Friday, July 29, 2011
Poor Barry!
The wait is over; reality has settled in, and America does not much like you, Mr. President.
From Weasel Zippers:
Poll: Obama’s Approval Rating Among Independents Craters To Only 31%…
"Ouch.
'A new poll shows President Barack Obama’s disapproval rate among political independents has broken above 50 percent, even while he is using the debt ceiling debate to seek approval from those critical swing voters.
Support for Obama among independents has fallen from 42 percent in May to 31 percent, and disapproval has risen to 54 percent, according to a late July poll of 1,500 registered voters by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
The drop in support among independents is critical because both parties have a roughly similar number of die-hard supporters. The 2012 election prize will go to the candidate who draws more independent voters, and Obama’s decline in that crucial demographic has dragged his ratings down among registered voters, according to the Pew poll.'
Keep reading…
Guess Which Countries Persecute the Palestinians?
Sorry, if you went with Israel, you would be wrong. It's the Arabs, as in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. But, shhhh, the American Pravda does not want you to know this because in their eyes only Israel is to blame for everything.
Between George W. Bush, the Tea Party, Christians, and Israel, one of these is responsible for anything bad that happens.
From Israel Matzav:
Between George W. Bush, the Tea Party, Christians, and Israel, one of these is responsible for anything bad that happens.
From Israel Matzav:
How Our Tax Dollars Fund Abortion
Libs ALWAYS are able to finagle a way to fund their pet project, abortion.
From One News Now:
New video reveals secret funding of abortions
From One News Now:
New video reveals secret funding of abortions
"We're Not All Terrorists, You Know"
Right out of the mouth of a terrorist. That's not very reassuring coming from the new Fort Hood jihadist who said those exact words a year ago.
How are we supposed to recognize which Muslims are sincere when they speak against terrorism and which ones are stealth jihadists? This man proves that we should be on our guard around Muslims because the friendly one down the street may in reality have violent goals in store for us.
In the meantime, millions of clueless Americans continue to bury their heads in the sand.
Read from Jihad Watch:
New Fort Hood jihadi on ABC News last year: wants to "put a good positive spin out there that Islam is a good, peaceful religion"
"And how better to do that than by murdering a few Infidels?
An update on the conscientious objector who got out of the Army so he could avoid killing his fellow Muslims, but evidently wanted to kill large numbers of non-Muslims at Fort Hood.
War Is Deceit Update: 'Devout Muslim Soldier Hopes to Avoid Deployment to Afghanistan,' by Sarah Netter for ABC News, August 31, 2010 (thanks to Bill):
'[...] Now, he said, he wants out of the Army so he can spend his life combating what he called Islamaphobia [sic] and advocating Islam as a peaceful religion.
"I want to use my experience to show Muslims how we can lead our lives," he said. "And to try and put a good positive spin out there that Islam is a good, peaceful religion. We're not all terrorists, you know?"...'"
Speaking of Fort Hood jihadists, this should make your blood boil:
Did You Know? Accused Ft. Hood Gunman Is Still Getting Paycheck From the Government
What is the matter with us in this country that a mass killer is still on the government payroll?
How are we supposed to recognize which Muslims are sincere when they speak against terrorism and which ones are stealth jihadists? This man proves that we should be on our guard around Muslims because the friendly one down the street may in reality have violent goals in store for us.
In the meantime, millions of clueless Americans continue to bury their heads in the sand.
Read from Jihad Watch:
New Fort Hood jihadi on ABC News last year: wants to "put a good positive spin out there that Islam is a good, peaceful religion"
"And how better to do that than by murdering a few Infidels?
An update on the conscientious objector who got out of the Army so he could avoid killing his fellow Muslims, but evidently wanted to kill large numbers of non-Muslims at Fort Hood.
War Is Deceit Update: 'Devout Muslim Soldier Hopes to Avoid Deployment to Afghanistan,' by Sarah Netter for ABC News, August 31, 2010 (thanks to Bill):
'[...] Now, he said, he wants out of the Army so he can spend his life combating what he called Islamaphobia [sic] and advocating Islam as a peaceful religion.
"I want to use my experience to show Muslims how we can lead our lives," he said. "And to try and put a good positive spin out there that Islam is a good, peaceful religion. We're not all terrorists, you know?"...'"
Speaking of Fort Hood jihadists, this should make your blood boil:
Did You Know? Accused Ft. Hood Gunman Is Still Getting Paycheck From the Government
What is the matter with us in this country that a mass killer is still on the government payroll?
Thursday, July 28, 2011
The Ten Percent Solution
So simple and absolutely brilliant!
Read from Human Events:
Join The 10% Solution Now--Especially You, Congress
by Benjamin Wiker
"Note: I wrote this article on Tuesday, July 26. On the following day, Wednesday, my wife was listening to Glenn Beck in the morning and heard him speak of 'The Ten Percent Solution.' As they say, 'Great minds think alike.' In one sense, it is purely a coincidence, and our emphases are quite different—his on 10% of the people changing the morbid course of our history for the better, mine on reducing federal expenditures by 10%. In another, it is a hopeful confluence, and therefore I dare hope the two Ten Percent Solutions can be mixed, and reinforce each other’s medicinal potencies. We are a sick country indeed.
Let me assure the reader that I am being deadly serious in this proposal, to wit, The 10% Solution to the debt crisis. I really am challenging the government to cut everything—everything—by 10%. From the President’s salary on down to the post office scrub brushes, from farm subsidies to art subsidies, from college grants to research grants. Let it be emblazoned on banners flying from Capitol Hill, trumpeted through conservative talk radio, worn boldly on lapels—The 10% Solution.
It’s short. It’s catchy. It’s easy enough to remember, and even easier to implement. It’s trickle-down economics, because it begins at the top. Here’s how it works.
President Obama talks about eating his peas, and the need for sacrifice. Simple enough. He gets $400,000 a year. He vows to take a pay cut of $40,000, effective immediately. The 10% solution.
I don’t think the First Couple will miss it. The Obamas made $1,795,614 in 2010. They pulled in $5,623,690 in 2009, and $2,736,107 in 2008. They didn’t do so badly in 2007 either, stacking up just a bit under 4.2 million. Forgoing a measly $40,000 couldn’t possibly pinch, and it would certainly appear to the American people that Obama wasn’t merely asking for everyone else’s sacrifice.
Next, Congress. You folks on the Hill want to make us think you’re really serious about debt reduction? Scurrying around from meeting to meeting like hysterical chipmunks won’t do anymore. Vow to take your 10% pay cut ASAP. That’s more than $17,000 a head per year.
There are 237 millionaires in Congress. The median worth of senators is more than 1.5 million, and for the Housers, more than a half million. Again, I doubt we’ll find any of them shuffling through Goodwill.
And then you’ve got all the staffers (executive and congressional), and even more lucrative for reducing the gushing government payout, all the federal employees, wherever and whoever they are—there are, I’m told, somewhere around 2.65 million of them out there. They can all take a 10% hit, given that they receive about 15% more of a salary than their private-sector parallels.
Last, but in no way the least, we’ve got all the lovely programs, giveaways, grants, subsidies—all the way down to the bottom of the pork barrel. And don’t forget all that money strewn across the globe, fluttering down on foreign governments and the United Nations. Cut it all by 10%.
The math is simple. The effect on federal expenditures is obvious. But the psychology of the thing is pure genius.
Think about it. All it takes is for one congresshuman to call a press conference and announce with the gravest of faces, 'My fellow Americans, I cannot ask you to sacrifice if I am unwilling to sacrifice. I have notified the federal paymaster to cut my salary by 10%, effective as of this morning. I call on other members of Congress, and the President himself, to follow me in this sacrifice. I will be introducing a bill tomorrow that calls for the immediate reduction of all federal pay by 10%, and then another, that will cut all federal programs by 10%. I thank you.'
If no Congress folk step up to the mike, then the press can have the honor of asking, 'Congressman _____________, there is a grassroots movement to cut all federal spending by 10%—a secular tithe to reduce federal spending and the federal debt. People out there on Main Street have lost their jobs, or their salaries have been cut by even more than 10%. They want to know why you haven’t offered to take a 10% pay cut—especially since you have a net worth of ___ million?'
Once the ball starts rolling around the Hill, it will only gain momentum. What do you think the chances of reelection would be for those congresspersons who refuse to take the cut? Could Obama refuse, once Congress has swallowed the 10% solution? And what federal employee could gripe, given that the boys and girls at the top have already offered their deficit-reduction tithe?
Speaking of the brilliance of this proposal, note that it gets around that one psychological barrier that makes negotiating debt reduction so cursedly difficult—the feeling that some other guy is making out royally while you get the wet sock. On this plan, everyone has to man up. Everyone knows that everyone else has had to sacrifice. None of this, 'I’m not going to give up a dime of my luxurious pension plan, while those so-and-sos are still lolling in their well-padded nests!' Everyone knows that everyone else has taken a hit.
It also gets around a behemothean practical barrier: the endless niggling-haggling over cutting this or that federal program. There’s one knife and one cut, and everyone feels the same pain: 10%.
Again, this is not offered tongue-in-cheek. The time for modest proposals is over. I long for the halcyon days when we were merely teetering on the cliff. The 10% Solution is so simple that it could be implemented without any of the loathsome cheek-by-jowl scrumbling and scrambling in the now smoke-free back rooms.
I know what you’re thinking, especially you, Mr. Obama. You’re thinking of conjuring up the genie-vision of starving oldsters bereft of their SS checks, the poor moiling about the streets begging for bread, the military going without pay.
Checkmate! With all the money saved from your salary, the salaries of all those dangling happily on the executive branch, Congress, all the federal agencies, all the other federal programs, subsidies and endless whatnottery, you’ll have more than enough to fund current levels of spending in the untouchable entitlements.
But I also believe that once the folks in Washington each have their 10% sliced off, they’ll be a lot more likely to want to wield the 10% cutlery when it comes to the great bloat of entitlement programs. That’s the final brilliance of The 10% Solution."
Read from Human Events:
Join The 10% Solution Now--Especially You, Congress
by Benjamin Wiker
"Note: I wrote this article on Tuesday, July 26. On the following day, Wednesday, my wife was listening to Glenn Beck in the morning and heard him speak of 'The Ten Percent Solution.' As they say, 'Great minds think alike.' In one sense, it is purely a coincidence, and our emphases are quite different—his on 10% of the people changing the morbid course of our history for the better, mine on reducing federal expenditures by 10%. In another, it is a hopeful confluence, and therefore I dare hope the two Ten Percent Solutions can be mixed, and reinforce each other’s medicinal potencies. We are a sick country indeed.
Let me assure the reader that I am being deadly serious in this proposal, to wit, The 10% Solution to the debt crisis. I really am challenging the government to cut everything—everything—by 10%. From the President’s salary on down to the post office scrub brushes, from farm subsidies to art subsidies, from college grants to research grants. Let it be emblazoned on banners flying from Capitol Hill, trumpeted through conservative talk radio, worn boldly on lapels—The 10% Solution.
It’s short. It’s catchy. It’s easy enough to remember, and even easier to implement. It’s trickle-down economics, because it begins at the top. Here’s how it works.
President Obama talks about eating his peas, and the need for sacrifice. Simple enough. He gets $400,000 a year. He vows to take a pay cut of $40,000, effective immediately. The 10% solution.
I don’t think the First Couple will miss it. The Obamas made $1,795,614 in 2010. They pulled in $5,623,690 in 2009, and $2,736,107 in 2008. They didn’t do so badly in 2007 either, stacking up just a bit under 4.2 million. Forgoing a measly $40,000 couldn’t possibly pinch, and it would certainly appear to the American people that Obama wasn’t merely asking for everyone else’s sacrifice.
