bush-blaming for the economy, it is mega-morphing Bush policy in covert ops overseas, which was, according to the Post, 'to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests.'
Well, in recent weeks, the Obama administration has taken this overseas killing op to a new low: stateside assassinations.
A former director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, confessed before Congress: 'We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community. If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.'
If you are wondering who the 'we' are to whom Adm. Blair refers, they are Smith, Wesson and the White House.
Now we know what deputy national security adviser John Brennan meant when he admitted in May, 'And under President Obama, we have built upon the work of the previous administration and have accelerated efforts in many areas.' (Remember when Bush's eavesdropping on U.S. citizens seemed harsh?)
Brennan further explained then that the problem of homegrown terrorists ranks as a top priority because of the increasing number of U.S. individuals who have become 'captivated by extremist ideology or causes.' He went on to say, 'There are ... dozens of U.S. persons who are in different parts of the world and ... are very concerning to us.'
Do you think 'different parts of the world' doesn't include their country of origin?
Conveniently, the Obama administration also is integrating a pervasive plan to ensure the termination of radicals as the feds deem them abroad and domestic, too, with the resurrection of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, introduced by Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. Also known as H.R. 1955, it was passed in the House by the Democratic majority but was rejected by the Senate.
Everyone thought that legislation was dead until the Obama administration resurrected its tenets in its 52-page 'National Security Strategy,' released in May. So alarming is the feds' potential abuse of power that officials from London to the Kremlin are recognizing the threat to U.S. citizens.
The European Union Times reported, 'Foreign Ministry reports circulating in the Kremlin today are warning that an already explosive situation in the United States is about to get a whole lot worse as a new law put forth by President Obama is said capable of seeing up to 500,000 American citizens jailed for the crime of opposing their government.'
Woodrow Wilson, during his reign as president, incarcerated more than 2,000 U.S. citizens for speaking out against the government. And now for the first time since, a U.S. president is highlighting the threats of homegrown terror and literally hunting U.S. citizens as terrorists. One senior administration official said, 'For the first time since 9/11, the (national security strategy) integrates homeland security and national security.'
And what type of 'integration' does that entail?
President Obama explained in an often overlooked statement within the 'National Security Strategy': 'We are now moving beyond traditional distinctions between homeland and national security. ... This includes a determination to prevent terrorist attacks against the American people by fully coordinating the actions that we take abroad with the actions and precautions that we take at home.'
Could it be any clearer? Right out of the horse's mouth. Or do I need to spell out what 'fully coordinating the actions that we take abroad with the actions and precautions that we take at home' means?
Remember the words 'a shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing'?
That's right. No arrest. No Miranda rights. No due process. No trial. Just a bullet."
Now, I'm no brain surgeon, but isn't an assassination program a bigger grab of power than wiretapping a phone, especially when the Obama regime wouldn't recognize a terrorist if he was sitting in their presence with his bomb vest exposed? But, the regime sure would be quick to identify someone from the Tea Party as an extremist and a threat to the country.
Read more from Human Events:
Obama's US Assassination Program? Part 1
by Chuck Norris
"Sound too conspiratorial to be true? Like the cover-up ops of spy novels? Well, it's reality. And it is possibly the most bizarre, inhumane and abusive way that the White House is expanding its power over the American people.
It's not an extremist belief or theory of the far right. It's a fact that has been confirmed by The New York Times, The Washington Post and MSNBC and even documented by the far-left online magazine Salon.com.
And it's the gravest nightmare of U.S. citizens and abandonment of our Constitution to date: a presidential assassination program in which U.S. citizens are in the literal scopes of the executive branch based upon nothing more than allegations of terrorism involvement as the branch defines it.
Of course, the CIA has executed covert assassinations of foreigners for decades. But tragically, Obama is expanding this program to include American, non-Islamic, stateside, homegrown terrorists.
It all started in January, when The Washington Post reported: 'As part of the operations, Obama approved a Dec. 24 strike against a (Yemeni) compound where a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, was thought to be meeting with other regional al-Qaeda leaders. Although he was not the focus of the strike and was not killed, he has since been added to a shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing or capture.'