Next, Congress. You folks on the Hill want to make us think you’re really serious about debt reduction? Scurrying around from meeting to meeting like hysterical chipmunks won’t do anymore. Vow to take your 10% pay cut ASAP. That’s more than $17,000 a head per year.
There are 237 millionaires in Congress. The median worth of senators is more than 1.5 million, and for the Housers, more than a half million. Again, I doubt we’ll find any of them shuffling through Goodwill.
And then you’ve got all the staffers (executive and congressional), and even more lucrative for reducing the gushing government payout, all the federal employees, wherever and whoever they are—there are, I’m told, somewhere around 2.65 million of them out there. They can all take a 10% hit, given that they receive about 15% more of a salary than their private-sector parallels.
Last, but in no way the least, we’ve got all the lovely programs, giveaways, grants, subsidies—all the way down to the bottom of the pork barrel. And don’t forget all that money strewn across the globe, fluttering down on foreign governments and the United Nations. Cut it all by 10%.
The math is simple. The effect on federal expenditures is obvious. But the psychology of the thing is pure genius.
Think about it. All it takes is for one congresshuman to call a press conference and announce with the gravest of faces, 'My fellow Americans, I cannot ask you to sacrifice if I am unwilling to sacrifice. I have notified the federal paymaster to cut my salary by 10%, effective as of this morning. I call on other members of Congress, and the President himself, to follow me in this sacrifice. I will be introducing a bill tomorrow that calls for the immediate reduction of all federal pay by 10%, and then another, that will cut all federal programs by 10%. I thank you.'
If no Congress folk step up to the mike, then the press can have the honor of asking, 'Congressman _____________, there is a grassroots movement to cut all federal spending by 10%—a secular tithe to reduce federal spending and the federal debt. People out there on Main Street have lost their jobs, or their salaries have been cut by even more than 10%. They want to know why you haven’t offered to take a 10% pay cut—especially since you have a net worth of ___ million?'
Once the ball starts rolling around the Hill, it will only gain momentum. What do you think the chances of reelection would be for those congresspersons who refuse to take the cut? Could Obama refuse, once Congress has swallowed the 10% solution? And what federal employee could gripe, given that the boys and girls at the top have already offered their deficit-reduction tithe?
Speaking of the brilliance of this proposal, note that it gets around that one psychological barrier that makes negotiating debt reduction so cursedly difficult—the feeling that some other guy is making out royally while you get the wet sock. On this plan, everyone has to man up. Everyone knows that everyone else has had to sacrifice. None of this, 'I’m not going to give up a dime of my luxurious pension plan, while those so-and-sos are still lolling in their well-padded nests!' Everyone knows that everyone else has taken a hit.
It also gets around a behemothean practical barrier: the endless niggling-haggling over cutting this or that federal program. There’s one knife and one cut, and everyone feels the same pain: 10%.
Again, this is not offered tongue-in-cheek. The time for modest proposals is over. I long for the halcyon days when we were merely teetering on the cliff. The 10% Solution is so simple that it could be implemented without any of the loathsome cheek-by-jowl scrumbling and scrambling in the now smoke-free back rooms.
I know what you’re thinking, especially you, Mr. Obama. You’re thinking of conjuring up the genie-vision of starving oldsters bereft of their SS checks, the poor moiling about the streets begging for bread, the military going without pay.
Checkmate! With all the money saved from your salary, the salaries of all those dangling happily on the executive branch, Congress, all the federal agencies, all the other federal programs, subsidies and endless whatnottery, you’ll have more than enough to fund current levels of spending in the untouchable entitlements.
But I also believe that once the folks in Washington each have their 10% sliced off, they’ll be a lot more likely to want to wield the 10% cutlery when it comes to the great bloat of entitlement programs. That’s the final brilliance of The 10% Solution."
A New Low for the American Pravda
The American Pravda will stop at nothing to get Obama re-elected. Since the economy is in such turmoil, there is little the media can do to sway our minds about Obama's incompetency.
Therefore, they are forced to try a new approach -- foreign policy. After all, isn't Obama the one who single-handedly rescued us from the dangers of Osama bin Laden? Not! If he had had his way, no enhanced interrogations would have been used on bin Laden's courier, and Osama would still be sitting pretty in his compound in Pakistan. That being said, the American Pravda is now trying to convince us all that, thanks to Obama's ingenius foreign policy, al Qaeda is no longer a threat. What nonsense!
Read from Joshua Pundit:
The Most Dangerous Story In The News Today
"In today's Washington Post..here's the opening paragraph:
'U.S. counterterrorism officials are increasingly convinced that the killing of Osama bin Laden and the toll of seven years of CIA drone strikes have pushed al-Qaeda to the brink of collapse.'
The article quotes the usual unnamed sources.
The WAPO, being the relatively careful news organization it is covers its tracks carefully with caveats stuck away in odd corners like 'al Qaeda might yet rally', 'its demise would not end the terrorist threat' and 'Even if al Qaeda is dismantled, its militant ideology has spread and will remain a long-term threat.'
But the headline and the overwhelming thrust of the article is that al-Qaeda is finished.
Isn't that just wonderful? Wouldn't it be nice to believe that the war that began on 9/11 is all over now, and we beat the bad guys?
Sorry, but I'm afraid I have to pop your bubble. Let's look at something obvious. Why would this be fed to the media just now? And who benefits?
This story fits neatly into the Obama Administration's plans. And even though the WAPO isn't naming names, I can pretty much figure out whom they got it from and why.
We're getting out of Afghanistan, but if we - oh pardon me, President Barack Obama - killed Osama bin-Laden and defeated al-Qaeda, it's not a retreat anymore is it? On the campaign trail, it becomes a win. It can be touted as ''We've finished off the bad guys, and look at who it was that ended Bush's War brought our troops home!' So President Obama gets a totally undeserved label from the usual media suspects as a national security genius.
Not only that but since we've won, we can slash defense spending to the bone and spend that money on Obama's domestic agenda, can't we?
Now that we've figured out the why and who benefits, let's examine who the media almost certainly got this from..and why it's so dangerous.
Leon Panetta, until very recently was the head of our CIA, and just a couple of weeks ago was in Afghanistan saying 'We’re within reach of strategically defeating al Qaeda.'
Now, he's the Secretary of Defense charged with two major responsibilities. First, getting our troops out of Afghanistan in accordance with President Obama's set in stone date in time for maximum benefit for the president at election time, and selling it to Congress and the media as justified by the military situation. And second, to institute the massive defense cuts his boss is calling for.
All just a coincidence, of course. But I think it's a pretty good bet that he's the WAPO's source, and we'll likely see more of these stories.
Aside from playing politics with national security, this story is extremely dangerous in and of itself.
Contrary to what this president and his administration would have you believe, we were never really just fighting al-Qaeda, but a whole slew of Islamist organizations ( many of them associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Salafist groups) and the rogue states that support them. Al-Qaeda were at most just part of the parade, and slightly out of hand subcontractors. And the story also ignores the significant ties between al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and what that might mean in countries like Egypt. If you'll recall, al-Qaeda's current leader, Ayman Zawahiri is both an Egyptian and a former member of the Brotherhood, and I've speculated on these pages that the one of the reasons Osama bin-Laden was ratted out was because of the disagreement between the two about staying in Pakistan versus relocating to the Arab World.
This story's also extremely dangerous because of the honor shame factor involved. Trumpeting al-Qaeda's defeat in the press could be just the impetus needed for them to put another operation against the Great Satan into action.
Deluding the American people into thinking that this war is mostly over and lulling them into a false sense of security is exactly what the Islamists want. In fact, that war, because of the desultory way our leaders chose to fight it is merely begun.
That's why this piece, just a brief mention in passing, is the most dangerous story in the news today."
New Poll: ‘Trouble for the West’ as Egyptians On Pace to Elect Muslim Brotherhood
Therefore, they are forced to try a new approach -- foreign policy. After all, isn't Obama the one who single-handedly rescued us from the dangers of Osama bin Laden? Not! If he had had his way, no enhanced interrogations would have been used on bin Laden's courier, and Osama would still be sitting pretty in his compound in Pakistan. That being said, the American Pravda is now trying to convince us all that, thanks to Obama's ingenius foreign policy, al Qaeda is no longer a threat. What nonsense!
Read from Joshua Pundit:
The Most Dangerous Story In The News Today
"In today's Washington Post..here's the opening paragraph:
'U.S. counterterrorism officials are increasingly convinced that the killing of Osama bin Laden and the toll of seven years of CIA drone strikes have pushed al-Qaeda to the brink of collapse.'
The article quotes the usual unnamed sources.
The WAPO, being the relatively careful news organization it is covers its tracks carefully with caveats stuck away in odd corners like 'al Qaeda might yet rally', 'its demise would not end the terrorist threat' and 'Even if al Qaeda is dismantled, its militant ideology has spread and will remain a long-term threat.'
But the headline and the overwhelming thrust of the article is that al-Qaeda is finished.
Isn't that just wonderful? Wouldn't it be nice to believe that the war that began on 9/11 is all over now, and we beat the bad guys?
Sorry, but I'm afraid I have to pop your bubble. Let's look at something obvious. Why would this be fed to the media just now? And who benefits?
This story fits neatly into the Obama Administration's plans. And even though the WAPO isn't naming names, I can pretty much figure out whom they got it from and why.
We're getting out of Afghanistan, but if we - oh pardon me, President Barack Obama - killed Osama bin-Laden and defeated al-Qaeda, it's not a retreat anymore is it? On the campaign trail, it becomes a win. It can be touted as ''We've finished off the bad guys, and look at who it was that ended Bush's War brought our troops home!' So President Obama gets a totally undeserved label from the usual media suspects as a national security genius.
Not only that but since we've won, we can slash defense spending to the bone and spend that money on Obama's domestic agenda, can't we?
Now that we've figured out the why and who benefits, let's examine who the media almost certainly got this from..and why it's so dangerous.
Leon Panetta, until very recently was the head of our CIA, and just a couple of weeks ago was in Afghanistan saying 'We’re within reach of strategically defeating al Qaeda.'
Now, he's the Secretary of Defense charged with two major responsibilities. First, getting our troops out of Afghanistan in accordance with President Obama's set in stone date in time for maximum benefit for the president at election time, and selling it to Congress and the media as justified by the military situation. And second, to institute the massive defense cuts his boss is calling for.
All just a coincidence, of course. But I think it's a pretty good bet that he's the WAPO's source, and we'll likely see more of these stories.
Aside from playing politics with national security, this story is extremely dangerous in and of itself.
Contrary to what this president and his administration would have you believe, we were never really just fighting al-Qaeda, but a whole slew of Islamist organizations ( many of them associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Salafist groups) and the rogue states that support them. Al-Qaeda were at most just part of the parade, and slightly out of hand subcontractors. And the story also ignores the significant ties between al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and what that might mean in countries like Egypt. If you'll recall, al-Qaeda's current leader, Ayman Zawahiri is both an Egyptian and a former member of the Brotherhood, and I've speculated on these pages that the one of the reasons Osama bin-Laden was ratted out was because of the disagreement between the two about staying in Pakistan versus relocating to the Arab World.
This story's also extremely dangerous because of the honor shame factor involved. Trumpeting al-Qaeda's defeat in the press could be just the impetus needed for them to put another operation against the Great Satan into action.
Deluding the American people into thinking that this war is mostly over and lulling them into a false sense of security is exactly what the Islamists want. In fact, that war, because of the desultory way our leaders chose to fight it is merely begun.
That's why this piece, just a brief mention in passing, is the most dangerous story in the news today."
New Poll: ‘Trouble for the West’ as Egyptians On Pace to Elect Muslim Brotherhood
Obama Out of Touch with Public on Abortion
Proverbs 8:36 states: "All who hate me love death."
Let's be honest. Barack Obama is no "committed Christian". This verse says it all as to why the president is such an avid fan of abortion. Thankfully, the rest of the country is not as eager to slaughter the unborn as he is. Even Democrats.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Gallup Poll Finds Dem Voters Not As Strongly Pro-Abortion As Obama…
"Just goes to show how much of a pro-abortion fanatic he is.
'The new Gallup poll showing Americans strongly supporting some of the kinds of pro-life laws that have been successful in stopping abortions around the country and reducing them to historic lows in some states has another interesting conclusion.
While President Barack Obama has stopped at nothing to advance abortion and taxpayer funding of abortion, the poll shows Democrats nationwide are not as strongly pro-abortion as the president. In fact, a majority of Democrats support some key pro-life laws and large minorities support others.
The polling data reveals 84 percent of Democrats back informed consent measure to give women more information about abortion’s risks and alternatives, 61 percent support parental consent before a teenage can get an abortion, and 60 percent support a 24-hour waiting period. That’s not the overall percentage of Americans who support those pro-life laws, that’s not the percentage of Republicans. That’s more than 60 percent of Democrats backing each of those policies.
The results go further and they show 59 percent of Democrats back a partial-birth abortion ban, and 49 percent support a bill to allow women a chance to see an ultrasound before an abortion. While not a majority, a good percentage of Democrats also support a ban on federal funding of abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood (25 percent), and an allowance for pharmacists and healthcare providers to opt out of participating in abortions or dispensing abortion drugs (33 percent).'
Keep reading…"
From One News Now:
Let's be honest. Barack Obama is no "committed Christian". This verse says it all as to why the president is such an avid fan of abortion. Thankfully, the rest of the country is not as eager to slaughter the unborn as he is. Even Democrats.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Gallup Poll Finds Dem Voters Not As Strongly Pro-Abortion As Obama…
"Just goes to show how much of a pro-abortion fanatic he is.
'The new Gallup poll showing Americans strongly supporting some of the kinds of pro-life laws that have been successful in stopping abortions around the country and reducing them to historic lows in some states has another interesting conclusion.
While President Barack Obama has stopped at nothing to advance abortion and taxpayer funding of abortion, the poll shows Democrats nationwide are not as strongly pro-abortion as the president. In fact, a majority of Democrats support some key pro-life laws and large minorities support others.
The polling data reveals 84 percent of Democrats back informed consent measure to give women more information about abortion’s risks and alternatives, 61 percent support parental consent before a teenage can get an abortion, and 60 percent support a 24-hour waiting period. That’s not the overall percentage of Americans who support those pro-life laws, that’s not the percentage of Republicans. That’s more than 60 percent of Democrats backing each of those policies.
The results go further and they show 59 percent of Democrats back a partial-birth abortion ban, and 49 percent support a bill to allow women a chance to see an ultrasound before an abortion. While not a majority, a good percentage of Democrats also support a ban on federal funding of abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood (25 percent), and an allowance for pharmacists and healthcare providers to opt out of participating in abortions or dispensing abortion drugs (33 percent).'
Keep reading…"
From One News Now:
Ann Sets Us Straight
Ann Coulter gives us an education on all those "so-called" Christians extremists who have murdered innocents, and the American Pravda's double standard. As usual, she does not disappoint.
Read from Human Events:
New York Times Reader Kills Dozens in Norway
by Ann Coulter
"The New York Times wasted no time in jumping to conclusions about Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian who staged two deadly attacks in Oslo last weekend, claiming in the first two paragraphs of one story that he was a 'gun-loving,' 'right-wing,' 'fundamentalist Christian,' opposed to 'multiculturalism.'
It may as well have thrown in 'Fox News-watching' and 'global warming skeptic.'
This was a big departure from the Times' conclusion-resisting coverage of the Fort Hood shooting suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Despite reports that Hasan shouted 'Allahu Akbar!' as he gunned down his fellow soldiers at a military medical facility in 2009, only one of seven Times articles on Hasan so much as mentioned that he was a Muslim.
Of course, that story ran one year after Hasan's arrest, so by then, I suppose, the cat was out of the bag.
In fact, however, Americans who jumped to conclusions about Hasan were right and New York Times reporters who jumped to conclusions about Breivik were wrong.
True, in one lone entry on Breivik's gaseous 1,500-page manifesto, '2083: A European Declaration of Independence,' he calls himself 'Christian.' But unfortunately he also uses a great number of other words to describe himself, and these other words make clear that he does not mean 'Christian' as most Americans understand the term. (Incidentally, he also cites The New York Times more than a half-dozen times.)
Had anyone at the Times actually read Breivik's manifesto, they would have seen that he uses the word 'Christian' as a handy moniker to mean 'European, non-Islamic' -- not a religious Christian or even a vague monotheist. In fact, at several points in his manifesto, Breivik stresses that he has a beef with Christians for their soft-heartedness. (I suppose that's why the Times is never worried about a 'Christian backlash.')
A casual perusal of Breivik's manifesto clearly shows that he uses the word 'Christian' similarly to the way some Jewish New Yorkers use it to mean 'non-Jewish.' In this usage, Christopher Hitchens and Madalyn Murray O'Hair are 'Christians.'
I told a Jewish gal trying to set me up with one of her friends once that he had to be Christian, and she exclaimed that she had the perfect guy: a secular Muslim atheist. (This was the least-popular option on the '60s board game Dream Date, by the way).
Breivik is very clear that you don't even have to believe in God to join his movement, saying in a self-interview:
Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?
A: As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus.
He goes on to say that a 'Christian fundamentalist theocracy' is 'everything we DO NOT want,' and a 'secular European society' is 'what we DO want.'
'It is enough,' Breivik says, 'that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist.' That statement doesn't even make sense in America.
At the one and only meeting of Breivik's 'Knights Templar' in London in 2002, there were nine attendees, three of whom he describes as 'Christian atheists' and one as a 'Christian agnostic.' (Another dozen people mistook it for a Renaissance Faire and were turned away.)
Breivik clearly explains that his 'Knights Templar' is 'not a religious organization but rather a Christian "culturalist" military order.' He even calls on the 'European Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu community' to join his fight against "the Islamization of Europe."
He doesn't believe in Christianity or want anyone else to, but apparently supports celebrating Christmas simply to annoy Muslims.
Breivik says he is 'not an excessively religious man,' brags that he is 'first and foremost a man of logic,' calls himself 'economically liberal' and reveres Darwinism.
But Times reporters had their 'Eureka!' moment as soon as they heard Breivik used the word 'Christian' someplace to identify himself. No one at the Times bothered to read Breivik's manifesto to see that he doesn't use the term the way the rest of us do. That might have interfered with the paper's obsessive Christian-bashing.
Other famous killers dubbed conservative Christians by the Times include Timothy McVeigh and Jared Loughner.
McVeigh was a pot-smoking atheist who said, 'Science is my religion.'
Similarly, Breivik says in his manifesto that 'it is essential that science take an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings' –- a statement that would be incomprehensible to all the real scientists, such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Newton, Mendel, Pasteur, Planck, Einstein and Pauli, all of whom believed the whole purpose of science was to understand God.
The Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, was lyingly described by the Times as a pro-life fanatic. Not only did more honest news outlets, such as ABC News, report exactly the opposite -- for example, how Loughner alarmed his classmates by laughing about an aborted baby in class -- but Loughner's friends described him as 'left wing,' 'a political radical,' 'quite liberal' and 'a pothead.' Another said Loughner's mother was Jewish.
The only reason Timothy McVeigh has gone down in history as a right-wing Christian and Jared Loughner has not -- despite herculean efforts by much of the mainstream media to convince us otherwise -- is that by January 2011 when Loughner went on his murder spree, conservatives had enough media outlets to reveal the truth.
As explained in the smash best-seller 'Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America,' the liberal rule is: Any criminal act committed by a white man with a gun is a right-wing, Christian conspiracy, whereas any criminal act committed by a nonwhite is the government violating someone's civil liberties.
It's too bad Breivik wasn't a Muslim extremist open about his Jihadist views, because I hear the Army is looking for a new psychiatrist down at Fort Hood."
Read from Human Events:
New York Times Reader Kills Dozens in Norway
by Ann Coulter
"The New York Times wasted no time in jumping to conclusions about Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian who staged two deadly attacks in Oslo last weekend, claiming in the first two paragraphs of one story that he was a 'gun-loving,' 'right-wing,' 'fundamentalist Christian,' opposed to 'multiculturalism.'
It may as well have thrown in 'Fox News-watching' and 'global warming skeptic.'
This was a big departure from the Times' conclusion-resisting coverage of the Fort Hood shooting suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Despite reports that Hasan shouted 'Allahu Akbar!' as he gunned down his fellow soldiers at a military medical facility in 2009, only one of seven Times articles on Hasan so much as mentioned that he was a Muslim.
Of course, that story ran one year after Hasan's arrest, so by then, I suppose, the cat was out of the bag.
In fact, however, Americans who jumped to conclusions about Hasan were right and New York Times reporters who jumped to conclusions about Breivik were wrong.
True, in one lone entry on Breivik's gaseous 1,500-page manifesto, '2083: A European Declaration of Independence,' he calls himself 'Christian.' But unfortunately he also uses a great number of other words to describe himself, and these other words make clear that he does not mean 'Christian' as most Americans understand the term. (Incidentally, he also cites The New York Times more than a half-dozen times.)
Had anyone at the Times actually read Breivik's manifesto, they would have seen that he uses the word 'Christian' as a handy moniker to mean 'European, non-Islamic' -- not a religious Christian or even a vague monotheist. In fact, at several points in his manifesto, Breivik stresses that he has a beef with Christians for their soft-heartedness. (I suppose that's why the Times is never worried about a 'Christian backlash.')
A casual perusal of Breivik's manifesto clearly shows that he uses the word 'Christian' similarly to the way some Jewish New Yorkers use it to mean 'non-Jewish.' In this usage, Christopher Hitchens and Madalyn Murray O'Hair are 'Christians.'
I told a Jewish gal trying to set me up with one of her friends once that he had to be Christian, and she exclaimed that she had the perfect guy: a secular Muslim atheist. (This was the least-popular option on the '60s board game Dream Date, by the way).
Breivik is very clear that you don't even have to believe in God to join his movement, saying in a self-interview:
Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?
A: As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus.
He goes on to say that a 'Christian fundamentalist theocracy' is 'everything we DO NOT want,' and a 'secular European society' is 'what we DO want.'
'It is enough,' Breivik says, 'that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist.' That statement doesn't even make sense in America.
At the one and only meeting of Breivik's 'Knights Templar' in London in 2002, there were nine attendees, three of whom he describes as 'Christian atheists' and one as a 'Christian agnostic.' (Another dozen people mistook it for a Renaissance Faire and were turned away.)
Breivik clearly explains that his 'Knights Templar' is 'not a religious organization but rather a Christian "culturalist" military order.' He even calls on the 'European Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu community' to join his fight against "the Islamization of Europe."
He doesn't believe in Christianity or want anyone else to, but apparently supports celebrating Christmas simply to annoy Muslims.
Breivik says he is 'not an excessively religious man,' brags that he is 'first and foremost a man of logic,' calls himself 'economically liberal' and reveres Darwinism.