'A shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing'?
That's right. No arrest. No Miranda rights. No due process. No trial. Just a bullet.
While the Obama administration continues its Bush-blaming for the economy, it is mega-morphing Bush policy in covert ops overseas, which was, according to the Post, 'to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests.'
Well, in recent weeks, the Obama administration has taken this overseas killing op to a new low: stateside assassinations.
A former director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, confessed before Congress: 'We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community. If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.'
If you are wondering who the 'we' are to whom Adm. Blair refers, they are Smith, Wesson and the White House.
Now we know what deputy national security adviser John Brennan meant when he admitted in May, 'And under President Obama, we have built upon the work of the previous administration and have accelerated efforts in many areas.' (Remember when Bush's eavesdropping on U.S. citizens seemed harsh?)
Brennan further explained then that the problem of homegrown terrorists ranks as a top priority because of the increasing number of U.S. individuals who have become 'captivated by extremist ideology or causes.' He went on to say, 'There are ... dozens of U.S. persons who are in different parts of the world and ... are very concerning to us.'
Do you think 'different parts of the world' doesn't include their country of origin?
Conveniently, the Obama administration also is integrating a pervasive plan to ensure the termination of radicals as the feds deem them abroad and domestic, too, with the resurrection of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, introduced by Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. Also known as H.R. 1955, it was passed in the House by the Democratic majority but was rejected by the Senate.
Everyone thought that legislation was dead until the Obama administration resurrected its tenets in its 52-page 'National Security Strategy,' released in May. So alarming is the feds' potential abuse of power that officials from London to the Kremlin are recognizing the threat to U.S. citizens.
The European Union Times reported, 'Foreign Ministry reports circulating in the Kremlin today are warning that an already explosive situation in the United States is about to get a whole lot worse as a new law put forth by President Obama is said capable of seeing up to 500,000 American citizens jailed for the crime of opposing their government.'
Woodrow Wilson, during his reign as president, incarcerated more than 2,000 U.S. citizens for speaking out against the government. And now for the first time since, a U.S. president is highlighting the threats of homegrown terror and literally hunting U.S. citizens as terrorists. One senior administration official said, 'For the first time since 9/11, the (national security strategy) integrates homeland security and national security.'
And what type of 'integration' does that entail?
President Obama explained in an often overlooked statement within the 'National Security Strategy': 'We are now moving beyond traditional distinctions between homeland and national security. ... This includes a determination to prevent terrorist attacks against the American people by fully coordinating the actions that we take abroad with the actions and precautions that we take at home.'
Could it be any clearer? Right out of the horse's mouth. Or do I need to spell out what 'fully coordinating the actions that we take abroad with the actions and precautions that we take at home' means?
Remember the words 'a shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing'?
That's right. No arrest. No Miranda rights. No due process. No trial. Just a bullet."
Monday, July 26, 2010
Like-Extending Drugs Will Be Rationed for Breast Cancer Patients
Healthcare rationing in America is on its way, and breast cancer patients are about to be thrown under Obama's heavily-populated bus.
Read from Big Government:
ObamaCare: The Rationing Begins in Earnestby Capitol Confidential
"The ink is not yet dry on the Obama Health Care takeover and rationing advocate Donald Berkwick has yet to have his desk moved into the Medicare offices, and the Administration is already attempting to limit life-extending drugs for cancer patients.
This is the first shot in the health care revolution.
In September, the Food and Drug Administration will try to take the anti-cancer drug Avastin 'off-label.' Avastin is a Stage 4 drug used to battle breast cancer. Avastin is not a cure but has been shown to stop the growth of cancer for an average of five months — meaning some late stage breast cancer victims live beyond five months.
But late stage breast cancer patients do not fit into the cost-benefit analysis of the Obama Administration. We told America rationing would happen if the health care takeover bill passed and in September, women with breast cancer will be its first victims.
Avastin is the first medicine to fight cancer by blocking the growth of blood vessels that feed tumors. While Avastin is expensive and may not be the miracle drug some anticipated for breast cancer (it is for other types of cancer) from the success of the early trials, the overwhelming majority of breast cancer specialists believe the drug can be effective and useful in certain patients.
If the FDA takes Avastin off label it will effectively deny all but the richest Americans access to the drug. Once a drug is off label, most insurance and Medicare will no longer cover the cost of the treatment. So even if a patient meets the criteria of one who might respond positively to Avastin once it is taken off label it is highly unlikely that patient will have access to the drug unless they have the money to pay for it outright.
WHIFF OF SCANDAL?
Traditionally the FDA and ODAC make decisions based on a process called
endpoints. Does a drug achieve certain targets? In this case, the FDA changed the criteria to judge the effectiveness of the drug.
Dr. Richard Pazdur is the FDA’s Cancer Czar. Pazdur decides which anti-cancer drugs patients can have access to. In the case of Avastin, Pazdur changed the criteria to a new very subjective and slippery standard of 'clinically meaningful.' And apparently the FDA and Pazdur don’t believe that extending the life of a Breast Cancer victim by 3 to 5 months or more is 'Clinically Meaningful.'
How do you put a price tag on those precious months for the families who are living through the h*** of losing a Mother, Sister, Daughter, Aunt or Wife? Taking Avastin off label is nothing more then government rationing of healthcare. Period.
Americans with cancer live much longer than similar victims in other nations. Traditionally the FDA has not based its decisions on the cost of drug or biologic treatment, but solely on the effectiveness of the treatment. This approach seems to be changing as Obamacare is being implemented and the rationing of healthcare soon begins.
If you knew you could take a drug and perhaps live another year, would you take it? The government will now be making that decision for you.
Members of Congress should demand a briefing from the FDA/Dr. Pazdur before any action is taken to deny breast cancer patients access to treatment that may extend their lives. No one is suggesting Avastin is a perfect drug, however it has proven to be an effect treatment for some patients. We should not deny those patients access to a treatment that may extend their lives. The removal of Avastin is the Obama’s Administrations second attack on breast cancer patients, earlier this year they changed the mammography standard from 40 to 50, which could result in millions of women going undiagnosed."
Read from Big Government:
ObamaCare: The Rationing Begins in Earnestby Capitol Confidential
"The ink is not yet dry on the Obama Health Care takeover and rationing advocate Donald Berkwick has yet to have his desk moved into the Medicare offices, and the Administration is already attempting to limit life-extending drugs for cancer patients.
This is the first shot in the health care revolution.
In September, the Food and Drug Administration will try to take the anti-cancer drug Avastin 'off-label.' Avastin is a Stage 4 drug used to battle breast cancer. Avastin is not a cure but has been shown to stop the growth of cancer for an average of five months — meaning some late stage breast cancer victims live beyond five months.
But late stage breast cancer patients do not fit into the cost-benefit analysis of the Obama Administration. We told America rationing would happen if the health care takeover bill passed and in September, women with breast cancer will be its first victims.
Avastin is the first medicine to fight cancer by blocking the growth of blood vessels that feed tumors. While Avastin is expensive and may not be the miracle drug some anticipated for breast cancer (it is for other types of cancer) from the success of the early trials, the overwhelming majority of breast cancer specialists believe the drug can be effective and useful in certain patients.
If the FDA takes Avastin off label it will effectively deny all but the richest Americans access to the drug. Once a drug is off label, most insurance and Medicare will no longer cover the cost of the treatment. So even if a patient meets the criteria of one who might respond positively to Avastin once it is taken off label it is highly unlikely that patient will have access to the drug unless they have the money to pay for it outright.
WHIFF OF SCANDAL?
Traditionally the FDA and ODAC make decisions based on a process called
endpoints. Does a drug achieve certain targets? In this case, the FDA changed the criteria to judge the effectiveness of the drug.