But Times reporters had their 'Eureka!' moment as soon as they heard Breivik used the word 'Christian' someplace to identify himself. No one at the Times bothered to read Breivik's manifesto to see that he doesn't use the term the way the rest of us do. That might have interfered with the paper's obsessive Christian-bashing.
Other famous killers dubbed conservative Christians by the Times include Timothy McVeigh and Jared Loughner.
McVeigh was a pot-smoking atheist who said, 'Science is my religion.'
Similarly, Breivik says in his manifesto that 'it is essential that science take an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings' –- a statement that would be incomprehensible to all the real scientists, such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Newton, Mendel, Pasteur, Planck, Einstein and Pauli, all of whom believed the whole purpose of science was to understand God.
The Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, was lyingly described by the Times as a pro-life fanatic. Not only did more honest news outlets, such as ABC News, report exactly the opposite -- for example, how Loughner alarmed his classmates by laughing about an aborted baby in class -- but Loughner's friends described him as 'left wing,' 'a political radical,' 'quite liberal' and 'a pothead.' Another said Loughner's mother was Jewish.
The only reason Timothy McVeigh has gone down in history as a right-wing Christian and Jared Loughner has not -- despite herculean efforts by much of the mainstream media to convince us otherwise -- is that by January 2011 when Loughner went on his murder spree, conservatives had enough media outlets to reveal the truth.
As explained in the smash best-seller 'Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America,' the liberal rule is: Any criminal act committed by a white man with a gun is a right-wing, Christian conspiracy, whereas any criminal act committed by a nonwhite is the government violating someone's civil liberties.
It's too bad Breivik wasn't a Muslim extremist open about his Jihadist views, because I hear the Army is looking for a new psychiatrist down at Fort Hood."
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
As a Nation Does to Israel
Naturally, we were all saddened by the horrific terror attack last week in Norway. But, as the days go by, we keep finding out more interesting information about both the killer and the victims. What a tragedy that so many youths were the victims of this tragedy.
I'll betcha didn't know that this group had been rallying against Israel prior to their murders. If you recall, I have stated that Norway is probably the most anti-Semitic nation in all of Europe. God is watching, and His Word states that what you do to Israel will be done to you. Check out Obadiah 15:
"The day of the LORD is near for all nations. As you have done, it will be done to you; your deeds will return upon your own head."
The Norwegian youths were demonstrating on behalf of the Palestinians and their terrorist state on the borders of Israel. It sounds to me like the Norwegians just got a taste of terrorism themselves. Don't expect them to be so discerning of God's Word that they actually learn anything from this tragedy. The godless never learn.
Read from John McTernan Insights:
As Norway Has Done To Israel
[...]
"I previously have mentioned how Norway is so anti-Israel. Last week Abbas was in Norway. The Norwegian prime minister told him that Norway was going to recognize a Palestinian state. The Norwegian Prime Minister then went to the youth camp that was attacked and issued an anti-Israeli speech. The Kids in the camp were calling for a boycott of Israel which the above picture shows. This all happened the day before the attack!
Norway is doing its best to force Israel to live with a terrorist state, and now it is now faced with what Israel has to live with every day. The timing of the events makes it so unmistakable that the Holy God of Israel just applied Obadiah 1:15 to this country. I believe that this is just the beginning. All the nations are going to receive the justice of Obadiah 1:15, as they come against God's covenant land of Israel.
Norway FM Called for Palestinian State At Youth Camp the Day Before Deadly Rampage 07/23/11
The day before Anders Behring Breivik opened fire on youths at a Labor Party camp, organizers welcomed the country’s foreign minister. Now, the foreign minister’s message from that day has been revealed: it was an anti-Israel speech in which he came out in strong support of a Palestinian state. That message was something being supported by the camp’s attendees, who were part of the ruling Labor Party’s socialist youth movement called AUF.
Envoy contrasts terror in Israel, Norway 07/26/11
To the Norwegian government killing Israelis and their children by the Palestinians is OK, but killing Norwegian children is bad. This shows the demented mind of many of the Hard Left.
'Palestinians,' the ambassador told Maariv, 'are doing this because of a defined goal that is related to the Israeli occupation. There are elements of revenge against Israel and hatred of Israel. To this you can add the religious element to their actions.' 'In the case of the terror attack in Norway, the murderer had an ideology that says that Norway, particularly the Labor Party, is forgoing Norwegian culture,' Sevje said, referring to suspect Anders Breivik, a Christian nativist who is opently anti-Islam and anti-immigration.'
Jonas Gahr Store: - Norway is ready to recognize a Palestinian state 07/18/11
Within days of his speech, Norway was attacked with terrorism which it wants to put Israel under!
'The fact that Norway, the Palestinian representative status as ambassador, according to TV2 reporter Fredrik Græsvik a clear signal to the rest of the world that Norway is ready to recognize the Palestinians' right to their own state.'
The Quislings of Norway 07/20/11
Norway is right back where it was in the 1930-40s with hating the Jews. Norway willingly sided with the Nazis and helped kill the Jews. It seems that nothing has changed with this country.
It is amazing but Europe is right back where it was with Hitler, but this time it is with Islam which is far more dangerous than Nazism.
'In the latest example of Norwegian collaboration with the enemies of the Jews, Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere declared during a press conference this week, alongside Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, that 'Norway believes it is perfectly legitimate for the Palestinian president to turn to the United Nations' to seek recognition of an independent Palestinian state. During the Nazi occupation of Norway, nearly all Jews were either deported to death camps or fled to Sweden and beyond. Today, Norway is effectively under the occupation of anti-Semitic leftists and radical Muslims, and appears willing to help enable the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel.'"
I'll betcha didn't know that this group had been rallying against Israel prior to their murders. If you recall, I have stated that Norway is probably the most anti-Semitic nation in all of Europe. God is watching, and His Word states that what you do to Israel will be done to you. Check out Obadiah 15:
"The day of the LORD is near for all nations. As you have done, it will be done to you; your deeds will return upon your own head."
The Norwegian youths were demonstrating on behalf of the Palestinians and their terrorist state on the borders of Israel. It sounds to me like the Norwegians just got a taste of terrorism themselves. Don't expect them to be so discerning of God's Word that they actually learn anything from this tragedy. The godless never learn.
Read from John McTernan Insights:
As Norway Has Done To Israel
[...]
"I previously have mentioned how Norway is so anti-Israel. Last week Abbas was in Norway. The Norwegian prime minister told him that Norway was going to recognize a Palestinian state. The Norwegian Prime Minister then went to the youth camp that was attacked and issued an anti-Israeli speech. The Kids in the camp were calling for a boycott of Israel which the above picture shows. This all happened the day before the attack!
Norway is doing its best to force Israel to live with a terrorist state, and now it is now faced with what Israel has to live with every day. The timing of the events makes it so unmistakable that the Holy God of Israel just applied Obadiah 1:15 to this country. I believe that this is just the beginning. All the nations are going to receive the justice of Obadiah 1:15, as they come against God's covenant land of Israel.
Norway FM Called for Palestinian State At Youth Camp the Day Before Deadly Rampage 07/23/11
The day before Anders Behring Breivik opened fire on youths at a Labor Party camp, organizers welcomed the country’s foreign minister. Now, the foreign minister’s message from that day has been revealed: it was an anti-Israel speech in which he came out in strong support of a Palestinian state. That message was something being supported by the camp’s attendees, who were part of the ruling Labor Party’s socialist youth movement called AUF.
Envoy contrasts terror in Israel, Norway 07/26/11
To the Norwegian government killing Israelis and their children by the Palestinians is OK, but killing Norwegian children is bad. This shows the demented mind of many of the Hard Left.
'Palestinians,' the ambassador told Maariv, 'are doing this because of a defined goal that is related to the Israeli occupation. There are elements of revenge against Israel and hatred of Israel. To this you can add the religious element to their actions.' 'In the case of the terror attack in Norway, the murderer had an ideology that says that Norway, particularly the Labor Party, is forgoing Norwegian culture,' Sevje said, referring to suspect Anders Breivik, a Christian nativist who is opently anti-Islam and anti-immigration.'
Jonas Gahr Store: - Norway is ready to recognize a Palestinian state 07/18/11
Within days of his speech, Norway was attacked with terrorism which it wants to put Israel under!
'The fact that Norway, the Palestinian representative status as ambassador, according to TV2 reporter Fredrik Græsvik a clear signal to the rest of the world that Norway is ready to recognize the Palestinians' right to their own state.'
The Quislings of Norway 07/20/11
Norway is right back where it was in the 1930-40s with hating the Jews. Norway willingly sided with the Nazis and helped kill the Jews. It seems that nothing has changed with this country.
It is amazing but Europe is right back where it was with Hitler, but this time it is with Islam which is far more dangerous than Nazism.
'In the latest example of Norwegian collaboration with the enemies of the Jews, Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere declared during a press conference this week, alongside Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, that 'Norway believes it is perfectly legitimate for the Palestinian president to turn to the United Nations' to seek recognition of an independent Palestinian state. During the Nazi occupation of Norway, nearly all Jews were either deported to death camps or fled to Sweden and beyond. Today, Norway is effectively under the occupation of anti-Semitic leftists and radical Muslims, and appears willing to help enable the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel.'"
New Restrictions for MidEast Funding--UPDATED
Once in a while Congress does what is right. Unfortunately, in this case, I am only speaking of the conservative House. We shall see what the Democrats will have to say about the House's proposed restrictions on funding for the Palestinian savages and the Muslim Brotherhood fans in Egypt.
From Weasel Zippers:
House Subcommittee Unveils U.S. Foreign Aid Package That Fully Funds Israel, Sets Pre-Conditions On Funds For Palestinians, Egypt…
"A brief rundown of the main pre-conditions. The Palestinians can’t seek UN statehood recognition or allow Hamas into the government, Egypt would forfeit U.S. aid if they elect the Muslim Brotherhood into power.
WASHINGTON — 'A US House subcommittee unveiled a foreign assistance package Tuesday that fully funds aid to Israel but gives money to its neighbors on conditions, including a provision that would bar the Palestinian Authority from receiving aid if it seeks statehood at the UN or includes Hamas in a unity government.
The bill, which will be reviewed by the US House Appropriations Subcommittee for Foreign Operations on Wednesday, includes $3.075 billion for Israel as part of the 10-year memorandum of understanding between the two countries.
It also contains $513 million for the Palestinian Authority, though in order to receive any of the money dedicated for security assistance, the secretary of state must certify that the PA “is not attempting to establish or seek recognition at the United Nations of a Palestinian state outside of an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians.”
The Palestinians have announced they plan to seek unilateral recognition at the UN for a state this September, a move opposed by Israel as well as the US.
In addition, the Palestinians would forfeit the American economic assistance should “any power-sharing government of which Hamas is a member or that results from an agreement with Hamas” come to power.
Earlier this year, Hamas and Fatah signed such a deal, but it has yet to be implemented.
Egypt, for its part, is due to receive $1.55b., roughly consistent with allocations in previous years, but that money is conditioned on its keeping its peace treaty with Israel, among other measures. The $250m. in economic assistance that comprises that funding would be additionally put on condition that no foreign terrorist organization heads the government.
Though whether the Muslim Brotherhood qualifies as a terrorist organization is a matter of debate.
Subcommittee chairwoman Kay Granger (R-Texas) told The Jerusalem Post that language would apply to a parliament in which the brotherhood held the majority. She said the description was vague at this point because elections had yet to be held in Egypt.'"
I have a better idea. Tell the savages in Gaza that they don't get one bloody dime.
UPDATE: Hillary has a hissy fit over this bill.