Dr. Richard Pazdur is the FDA’s Cancer Czar. Pazdur decides which anti-cancer drugs patients can have access to. In the case of Avastin, Pazdur changed the criteria to a new very subjective and slippery standard of 'clinically meaningful.' And apparently the FDA and Pazdur don’t believe that extending the life of a Breast Cancer victim by 3 to 5 months or more is 'Clinically Meaningful.'
How do you put a price tag on those precious months for the families who are living through the h*** of losing a Mother, Sister, Daughter, Aunt or Wife? Taking Avastin off label is nothing more then government rationing of healthcare. Period.
Americans with cancer live much longer than similar victims in other nations. Traditionally the FDA has not based its decisions on the cost of drug or biologic treatment, but solely on the effectiveness of the treatment. This approach seems to be changing as Obamacare is being implemented and the rationing of healthcare soon begins.
If you knew you could take a drug and perhaps live another year, would you take it? The government will now be making that decision for you.
Members of Congress should demand a briefing from the FDA/Dr. Pazdur before any action is taken to deny breast cancer patients access to treatment that may extend their lives. No one is suggesting Avastin is a perfect drug, however it has proven to be an effect treatment for some patients. We should not deny those patients access to a treatment that may extend their lives. The removal of Avastin is the Obama’s Administrations second attack on breast cancer patients, earlier this year they changed the mammography standard from 40 to 50, which could result in millions of women going undiagnosed."
Crisis After Crisis
The Obama regime is intentionally drawing our nation closer and closer to the cliff. A little Cloward-Piven strategy in the making. Obama and his comrades are purposely attempting to collapse our economy so they can make it into the socialist utopia image which they have been fantasizing about for decades.
Read from the American Thinker:
Barack Obama's Endless Crises
By Claude Sandroff
"There is no evidence that Barack Obama willfully precipitated the Nashville floods, but almost all of the other gloomy, intractable quagmires that feed the country's pessimism are of his creation. But unlike crises of past administrations that seemed to get resolved in some fashion, his simply fester. Every day we read the same headlines, except that the crises deepen, become more insoluble, and grow less amenable to the standard cures of government policy.
Even with a corrupt, compliant liberal media in the role of constant Obama booster, 62% of the country senses that we are headed in the wrong direction. The country has been driven to this opinion by Obama's flagrant ideological radicalism, which might have been forgiven had it not led to our most pernicious crisis, that of worsening joblessness. Only Obama and Joe Biden believe that the job trajectory in America is positive. Everyone else -- those who actually look at data or look for work -- are scared witless.
Each job opening has five to six applicants. The average unemployment period now extends to 35 weeks, the highest since the end of WWII. Last month, more than six hundred thousand Americans gave up looking for work. The same report revealed that average hourly earnings for those lucky enough to be working have fallen. Average hours worked also dropped. These figures simply get worse from month to month.
But somehow, all of this deteriorating evidence leads the smartest man who ever held the office of president (according to historian Michael Beschloss) to proclaim that we're on the right track. Christine Romer and Jared Bernstein, who form the bulwark of his crack economic team, assured us with almost mathematical certainty in 2009 that Obama's near-trillion-dollar economic stimulus would guarantee unemployment rates that never rose above 7.3%. And since the stimulus has burdened us with trillion-dollar deficits as far as we look, economic and job recoveries grow ever more distant and unlikely. As unemployment, debt, uncertainly, and pessimism grow unabated, so too does our sense of hopelessness and crisis. Israel might fear Obama because his middle name is Hussein, but many others fear him because his first name is 'president.'
The sense of crisis is palpable in the Gulf as well, where along with 60,000 barrels of light crude and thousands of cubic feet of natural gas, a potentially toxic and carcinogenic stew of benzene, toluene, and hydrogen sulfide also constantly spew. Our only hope of salvation lies with the ingenuity and resources of BP. BP has brought the Discoverer Enterprise on site to collect some of the effluent a mile above the geyser. Only BP had the infrastructure, skill, and operation scale to bring two relief wells into play should their latest gambit to cap the open Macondo wellhead fail. At the same time, Obama's Coast Guard offers America spokesmen to assure us that they approve of all BP actions and occasionally verify that crew members of assisting ships are wearing their life jackets.
There are two executives who own the crisis in the Gulf: Tony Hayward of BP and Barack Obama from Washington, D.C. Hayward was relieved of all operational Gulf rescue duties and will probably be fired when the discharge is contained. Obama, because of a quirk of constitutional government, remains in charge of the unending polluting crisis. His government awarded BP kudos for safety, accepted the highest level of funding from the firm's PAC, and forced BP to accept a terribly flawed flow model to calculate the probability of oil reaching shore after a major underwater breach. Obama is at least as culpable for the deaths of pelicans, sea turtles, and marshlands, and for the loss of fishing and tourist revenue, as is Hayward. The difference is that BP acted after their malfeasance, while the government reaction was and is almost comic in its bureaucratic lethargy.
War in Afghanistan is the final crisis about to engulf Obama. The man, who once accused American troopers of killing innocent Afghan civilians, is now in charge of America's longest war. He has fired its most recent field commander and, in a cruel irony, replaced him with George Bush's most successful general, whose Iraqi success Obama once ridiculed as illusory.
Bush and Petraeus succeeded in Iraq because Petraeus had a splendid counterinsurgency strategy and knew he would never be betrayed by his commander in chief, no matter how intense the political pressure against the war became. Obama can promise no such allegiance to Petraeus, who must grasp victory in an environment where the Taliban knows that Obama's patience is finite. Still Obama, must attempt to succeed because he has held up the Afghan war as true and just, in contrast to Bush's so-called war of choice in Iraq.
At some point, the left will revolt against Obama's halfhearted Afghan war prosecution as they did against LBJ's endless enterprise in Vietnam. Last month was the deadliest for American soldiers, and many Australians, along with the British and the Dutch, are beginning to say they've had enough. We might know that a true moment of crisis has arrived when the radical fringe openly references the recent stories of Afghanistan's mineral riches and pens protest signs that read: 'Obama, No Blood for Lithium!'
The Obama presidency will irreversibly collapse once his kook antiwar base abandons him. Since that moment will come only after the country has been traumatized by depression-level unemployment and unending images of Gulf coast filth, the worry is that we might not even notice it."
Arabs Don't Care About the Palestinians
While liberals in the West get hysterical about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and bawl around about how the Israelis are mistreating the "poor, innocent Palestinians" who only want to live in peace (yeah, right!), the majority of those in the Arab world don't want to be bothered about the Palestinians, except as a tool to rail against Israel.
Read from Israel Matzav:
Online poll: 71% of Arabs could care less about 'Palestinians'
"An online poll at al-Arabiya (link in Arabic) reports that 71% of respondents are no longer interested in the 'Palestinians.' (The graphic below is a screen capture from a Google translation of the poll).
Elder of Ziyon cites an op-ed on the subject from al-Sharq al-Awswat and comments:
'It is inconceivable to this editorialist that the wall-to-wall coverage of a people who have nothing to do with the day to day lives of ordinary Arabs has made them sick of the whole topic - especially in light of the Hamas/Fatah split, which turned off a lot of previously supportive Arabs. If Palestinians can't get their act together, they are saying, why should we beat our heads against the wall for these babies?'
The real question this poll presents is whether (if ever) there can be enough polls like this to make the Arab rulers realize that they can cut the 'Palestinians' loose without worrying about the 'Arab street.
Read the whole thing."
Read from Israel Matzav:
Online poll: 71% of Arabs could care less about 'Palestinians'
"An online poll at al-Arabiya (link in Arabic) reports that 71% of respondents are no longer interested in the 'Palestinians.' (The graphic below is a screen capture from a Google translation of the poll).
Elder of Ziyon cites an op-ed on the subject from al-Sharq al-Awswat and comments:
'It is inconceivable to this editorialist that the wall-to-wall coverage of a people who have nothing to do with the day to day lives of ordinary Arabs has made them sick of the whole topic - especially in light of the Hamas/Fatah split, which turned off a lot of previously supportive Arabs. If Palestinians can't get their act together, they are saying, why should we beat our heads against the wall for these babies?'