From Weasel Zippers:
House Subcommittee Unveils U.S. Foreign Aid Package That Fully Funds Israel, Sets Pre-Conditions On Funds For Palestinians, Egypt…
"A brief rundown of the main pre-conditions. The Palestinians can’t seek UN statehood recognition or allow Hamas into the government, Egypt would forfeit U.S. aid if they elect the Muslim Brotherhood into power.
WASHINGTON — 'A US House subcommittee unveiled a foreign assistance package Tuesday that fully funds aid to Israel but gives money to its neighbors on conditions, including a provision that would bar the Palestinian Authority from receiving aid if it seeks statehood at the UN or includes Hamas in a unity government.
The bill, which will be reviewed by the US House Appropriations Subcommittee for Foreign Operations on Wednesday, includes $3.075 billion for Israel as part of the 10-year memorandum of understanding between the two countries.
It also contains $513 million for the Palestinian Authority, though in order to receive any of the money dedicated for security assistance, the secretary of state must certify that the PA “is not attempting to establish or seek recognition at the United Nations of a Palestinian state outside of an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians.”
The Palestinians have announced they plan to seek unilateral recognition at the UN for a state this September, a move opposed by Israel as well as the US.
In addition, the Palestinians would forfeit the American economic assistance should “any power-sharing government of which Hamas is a member or that results from an agreement with Hamas” come to power.
Earlier this year, Hamas and Fatah signed such a deal, but it has yet to be implemented.
Egypt, for its part, is due to receive $1.55b., roughly consistent with allocations in previous years, but that money is conditioned on its keeping its peace treaty with Israel, among other measures. The $250m. in economic assistance that comprises that funding would be additionally put on condition that no foreign terrorist organization heads the government.
Though whether the Muslim Brotherhood qualifies as a terrorist organization is a matter of debate.
Subcommittee chairwoman Kay Granger (R-Texas) told The Jerusalem Post that language would apply to a parliament in which the brotherhood held the majority. She said the description was vague at this point because elections had yet to be held in Egypt.'"
I have a better idea. Tell the savages in Gaza that they don't get one bloody dime.
UPDATE: Hillary has a hissy fit over this bill.
Obama and the Black Unemployment Crisis
No one segment of the American population is more loyal to Obama than the black community. How's that "hope and change" working out for them?
Read from Red White Blue News:
Team Obama launches first website for blacks…. 34% of black males unemployed under Obama (video)
"RWBN: Just found an article praising Team Obama on launching a White House website dedicated to suckering in the black vote once again. Earlier this month the congressional black caucus slammed Obama saying:
'“Can you imagine a situation where any other group of workers, if 34 percent of white women were out there looking for work and couldn’t find it?” asked Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Missouri Democrat and chairman of the caucus. “You would see congressional hearings and community gatherings. There would be rallies and protest marches. There is no way that this would be allowed to stand.”
In May, the black unemployment rate was at 16.2 percent compared to 9.1 percent overall joblessness and 8 percent levels among white workers. In Milwaukee, Wis., a staggering 34 percent of black men are unemployed, CBS news reported.'
While CBS News reports that the national black unemployment rate is usually higher than the overall unemployment rate, these figures stand at Depression-era levels. Worse? Black teenagers have a devastating unemployment level of 41 percent.
Jesse Jackson even expressed his disappointment in Obama’s unemployment numbers for Black Americans.
Examining Black Loyalty to Democrats
But, don't worry. Most blacks will still support their black president. After all, skin color is more important than jobs, isn't it?
Read from Red White Blue News:
Team Obama launches first website for blacks…. 34% of black males unemployed under Obama (video)
"RWBN: Just found an article praising Team Obama on launching a White House website dedicated to suckering in the black vote once again. Earlier this month the congressional black caucus slammed Obama saying:
'“Can you imagine a situation where any other group of workers, if 34 percent of white women were out there looking for work and couldn’t find it?” asked Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Missouri Democrat and chairman of the caucus. “You would see congressional hearings and community gatherings. There would be rallies and protest marches. There is no way that this would be allowed to stand.”
In May, the black unemployment rate was at 16.2 percent compared to 9.1 percent overall joblessness and 8 percent levels among white workers. In Milwaukee, Wis., a staggering 34 percent of black men are unemployed, CBS news reported.'
While CBS News reports that the national black unemployment rate is usually higher than the overall unemployment rate, these figures stand at Depression-era levels. Worse? Black teenagers have a devastating unemployment level of 41 percent.
Jesse Jackson even expressed his disappointment in Obama’s unemployment numbers for Black Americans.
Examining Black Loyalty to Democrats
But, don't worry. Most blacks will still support their black president. After all, skin color is more important than jobs, isn't it?
Deceit Obama--Style
Dick Morris may not want to call our president a liar, but I'm not afraid to do so. We are commanded in the Bible to show respect for those in authority over us, which includes our president. But, I don't think God expects us to roll over and play dead when an evil leader is lying to the public to advance his agenda. Truth must always prevail.
The truth of the matter is that Obama is using scare tactics to pressure seniors to support his debt limit increase, and he is being dishonest with them. He knows very well that the American Pravda will cover for him, so he has no fear of lying through his teeth to us.
Read from Dick Morris:
OBAMA’S BIG LIE
"I hate to accuse a president of lying, but President Obama is selling a massive fraud to the American people by warning of a catastrophe if the debt limit is not increased. There will be no catastrophe unless the president goes out of his way to will it and create it.
Federal spending averages about $300 billion per month. Federal tax collections run to about $180 billion. Our vital obligations are a lot less than that: Federal debt service is about $25 billion per month. Social Security is about $58 billion per month. The entire defense budget also is about $58 billion per month. Tax revenues are more than sufficient to fund each of these items if the president chooses to allocate federal tax money to this purpose.
Confronted by a congressional refusal to raise the debt limit, the president will have a choice as to where to allocate the tax revenues that will continue to flow in. If he wishes to cause a catastrophic crisis by deliberately routing the money to purposes other than debt service, he can do so. If he wants to trigger a massive political crisis by withholding tax revenues from Social Security or military pay, he can do that, too. But these decisions are his to make. He could do the responsible thing and make sure these vital expenses are paid and withhold money from the run-of-the-mill federal bureaucracy, closing or restricting the activities of the departments of Labor, Agriculture, HUD, State, Justice, Commerce and the various boards and commissions. American can do very well without an FCC or an FTC or an NLRB for a few days or weeks.
The real political threat to Obama is that the debt limit is not increased and few people notice any change in their lives and nobody much cares. So some will have to wait a few more weeks for passports. So what?
The president is likening the government shutdown that would follow failure to raise the debt limit to that which took place in 1995-96. But in those years, there was a prohibition against spending money Congress had not yet appropriated. Now it’s perfectly legal to spend any money that comes into the Treasury; there just won’t be as much of it, because the debt limit will preclude further borrowing. The president still can fund any 60 percent of the government he wants (the proportion that comes from tax revenues).
In his speech to the nation Monday night, Obama used tricky words to camouflage these obvious facts. He no longer spoke of defaulting on money we owe, but instead used the more vague phrase 'defaulting on our obligations.' By that he means our obligations to the bureaucrats, not to our creditors.
Since when are we obliged to fund the bureaucracy? The Congress voted the money, but if it rescinds the borrowing authority, the money won’t be there and it won’t be spent.
Obama’s entire strategy is to conceal his real goal: protecting every last desk in the bureaucracy behind a facade of threatening to close the most popular and fiscally necessary programs. He’s like a local mayor who knows that nobody is going to get hot and bothered if the commercial licensing bureau gets closed for a few days, so he warns that teachers and police will have to be laid off if there are budget cuts.
The House and Senate are close to a deal. They both agree to raise the debt limit without tax hikes. The Senate wants it raised by two years, the House for one. The Senate is pushing to include accounting gimmicks like ending the wars as a savings; the House is resisting. But these all are bridgeable gaps. None of these differences are causes for a breakdown. The only player who is holding out for tax hikes is the president, who has staked out a position to the left of his senators. It’s time for him to come in from the cold."
The truth of the matter is that Obama is using scare tactics to pressure seniors to support his debt limit increase, and he is being dishonest with them. He knows very well that the American Pravda will cover for him, so he has no fear of lying through his teeth to us.
Read from Dick Morris:
OBAMA’S BIG LIE
"I hate to accuse a president of lying, but President Obama is selling a massive fraud to the American people by warning of a catastrophe if the debt limit is not increased. There will be no catastrophe unless the president goes out of his way to will it and create it.
Federal spending averages about $300 billion per month. Federal tax collections run to about $180 billion. Our vital obligations are a lot less than that: Federal debt service is about $25 billion per month. Social Security is about $58 billion per month. The entire defense budget also is about $58 billion per month. Tax revenues are more than sufficient to fund each of these items if the president chooses to allocate federal tax money to this purpose.
Confronted by a congressional refusal to raise the debt limit, the president will have a choice as to where to allocate the tax revenues that will continue to flow in. If he wishes to cause a catastrophic crisis by deliberately routing the money to purposes other than debt service, he can do so. If he wants to trigger a massive political crisis by withholding tax revenues from Social Security or military pay, he can do that, too. But these decisions are his to make. He could do the responsible thing and make sure these vital expenses are paid and withhold money from the run-of-the-mill federal bureaucracy, closing or restricting the activities of the departments of Labor, Agriculture, HUD, State, Justice, Commerce and the various boards and commissions. American can do very well without an FCC or an FTC or an NLRB for a few days or weeks.
The real political threat to Obama is that the debt limit is not increased and few people notice any change in their lives and nobody much cares. So some will have to wait a few more weeks for passports. So what?
The president is likening the government shutdown that would follow failure to raise the debt limit to that which took place in 1995-96. But in those years, there was a prohibition against spending money Congress had not yet appropriated. Now it’s perfectly legal to spend any money that comes into the Treasury; there just won’t be as much of it, because the debt limit will preclude further borrowing. The president still can fund any 60 percent of the government he wants (the proportion that comes from tax revenues).
In his speech to the nation Monday night, Obama used tricky words to camouflage these obvious facts. He no longer spoke of defaulting on money we owe, but instead used the more vague phrase 'defaulting on our obligations.' By that he means our obligations to the bureaucrats, not to our creditors.
Since when are we obliged to fund the bureaucracy? The Congress voted the money, but if it rescinds the borrowing authority, the money won’t be there and it won’t be spent.
Obama’s entire strategy is to conceal his real goal: protecting every last desk in the bureaucracy behind a facade of threatening to close the most popular and fiscally necessary programs. He’s like a local mayor who knows that nobody is going to get hot and bothered if the commercial licensing bureau gets closed for a few days, so he warns that teachers and police will have to be laid off if there are budget cuts.
The House and Senate are close to a deal. They both agree to raise the debt limit without tax hikes. The Senate wants it raised by two years, the House for one. The Senate is pushing to include accounting gimmicks like ending the wars as a savings; the House is resisting. But these all are bridgeable gaps. None of these differences are causes for a breakdown. The only player who is holding out for tax hikes is the president, who has staked out a position to the left of his senators. It’s time for him to come in from the cold."
A Brutal Honor Killing of Six Sisters
Islam is no "religion of peace", but instead a religion of savages. No, all Muslims are not savages, but those who adhere to the strict teachings in the Koran often fall into that category. What kind of religion calls for a man to slaughter his six daughters in the name of his god? It's sick, I tell you.
Where's the outrage from the American Pravda and the feminists over the loss of the lives of six young girls? There is none because they are in overdrive trying to convict Christians for the death of innocents in Norway when a deranged assassin who has no characteristics resembling a Christian pulled the trigger.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Pakistani Man Guns Down Six Daughters To Cleanse Family’s “Honor”…
FAISALABAD: 'A man gunned down six of his daughters on suspicion that two of them were in relationships with boys in the neighbourhood.