The real question this poll presents is whether (if ever) there can be enough polls like this to make the Arab rulers realize that they can cut the 'Palestinians' loose without worrying about the 'Arab street.
Read the whole thing."
Reflections on the Ground Zero Mosque
Got this email:
I think at times we are too tolerant and blind. This country is at war and most folks, including myself most days, keep going about their business as if nothing is happening.
IF YOU SEE NO OTHER VIDEO TODAY, THIS MUST BE THE ONE YOU SEE!!
This is worth a few minutes of your time. This young man explains the sad situation we are in to allow a mosque on the 9/11 site. May God have mercy on our country.
Another very chilling video!!
Doesn't need any commentary. Strategy behind ground zero mosque. This video explains it all.
I think at times we are too tolerant and blind. This country is at war and most folks, including myself most days, keep going about their business as if nothing is happening.
IF YOU SEE NO OTHER VIDEO TODAY, THIS MUST BE THE ONE YOU SEE!!
This is worth a few minutes of your time. This young man explains the sad situation we are in to allow a mosque on the 9/11 site. May God have mercy on our country.
Another very chilling video!!
Doesn't need any commentary. Strategy behind ground zero mosque. This video explains it all.
Honor Our Troops
Since George W. Bush is no longer available to kick around, the American Pravda has forgotten our military.
Do not forget these brave men and women who risk their lives each and every day. Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.
Watch this awesome video:
Do not forget these brave men and women who risk their lives each and every day. Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.
Watch this awesome video:
British Ration Healthcare
That Donald Berwick creep Obama has hired to run Medicare/Medicaid is in love with the British healthcare system.
Read about what is going on with healthcare across the pond, via the American Thinker:
Britan's NHS to make massive cuts and ration basic services
Rick Moran
"Britain's national health care system is broken.
Duh.
What is truly pitiful, however, is the idea that the bureaucrats think that by tweaking things here and there that they can fix it. This piece in the Telegraph shows why that's akin to The Impossible Dream:
'Some of the most common operations - including hip replacements and cataract surgery - will be rationed as part of attempts to save billions of pounds, despite government promises that front-line services would be protected.
Patients' groups have described the measures as "astonishingly brutal".
An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered widespread cuts planned across the NHS, many of which have already been agreed by senior health service officials. They include:
* Restrictions on some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures.
* Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends.
* The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.
* A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using accident and emergency departments.
* Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for surgery for obesity.'
Other changes include thousands of job losses and cost cutting for pediatric and maternity programs as well as care for the elderly.
How about that American cancer patients; do you want a system that tells you to go to hell if you happen to be in unbearable pain on a weekend? And you better not have an accident - you might simply be turned away for lack of beds - and a lack of concern.
We are told by national health care advocates - including our brand new Medicare chief Donald Berwick - that rationing is the wave of the future and there''s nothing that can be done except have government determine who gets what as far as health care is concerned.
The pitilessness of the British model turns my stomach. And the h*** of it is, Americans will not wake up to what Obamacare really means until they are personally affected by the changes. By then it will be far too late to step back from the brink and we'll end up like Great Britain; tinkering with a failed system that will only make things worse for everyone."
Is this what we can expect from Obama's "let grandma die" healthcare rationing plan? With Berwick's love for British healthcare and his running Medicare/Medicaid, this does not inspire confidence that Americans will receive the medical care which they need.
Read about what is going on with healthcare across the pond, via the American Thinker:
Britan's NHS to make massive cuts and ration basic services
Rick Moran
"Britain's national health care system is broken.
Duh.
What is truly pitiful, however, is the idea that the bureaucrats think that by tweaking things here and there that they can fix it. This piece in the Telegraph shows why that's akin to The Impossible Dream:
'Some of the most common operations - including hip replacements and cataract surgery - will be rationed as part of attempts to save billions of pounds, despite government promises that front-line services would be protected.
Patients' groups have described the measures as "astonishingly brutal".
An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered widespread cuts planned across the NHS, many of which have already been agreed by senior health service officials. They include:
* Restrictions on some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures.
* Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends.
* The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.
* A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using accident and emergency departments.
* Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for surgery for obesity.'
Other changes include thousands of job losses and cost cutting for pediatric and maternity programs as well as care for the elderly.
How about that American cancer patients; do you want a system that tells you to go to hell if you happen to be in unbearable pain on a weekend? And you better not have an accident - you might simply be turned away for lack of beds - and a lack of concern.
We are told by national health care advocates - including our brand new Medicare chief Donald Berwick - that rationing is the wave of the future and there''s nothing that can be done except have government determine who gets what as far as health care is concerned.
The pitilessness of the British model turns my stomach. And the h*** of it is, Americans will not wake up to what Obamacare really means until they are personally affected by the changes. By then it will be far too late to step back from the brink and we'll end up like Great Britain; tinkering with a failed system that will only make things worse for everyone."
Is this what we can expect from Obama's "let grandma die" healthcare rationing plan? With Berwick's love for British healthcare and his running Medicare/Medicaid, this does not inspire confidence that Americans will receive the medical care which they need.
Hurricane Barack
Wake up, America! We conservatives tried warning you of the dangers of an Obama presidency. It's long past time for calling for a hurricane warning; the storm has hit, and the devastation is here. November begins the clean-up process.
Sadly, everything our president touches turns to crap. As I've been saying prior to the inauguration of Obama, we are living through a second term of Jimmy Carter. Gird your loins, ladies and gentlemen. We are in for a rough ride.
Read from the Denver Post, via Hot Air:
Mr. President, where are you?
As the country sinks into a late-'70s malaise and President Obama's approval rating drops, we could use a little "hope."
"Barack Obama ought to be one of the happiest men in America.
In less than two years, he's presided over monumental, historic changes to our health care system and financial industries. He has won a Nobel Peace Prize and already has nominated two like-minded scholars to the U.S. Supreme Court, leaving a lasting imprint on the high court.
Yet, his approval rating (44 percent) dropped to historic lows this past week. The country has been in a funk for the better part of a year and the economy is dangerously close to a double-dip recession.
His own party has needled him for not going far enough or moving fast enough. And Republicans are salivating over the very real possibility of wresting control of at least one house of Congress from Democrats in November.
Jobs have vanished faster than BP's credibility. And the oil leak has been a drain on the national psyche.
Welcome to the summer of malaise.
Welcome back, Carter.
Even the talking heads at MSNBC have compared Obama's sudden lack of leadership, his summer spent adrift, to the uninspiring Jimmy Carter presidency after last month's remarkably lackluster national address about the Gulf oil leak.
President Obama has accomplished quite a bit on the domestic front, but like Carter, the public tide has turned against him and his foreign policy has been, in large part, a complete disappointment.
His health care plan, approved only after the type of backroom, sleazy deal-making he crusaded against during his campaign, does little to bring down exorbitant costs and could bankrupt states once higher Medicaid costs are passed down.
The $1 trillion stimulus provided only a blip of a recovery, while saddling the nation with an unsustainable debt load. And the federal government's reach into business and the financial world, for better or worse, is now deeper than ever.
We endorsed Obama in 2008, believing his plans for the fragile economy and frozen financial markets were superior to John McCain's erratic ideas. But we also hoped he would restore the nation's reputation with the rest of the world. But instead of being vilified, as we were under Bush, the United States is now suddenly bordering on being irrelevant.
Relations with China and Russia have been deteriorating.
China wags its finger at us over our spendthrift ways, and who can blame them for worrying about whether we can ever afford to pay them back?
North Korea sinks a South Korean boat, and the U.S. provides no leadership. Instead, the Obama administration issues what amounts to a tersely worded press release.
Relations with the government we prop up in Afghanistan are, at best, strained.
No U.S. president since Carter has been as crossways with Israel, our one solid Middle East ally.