On Tuesday morning, Arif Mubashir called his teenage daughters to his room and shot them while the rest of the family, including their mother, watched. His wife Musarrat called the police after the incident.
Mubashir shot the girls after their brother said two of them were in a relationship. He told police officials that he had killed his daughters because they were both “without honour”. The man said his daughters Sameena, 14, and Razia, 16, were in a relationship with college boys from the neighbourhood and the sisters had helped each other. “I should have been told immediately but the girls sided with each other. They were both corrupt,” Mubashir told Tandlianwala Police Inspector Javed Sial.
Police officials have taken Mubashir into custody and filed a case against him. “He does not regret what he did. He boasted that he would do it all over again if he had to,” Sial told reporters.
Pakistan has repeatedly been termed as one of the least women-friendly countries. In June, the Thompson Reuters Foundation ranked Pakistan as the world’s third most dangerous country for women.'"
Where's the outrage from the American Pravda and the feminists over the loss of the lives of six young girls? There is none because they are in overdrive trying to convict Christians for the death of innocents in Norway when a deranged assassin who has no characteristics resembling a Christian pulled the trigger.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Pakistani Man Guns Down Six Daughters To Cleanse Family’s “Honor”…
FAISALABAD: 'A man gunned down six of his daughters on suspicion that two of them were in relationships with boys in the neighbourhood.
On Tuesday morning, Arif Mubashir called his teenage daughters to his room and shot them while the rest of the family, including their mother, watched. His wife Musarrat called the police after the incident.
Mubashir shot the girls after their brother said two of them were in a relationship. He told police officials that he had killed his daughters because they were both “without honour”. The man said his daughters Sameena, 14, and Razia, 16, were in a relationship with college boys from the neighbourhood and the sisters had helped each other. “I should have been told immediately but the girls sided with each other. They were both corrupt,” Mubashir told Tandlianwala Police Inspector Javed Sial.
Police officials have taken Mubashir into custody and filed a case against him. “He does not regret what he did. He boasted that he would do it all over again if he had to,” Sial told reporters.
Pakistan has repeatedly been termed as one of the least women-friendly countries. In June, the Thompson Reuters Foundation ranked Pakistan as the world’s third most dangerous country for women.'"
Where Are the Weapons?
I ask you -- Is the federal government capable of running anything efficiently? Even its illegal operations are botched-up failures, as in the selling of weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
Lose a few of the guns, did you, Mr. Attorney General? As to the president, you can bet your bottom dollar he was in on it, as well.
Hmmm, I wonder what we should call this Fast and Furious scandal. How about Weaponsgate or perhaps Gungate? At least during Watergate there were no lives lost. Sadly, we cannot say the same for the Obama regime scandal.
Read from Hot Air:
Report: More than 1,000 weapons unaccounted for in Fast and Furious
"All along, critics have argued Operation Fast and Furious was a reckless operation because officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives should have known they would never be able to keep track of the weapons they allowed to be sold to straw buyers, those who legally purchase guns and illegally sell them to a third party.
A congressional report out today validates and quantifies that criticism. The report shows federal agents running the disastrous program can’t account for more than 1,000 firearms bought by suspected smugglers. The WSJ reports:
Suspected smugglers bought 1,418 firearms after coming to the attention of ATF agents running the probe, according to the congressional report, detailing the most complete accounting to date of weapons in the operation. Of those, 1,048 haven’t been recovered or traced, the report said.
The Justice Department’s inspector general’s office is conducting its own probe of the operation. Attorney General Eric Holder and other top officials have said they didn’t know of, nor approve of, the ATF tactics.
The congressional report was released by Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), who have led the criticism of the ATF, and its parent agency, the Justice Department, over the Fast and Furious operation. Mr. Grassley is the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.'
The report also shows the Phoenix ATF withheld from ATF officials in Mexico the crucial information that the department was allowing guns to walk:
'In a congressional report being released in conjunction with the hearing the findings note, “ATF and DOJ leadership kept their own personnel in Mexico and Mexican government officials totally in the dark about all aspects of Fast and Furious. Meanwhile, ATF officials in Mexico grew increasingly worried about the number of weapons recovered in Mexico that traced back to an ongoing investigation out of ATF’s Phoenix Field Division.”
The congressional report notes that ATF intelligence analysts notified the ATF’s attaché in Mexico, Darren Gil, and Carlos Canino, Deputy Attaché, about a large number of guns showing up in Mexico from the Phoenix field office investigation.
“Hundreds of weapons were suddenly appearing in Mexico – traced to Phoenix – without explanation. Gil and his agents struggled to get answers from their own agency. Although ATF officials in Phoenix and Washington, D.C. acknowledged that an investigation was underway, they refused to share the details of the strategy and operation with the agents in Mexico … ATF officials in Mexico finally realized the truth: ATF was allowing guns to walk. By withholding this critical information from its own personnel in Mexico, ATF jeopardized relations between the U.S. and Mexico.” The report noted.'
That ATF officials learned the truth only as they recovered weapons that traced back to the fumbled Phoenix investigation is representative of the secretive and incompetent way in which OF&F was conducted.
'It’s incomprehensible that officials at the Justice Department, the ATF and the U.S. attorney’s office would keep their counterparts at the U.S. embassy in Mexico City in the dark about Operation Fast and Furious. Keeping key details secret while straw purchasers continued buying weapons for gun traffickers jeopardized our relationship with our southern ally and put lives at risk,' Grassley said in a statement.
The report was the basis for questioning at a hearing this morning at which ATF officials in Mexico testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Update: Grassley gave the key takeaways of the hearing on Fox News.
'People with ATF in Mexico City — they were asking questions over a long period of time,' Grassley said on 'Happening Now.' 'They never got any answers. They testified today, when they found out about it, they were very embarrassed.'
The hearing also revealed a wiretap was approved at some point in connection with OF&F. Wiretap approval occurs at a level no lower than the assistant attorney general level, Grassley said.
'That gets us to a higher level within the Justice Department than we’ve been able to get to before,' he said. 'We don’t know how high up in Justice this goes — that’s the whole motivation for our investigation … or a partial motivation.'"
Go here for videos of the Fast and Furious hearings from yesterday.
Lose a few of the guns, did you, Mr. Attorney General? As to the president, you can bet your bottom dollar he was in on it, as well.
Hmmm, I wonder what we should call this Fast and Furious scandal. How about Weaponsgate or perhaps Gungate? At least during Watergate there were no lives lost. Sadly, we cannot say the same for the Obama regime scandal.
Read from Hot Air:
Report: More than 1,000 weapons unaccounted for in Fast and Furious
"All along, critics have argued Operation Fast and Furious was a reckless operation because officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives should have known they would never be able to keep track of the weapons they allowed to be sold to straw buyers, those who legally purchase guns and illegally sell them to a third party.
A congressional report out today validates and quantifies that criticism. The report shows federal agents running the disastrous program can’t account for more than 1,000 firearms bought by suspected smugglers. The WSJ reports:
Suspected smugglers bought 1,418 firearms after coming to the attention of ATF agents running the probe, according to the congressional report, detailing the most complete accounting to date of weapons in the operation. Of those, 1,048 haven’t been recovered or traced, the report said.
The Justice Department’s inspector general’s office is conducting its own probe of the operation. Attorney General Eric Holder and other top officials have said they didn’t know of, nor approve of, the ATF tactics.
The congressional report was released by Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), who have led the criticism of the ATF, and its parent agency, the Justice Department, over the Fast and Furious operation. Mr. Grassley is the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.'
The report also shows the Phoenix ATF withheld from ATF officials in Mexico the crucial information that the department was allowing guns to walk:
'In a congressional report being released in conjunction with the hearing the findings note, “ATF and DOJ leadership kept their own personnel in Mexico and Mexican government officials totally in the dark about all aspects of Fast and Furious. Meanwhile, ATF officials in Mexico grew increasingly worried about the number of weapons recovered in Mexico that traced back to an ongoing investigation out of ATF’s Phoenix Field Division.”
The congressional report notes that ATF intelligence analysts notified the ATF’s attaché in Mexico, Darren Gil, and Carlos Canino, Deputy Attaché, about a large number of guns showing up in Mexico from the Phoenix field office investigation.
“Hundreds of weapons were suddenly appearing in Mexico – traced to Phoenix – without explanation. Gil and his agents struggled to get answers from their own agency. Although ATF officials in Phoenix and Washington, D.C. acknowledged that an investigation was underway, they refused to share the details of the strategy and operation with the agents in Mexico … ATF officials in Mexico finally realized the truth: ATF was allowing guns to walk. By withholding this critical information from its own personnel in Mexico, ATF jeopardized relations between the U.S. and Mexico.” The report noted.'
That ATF officials learned the truth only as they recovered weapons that traced back to the fumbled Phoenix investigation is representative of the secretive and incompetent way in which OF&F was conducted.
'It’s incomprehensible that officials at the Justice Department, the ATF and the U.S. attorney’s office would keep their counterparts at the U.S. embassy in Mexico City in the dark about Operation Fast and Furious. Keeping key details secret while straw purchasers continued buying weapons for gun traffickers jeopardized our relationship with our southern ally and put lives at risk,' Grassley said in a statement.
The report was the basis for questioning at a hearing this morning at which ATF officials in Mexico testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Update: Grassley gave the key takeaways of the hearing on Fox News.
'People with ATF in Mexico City — they were asking questions over a long period of time,' Grassley said on 'Happening Now.' 'They never got any answers. They testified today, when they found out about it, they were very embarrassed.'
The hearing also revealed a wiretap was approved at some point in connection with OF&F. Wiretap approval occurs at a level no lower than the assistant attorney general level, Grassley said.
'That gets us to a higher level within the Justice Department than we’ve been able to get to before,' he said. 'We don’t know how high up in Justice this goes — that’s the whole motivation for our investigation … or a partial motivation.'"
Go here for videos of the Fast and Furious hearings from yesterday.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Obama's Approval Rating in Freefall
Obama has been like a one-man wrecking machine to our country, and it's showing in his polling. Only the die hards are left cheering him on, and even some of them are becoming disillusioned.
Somehow, we must survive the next 17 months until we can show him the door.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Poll: Obama’s Approval Rating Among Liberals For His Economic Policies Tanks From 53% To 31%, Among Blacks Drops From 77% To 50%…
"Oh my.
(Politico) — 'President Barack Obama is losing support from his base, according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Tuesday that finds his backing from liberals and African-Americans has plummeted.
The percentage of liberal Democrats who strongly support the president’s job policies has dropped in the past year, from 53 percent to 31 percent, the poll shows.
The falloff among blacks is even more stark: From 77 percent supporting his record on the economy last year to just over 50 percent in 2011.
Overall, 52 percent of adults polled disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy.'"
Holder Must Go
Chicago thug-style politician Barack Obama sure knows how to pick 'em when it comes to his advisors. Many are tax cheats, and most have little regard for the Constitution. He's got czars behind the scene stealthily attempting to steal our freedoms. What's that saying? Birds of a feather flock together.
Though many in the Obama regime are true scoundrels, Attorney General Eric Holder takes it to a new level. It's long past time he starts packing.
Read from Human Events:
Time to Fire Eric Holder
"It has been strange to watch the mainstream media ignore the most incredible scandal of the modern era—the 'Gunwalker' program used by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to pump American guns into Mexico—while lavishing obsessive coverage on the News of the World phone-hacking debacle in England.
Of course, the motivations of the media are not difficult to understand. There has been absolutely no evidence that News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch had anything to do with the invasions of privacy carried out by certain employees at one of his many newspapers. But because he also owns influential conservative American media properties such as the Wall Street Journal, and especially, Fox News, media liberals find themselves looking at a very large domino and praying for it to fall.
Meanwhile, more than 150 Mexicans and at least one U.S. government agent, are dead because of Gunwalker. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) videotaped the sale of the gun that killed Border Patrol agent and military veteran Brian Terry. Weapons waltzed into Mexico under its 'Operation Fast and Furious' have begun turning up in American cities. A second program called 'Operation Castaway' has been discovered, walking guns into Honduras. MS-13, the most dangerous gang in the world, has strong ties to Honduras.
Operation Fast and Furious was run out of Phoenix. Operation Castaway bubbled forth from the Tampa office of the ATF. Some of the ostensible gunrunning 'targets' of these operations turned out to be paid FBI informants. The programs enjoyed funding from the Obama 'stimulus' package. These factors combine to make regional ATF supervisors, or acting ATF Director Ken Melson, unsuitable as fall guys.
Ken Melson doesn’t want to be a fall guy. He’s cooperating with congressional investigators, but their requests for information have been stonewalled by Attorney General Eric Holder at every turn.
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R.-Calif.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa) of the Judiciary Committee have sent an increasingly testy series of letters to Holder, most recently demanding he move the Justice Department 'from spin mode to disclosure mode' and stop treating the Gunwalker scandal as 'merely a public relations problem.' Nevertheless, Holder continues to pump out billowing clouds of blue smoke, fill committee chambers with fun house mirrors and wipe out 80% of the documents he hands over with the dreaded black marker of redaction.
Everywhere the Obama administration encounters legal controversy Eric Holder can be found, and rarely in a good way. He’s been criticized by Congress for dragging his feet on terrorism investigations, and became famous for insisting on the lunatic idea of trying top terror masters in civilian courts—a notion even the White House has backed away from. His big shot at civilian prosecution of a terrorist ended with bomber Ahmed Ghailani’s beating 224 murder counts, only to be convicted for what amounts to aggravated vandalism.
Holder has been hammered by Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) for doing a 'grossly inadequate' job of protecting military voting rights, which just happen to produce a lot of Republican votes. Like many prominent Democrats, he’s a tax cheat, who somehow forgot to pay property taxes on a $400,000 town house in Queens.
Holder has been instrumental in Obama’s plan to ignore the Defense of Marriage Act. Attorneys general are supposed to enforce laws, not choose which ones to disregard out of personal distaste. That’s one of the differences between a republic and a dictatorship.
Strongly worded letters from Congress don’t seem to get Eric Holder’s attention. Perhaps impeachment proceedings will. The New York Times emphasized that 'Article II of the Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach the President, the vice president, and all civil officers of the United States,' which they stressed would include cabinet members.
The Times declared that 'the right of Congress to demand explanations imposes on the President, and on inferior executive officers who speak for him, the obligation to be truthful,' and said that an attorney general who elects to testify 'has no right to lie, either by affirmatively misrepresenting facts or by falsely claiming not to remember events. Lying to Congress is a felony—actually three felonies: perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice.' The newspaper recommended impeachment as the ultimate remedy, cautioning Congress to 'recognize that the issue here goes deeper than the misbehavior of one man.'
Of course, the New York Times said all this with respect to a Republican Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez, in a May 2007 op-ed titled, 'He’s Impeachable, You Know,' by Frank Bowman. Surely its passionate and principled position hasn’t changed any. It’s time for Eric Holder to go."
Though many in the Obama regime are true scoundrels, Attorney General Eric Holder takes it to a new level. It's long past time he starts packing.
Read from Human Events:
Time to Fire Eric Holder
"It has been strange to watch the mainstream media ignore the most incredible scandal of the modern era—the 'Gunwalker' program used by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to pump American guns into Mexico—while lavishing obsessive coverage on the News of the World phone-hacking debacle in England.
Of course, the motivations of the media are not difficult to understand. There has been absolutely no evidence that News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch had anything to do with the invasions of privacy carried out by certain employees at one of his many newspapers. But because he also owns influential conservative American media properties such as the Wall Street Journal, and especially, Fox News, media liberals find themselves looking at a very large domino and praying for it to fall.
Meanwhile, more than 150 Mexicans and at least one U.S. government agent, are dead because of Gunwalker. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) videotaped the sale of the gun that killed Border Patrol agent and military veteran Brian Terry. Weapons waltzed into Mexico under its 'Operation Fast and Furious' have begun turning up in American cities. A second program called 'Operation Castaway' has been discovered, walking guns into Honduras. MS-13, the most dangerous gang in the world, has strong ties to Honduras.
Operation Fast and Furious was run out of Phoenix. Operation Castaway bubbled forth from the Tampa office of the ATF. Some of the ostensible gunrunning 'targets' of these operations turned out to be paid FBI informants. The programs enjoyed funding from the Obama 'stimulus' package. These factors combine to make regional ATF supervisors, or acting ATF Director Ken Melson, unsuitable as fall guys.
Ken Melson doesn’t want to be a fall guy. He’s cooperating with congressional investigators, but their requests for information have been stonewalled by Attorney General Eric Holder at every turn.
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R.-Calif.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa) of the Judiciary Committee have sent an increasingly testy series of letters to Holder, most recently demanding he move the Justice Department 'from spin mode to disclosure mode' and stop treating the Gunwalker scandal as 'merely a public relations problem.' Nevertheless, Holder continues to pump out billowing clouds of blue smoke, fill committee chambers with fun house mirrors and wipe out 80% of the documents he hands over with the dreaded black marker of redaction.
Everywhere the Obama administration encounters legal controversy Eric Holder can be found, and rarely in a good way. He’s been criticized by Congress for dragging his feet on terrorism investigations, and became famous for insisting on the lunatic idea of trying top terror masters in civilian courts—a notion even the White House has backed away from. His big shot at civilian prosecution of a terrorist ended with bomber Ahmed Ghailani’s beating 224 murder counts, only to be convicted for what amounts to aggravated vandalism.
Holder has been hammered by Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) for doing a 'grossly inadequate' job of protecting military voting rights, which just happen to produce a lot of Republican votes. Like many prominent Democrats, he’s a tax cheat, who somehow forgot to pay property taxes on a $400,000 town house in Queens.
Holder has been instrumental in Obama’s plan to ignore the Defense of Marriage Act. Attorneys general are supposed to enforce laws, not choose which ones to disregard out of personal distaste. That’s one of the differences between a republic and a dictatorship.
Strongly worded letters from Congress don’t seem to get Eric Holder’s attention. Perhaps impeachment proceedings will. The New York Times emphasized that 'Article II of the Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach the President, the vice president, and all civil officers of the United States,' which they stressed would include cabinet members.
The Times declared that 'the right of Congress to demand explanations imposes on the President, and on inferior executive officers who speak for him, the obligation to be truthful,' and said that an attorney general who elects to testify 'has no right to lie, either by affirmatively misrepresenting facts or by falsely claiming not to remember events. Lying to Congress is a felony—actually three felonies: perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice.' The newspaper recommended impeachment as the ultimate remedy, cautioning Congress to 'recognize that the issue here goes deeper than the misbehavior of one man.'
Of course, the New York Times said all this with respect to a Republican Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez, in a May 2007 op-ed titled, 'He’s Impeachable, You Know,' by Frank Bowman. Surely its passionate and principled position hasn’t changed any. It’s time for Eric Holder to go."
A Nation Weary of Obama
Once upon a time Americans were under a spell when they listened to the fine oratory of Barack Obama. Many were willing to put aside all sanity and give the inexperience man with the silver tongue access to the most powerful job in the world.
Nearly three years later, they have faced the reality of their foolish decision, and the results are not pretty. Yes, Obama inherited a mess, much of which he voted for, but how has he handled the load which was cast upon him? It is becoming obvious, even to many of his most devoted followers that all is not well in America. "Hope and change" has become nothing more than an empty slogan. The only hope America has is for Obama to be thrown out of office in 2012.
Even his flowery speeches have lost their thrill. Obama's rhetoric has become nauseating, and we see far too much of him on our television screens. The love affair is over.
Read from the American Thinker:
Obama the Bore
By Abraham Katsman
"President Obama is going to lose his bid for re-election. Not just because of the anemic recovery, stubborn unemployment, runaway spending, staggering deficits, lack of public faith in his ability as commander-in-chief, his hostility towards Israel's government, the rise of the Tea Party, or the Republican-favoring implications of redistricting on the electoral map. Those are all factors, and the coming months will provide endless columns discussing each. (Of this I am sure, for I intend to write some of them.)
But there is a more fundamental reason he'll lose: Barack Obama, once perceived as extraordinary, now just seems extra-ordinary. He has gotten politically boring. And America does not re-elect boring presidents.
Obama isn't boring in the same conventional, square, policy-wonk manner of so many other politicians; he still acts cool, plays basketball, and parties with Hollywood's A-list. But as a president he has become boring: he is tiresome, unpersuasive, divisive, repetitive, predictable, and cynical -- importantly, the opposite of everything advertised himself to be.
Somewhere along the way, the once-soaring speeches of The Great Orator degenerated into longwinded clichés delivered in a grating, repetitive cadence. The electric smile morphed into a frequent scowl. Inspiring messages have given way to blaming everyone else for the lack of success of his policies and scolding his subjects for not 'stepping up their game.' His every word seems politically calculated rather than anchored by principle. He's shown little ability to electrify, motivate, persuade or unify anyone-except his political opposition. The country seems tired of him.
How un-motivating is Obama as President? He speaks to an America at war and rouses no patriotism. He addresses a military audience without so much as mentioning victory (a word to which he has a particular aversion). He takes a major policy address on troop levels in Afghanistan and ends up droning on about 'green jobs.' Boring. If there is a single memorable line from his multitude of speeches, please tell me; I already stopped listening --and I doubt that I am alone.
Internationally, his tenure has been demeaning. His unique contributions to American foreign policy include 'Leading from behind;' embracing a gutless philosophy of American Un-exceptionalism; serial apologizing for America; and subjecting America to well-deserved lectures on economic policy by our Communist Chinese financial overlords. And it's not as if any of this has endeared America to the world; from the Thames to Tel Aviv to Taiwan to Turkey, alliances are frayed. Is this anything for voters to be excited about? What does Obama's America stand for, anyway?
Political cynicism may be expedient, but seeing it repeatedly is boring. Being in favor of tax increases during a recession, before being against them, before being for them again is boring. Advocating breathtaking spending increases as economic 'stimulus' and then blaming others for the resulting ballooning deficits is boring. Constant posturing is boring. Constant excuses are boring.
What is surprising is that Obama's entire election was based on his uniquely un-boring image and ability to excite, motivate and inspire. Young. Hip. Black. Fresh. Cool. Confident. Different. Above-the-fray. And he delivered motivating speeches with a religious rhythm that enraptured his listeners.
From the fainting fans at his rallies to the panting panelists on the Nobel committee, candidate Obama's rousing rhetoric tapped into something optimistic and hopeful, capturing the attention of the world. It may have all been childishly utopian -- stopping the rise of the oceans, burnishing America's international popularity by sheer force of his personality, ushering in a post-partisan political era, -- but his magical message resonated. Obama was all promise.
But something happened since the campaign. Time passed. Reality intruded. The magic faded. The promise was broken. We got to know him.
As president, Obama is prickly and thin-skinned. He is preachy and condescending. He is self-absorbed, self-pitying, self-absolving, self-crediting, and self-aggrandizing. Watching him is more depressing than uplifting. He is exactly what he promised not to be: just like any other ordinary, boring politician.
Oh, fawning media still serve as Obama's enablers, singing his praises no matter how poorly he performs. But voters -- especially the young -- are fickle, if not always discerning. One of the hazards of being elected as a 'rock star' president is that whoever is momentarily 'hot' is unlikely to remain so four years later. Perhaps Obama is the Menudo President, the Britney Spears of politics. And America has outgrown its infatuation.
Presidents Ford, Carter, and George H.W. Bush have two things in common: they were dull; and they were defeated in re-election bids. And Presidents Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush? One may argue about their policies or legacies, but they certainly weren't boring; and they were all re-elected.
In general, the more boring candidate loses; Ford, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Bush (father), Dole, Gore, Kerry...the names alone make my eyes droop almost as fast as listening to yet another Obama Major Policy Address.
A dull, uninspiring candidate may get elected once, especially if facing an even more boring opponent -- note Carter over Ford or Bush over Dukakis. But re-election? Not in this generation.
When a messianic figure is revealed to be all too ordinary, it is impossible for even the best political consultants to restore the original image. Think of the scene in 'The Wizard of Oz' when the unmasked 'wizard' bellows, 'Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!' The curtain has been pulled back on Obama, and we see that he is no wizard. As a mere mortal, how can he re-create the magic spell of 2008?
It's not as if no one will vote for him. Obama still owns key constituencies: blacks, unions and, most importantly, the media. But there's a difference between getting votes, and getting out the vote: it is the difference between losing and winning. And it will be difficult to get out the vote this time around for someone as ordinary -- as boring -- as Barack Obama."
8 Things to Know About Rick Perry
If Obama's economic policies keep tanking the economy as they have been doing since he entered the White House, he can kiss his next term good bye.
In that case, which GOP candidate would be most likely to come in and have to clean up the mess he has left us? I say it's Rick Perry --- Obama's greatest nightmare.
Read more about the conservative Texas governor, via Texas Monthly, via Hot Air:
Dear Yankee
Eight things you ought to know before you start writing stories about Rick Perry. You’re welcome.
by Paul Burka
"Here we go again. As you know, Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, is contemplating a presidential run, which means that any day now, your boss will be sending you down here to take the measure of the man. Though he managed to avoid the 2012 spotlight longer than any other candidate, Perry, the nation’s longest-serving governor, has lately become, in the words of a recent NPR report, 'the eight-hundred-pound gorilla on the sidelines of this race.' The trickle of stories about him has become a stream, and the minute Perry declares his candidacy, that stream will become a flood, a flood that will carry you straight to Austin. I am writing you this note in the hope that it will help you avoid the political and sociological clichés that Texas is subjected to every time one of our politicians seeks the national stage.
It’s an experience we’re all too familiar with. A Texan has occupied the White House in 17 of the past 48 years—just over a third of the time. Texas has become an incubator for presidents, as Virginia and Ohio were in America’s distant past. I’ll grant you that the presidents we have sent to Washington, from LBJ to George W. Bush, have not always served as the best advertisements for Texas. Nevertheless, we have endured a disproportionate amount of bad writing about our state from journalists who don’t know very much about the place, and I for one can’t bear to suffer through another campaign of it.
So please, heed this advice. Rick Perry, as you have no doubt already discovered, is not the easiest man to write about. He is secretive and leery of the media (sometimes to the point of hostility), and he has a strategically valuable knack for being underestimated by his critics. I have been writing about him since the eighties, when he began his career in the Texas Legislature. Along the way I have learned a few things, which I have arranged in this handy list of Eight Points to Keep in Mind When Writing About Rick Perry.
1. Perry is not George Bush. Don’t assume that because Bush and Perry served together in the Capitol, or because they’re both Republican Texans who wear boots, the two men have a lot in common. They don’t. As governor, Bush positioned himself as 'a uniter, not a divider,' championing education as one of his main priorities. Perry has been the opposite kind of chief executive: dismissive of Democrats and fond of political maneuvers that put the heat on moderates within his own party. And in the legislative session that just wrapped up, he presided over a budget that cut $4 billion from public schools. The cultural differences are striking too. Perry, the son of a Big Country cotton farmer, is at ease with a populist tea party message; W., the scion of a political dynasty, always seemed more comfortable with the country club set. They have followed starkly different paths. When W. began his political career, he had a famous name, access to his father’s huge national fund-raising base, and the backing of the establishment wing of the Republican party. As a late arrival in the Republican ranks, Perry had no fund-raising base and little name identification. He had no choice but to gravitate to the conservative wing of the GOP, where he could prove up his conservative bona fides. Nor is there any love lost between the two men. When Perry ran for lieutenant governor, in 1998, Bush’s camp wanted everyone on the ticket to run positive races; the Perry team defied the order, and ever since, relations have been frosty. There is one other critical difference. Bush lost his first race, for Congress. Perry has won every race he’s ever run.
2. It’s not a big deal that Perry was once a Democrat. To suggest otherwise will make you look foolish. When Perry was elected to the statehouse, in 1985, conservative Democrats ran the Legislature. In 1989, realizing that a conservative had little future in the party, Perry switched to the GOP. He has been a rock-solid Republican ever since and has driven the state party further to the right. Only twice has he made strategic errors that brought him into conflict with his hard-right base. One was an edict that twelve-year-old girls be inoculated against cervical cancer (it was quickly overturned); another was his promotion of a giant system of toll roads called the Trans-Texas Corridor, which stirred up significant opposition from landowners. These two bobbles aside, Perry has a genius for sensing where his base is on any given issue.
3. Perry is cannier than you think he is. Perry revels in political plays that are initially misunderstood by the press and his critics. Take his secession 'gaffe' on tax day 2009, when he responded to a TV reporter’s question with an acknowledgment that if the federal government continued to interfere with Texas, the state might have to leave the union someday. His response may have repelled Democrats and independents, but it hit a nerve among conservatives and led to his shellacking of Kay Bailey Hutchison in the 2010 Republican primary for governor.
4. Texas is not a 'weak governor' state. A common misconception. It used to be true, but during his historic governorship, Perry has reinvented the office as a power center. This may be his greatest accomplishment. Yes, our state constitution, written the year before Reconstruction ended, created a weak governor’s office (as did most constitutions of the states of the former Confederacy). We had two-year terms (the Legislature changed it to four-year terms beginning with the 1974 election) and a fragmented executive department with power divided among the governor, the lieutenant governor, the comptroller, the land and agriculture commissioners, the attorney general, and the railroad commission. But Perry has used his appointment power to install political allies in every state agency, effectively establishing a Cabinet form of government and making him vastly more powerful than any of his predecessors. In this regard, the Texas politician he most resembles is LBJ, who, Robert Caro reports, once told an assistant, 'I do understand power, whatever else may be said about me. I know where to look for it and how to use it.' Rick Perry, to a tee.
5. Perry is not a male hair model. The late Molly Ivins coined the nickname Governor Goodhair, and it has stuck, especially with liberals and journalists from up north. It is true that Perry has a much-remarked-upon coif, but don’t let this lead you to assume that he’s soft, or feckless, like that other recent walking shampoo ad, John Edwards. Perry is a hard man. He is the kind of politician who would rather be feared than loved—or respected. And he has gotten his wish. Perry does not have many friends in the Legislature.
6. Perry is from the middle of nowhere. The first place you need to go to understand Perry is Paint Creek, where he grew up. Paint Creek is not a town. It’s a watercourse that runs through the cotton fields of southern Haskell County. Perry’s parents were tenant farmers, and not just tenant farmers but dryland farmers, which is as hard as farming gets. In a June 2010 interview with TEXAS MONTHLY editor Jake Silverstein, Perry described an incident involving a new couch that his parents, who 'rarely ever bought anything,' had just purchased. 'There were places in our house that you could see outside through the cracks by the windows,' the governor recalled, 'and this dust storm came in and there was a layer of dust all over that new couch. And it just, you know, kind of—it was a hard life for them.' In the interview, Perry also described taking baths in the number two washtub and using an outhouse until his father built indoor plumbing in his early years. 'We were rich,' Perry said, 'but not in material things. I had miles and miles of pasture, a Shetland pony, and a dog. . . . I spent a lot of time just alone with my dog. A lot.'
7. Perry is an Aggie. Like many Texans with rural roots and sympathies, Perry attended Texas A&M University. This is the other place you need to go to understand him. Of course, it has changed dramatically, so you’ll have to envision it as it was when Perry was there, around 1970. A&M was uncompromising in those days. There was a saying, regarding the road to College Station, that was directed at students who resisted the A&M military culture: 'Highway 6 runs both ways.' You either bought into the school’s traditions or you didn’t. Perry bought all the way in, becoming a yell leader. To this day, Perry’s style on the stump is that of the Aggie yell leader ('Are you fired up?').
8. Don’t discount the luck factor. It is uncanny how often good fortune has been in Perry’s corner throughout his political career. His opponents self-destruct, as Jim Hightower did in 1990, when Perry, a big underdog, won his first statewide race, for agriculture commissioner, and as Kay Bailey Hutchison did in 2010. In 2006, when he was at his most vulnerable, Hutchison opted not to challenge him. Perry got only 39 percent of the vote, but because there were four major candidates in the race, he won with a plurality. This spring, he lost two top aides to the Gingrich-for-president campaign, only to see Gingrich self-destruct and the aides return with national campaign experience. The list goes on and on. If you look at Perry’s career, it seems that fate is always arranging the universe so that its favorite son will be in the right place at the right time.
So there you have it. In closing, I would like to request that you please do your best to avoid tin-ear clichés about barbecue, cattle, oil, football, and the Alamo. Remember, this is an urban state of 25 million people. We don’t go to sleep at night dreaming of William Barret Travis drawing a line in the sand. We do admire our rural history, as this month’s cover attests, but our vitality is in the cities. Enjoy your visit, best of luck, and please get it right this time.
Yours truly,
Paul Burka"
In that case, which GOP candidate would be most likely to come in and have to clean up the mess he has left us? I say it's Rick Perry --- Obama's greatest nightmare.
Read more about the conservative Texas governor, via Texas Monthly, via Hot Air:
Dear Yankee
Eight things you ought to know before you start writing stories about Rick Perry. You’re welcome.
by Paul Burka
"Here we go again. As you know, Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, is contemplating a presidential run, which means that any day now, your boss will be sending you down here to take the measure of the man. Though he managed to avoid the 2012 spotlight longer than any other candidate, Perry, the nation’s longest-serving governor, has lately become, in the words of a recent NPR report, 'the eight-hundred-pound gorilla on the sidelines of this race.' The trickle of stories about him has become a stream, and the minute Perry declares his candidacy, that stream will become a flood, a flood that will carry you straight to Austin. I am writing you this note in the hope that it will help you avoid the political and sociological clichés that Texas is subjected to every time one of our politicians seeks the national stage.
It’s an experience we’re all too familiar with. A Texan has occupied the White House in 17 of the past 48 years—just over a third of the time. Texas has become an incubator for presidents, as Virginia and Ohio were in America’s distant past. I’ll grant you that the presidents we have sent to Washington, from LBJ to George W. Bush, have not always served as the best advertisements for Texas. Nevertheless, we have endured a disproportionate amount of bad writing about our state from journalists who don’t know very much about the place, and I for one can’t bear to suffer through another campaign of it.
So please, heed this advice. Rick Perry, as you have no doubt already discovered, is not the easiest man to write about. He is secretive and leery of the media (sometimes to the point of hostility), and he has a strategically valuable knack for being underestimated by his critics. I have been writing about him since the eighties, when he began his career in the Texas Legislature. Along the way I have learned a few things, which I have arranged in this handy list of Eight Points to Keep in Mind When Writing About