And on the homefront, unemployment still hovers around 10 percent. Factor in those who have lost hope and have stopped looking, and the jobless rate is in the high teens.
There's also been an intangible, yet inescapable, sense of unease in the country, reminiscent of our late- 1970s malaise. Faith in Obama's 'Yes we can' slogan has faded faster than the Obama-Biden stickers still clinging to bumpers.
It's not too late for Obama to turn around his presidency. His party likely will take a beating at the polls this year for its over-reaching congressional agenda, but ideally a more balanced Congress will move the president closer to the political center.
One media outlet asked last week: Can Obama get his groove back?
He must. The nation still needs a unifying leader, one who can lift up all citizens and restore our hope and pride and belief that America's best days not only are ahead, but near."
Sadly, everything our president touches turns to crap. As I've been saying prior to the inauguration of Obama, we are living through a second term of Jimmy Carter. Gird your loins, ladies and gentlemen. We are in for a rough ride.
Read from the Denver Post, via Hot Air:
Mr. President, where are you?
As the country sinks into a late-'70s malaise and President Obama's approval rating drops, we could use a little "hope."
"Barack Obama ought to be one of the happiest men in America.
In less than two years, he's presided over monumental, historic changes to our health care system and financial industries. He has won a Nobel Peace Prize and already has nominated two like-minded scholars to the U.S. Supreme Court, leaving a lasting imprint on the high court.
Yet, his approval rating (44 percent) dropped to historic lows this past week. The country has been in a funk for the better part of a year and the economy is dangerously close to a double-dip recession.
His own party has needled him for not going far enough or moving fast enough. And Republicans are salivating over the very real possibility of wresting control of at least one house of Congress from Democrats in November.
Jobs have vanished faster than BP's credibility. And the oil leak has been a drain on the national psyche.
Welcome to the summer of malaise.
Welcome back, Carter.
Even the talking heads at MSNBC have compared Obama's sudden lack of leadership, his summer spent adrift, to the uninspiring Jimmy Carter presidency after last month's remarkably lackluster national address about the Gulf oil leak.
President Obama has accomplished quite a bit on the domestic front, but like Carter, the public tide has turned against him and his foreign policy has been, in large part, a complete disappointment.
His health care plan, approved only after the type of backroom, sleazy deal-making he crusaded against during his campaign, does little to bring down exorbitant costs and could bankrupt states once higher Medicaid costs are passed down.
The $1 trillion stimulus provided only a blip of a recovery, while saddling the nation with an unsustainable debt load. And the federal government's reach into business and the financial world, for better or worse, is now deeper than ever.
We endorsed Obama in 2008, believing his plans for the fragile economy and frozen financial markets were superior to John McCain's erratic ideas. But we also hoped he would restore the nation's reputation with the rest of the world. But instead of being vilified, as we were under Bush, the United States is now suddenly bordering on being irrelevant.
Relations with China and Russia have been deteriorating.
China wags its finger at us over our spendthrift ways, and who can blame them for worrying about whether we can ever afford to pay them back?
North Korea sinks a South Korean boat, and the U.S. provides no leadership. Instead, the Obama administration issues what amounts to a tersely worded press release.
Relations with the government we prop up in Afghanistan are, at best, strained.
No U.S. president since Carter has been as crossways with Israel, our one solid Middle East ally.
And on the homefront, unemployment still hovers around 10 percent. Factor in those who have lost hope and have stopped looking, and the jobless rate is in the high teens.
There's also been an intangible, yet inescapable, sense of unease in the country, reminiscent of our late- 1970s malaise. Faith in Obama's 'Yes we can' slogan has faded faster than the Obama-Biden stickers still clinging to bumpers.
It's not too late for Obama to turn around his presidency. His party likely will take a beating at the polls this year for its over-reaching congressional agenda, but ideally a more balanced Congress will move the president closer to the political center.
One media outlet asked last week: Can Obama get his groove back?
He must. The nation still needs a unifying leader, one who can lift up all citizens and restore our hope and pride and belief that America's best days not only are ahead, but near."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
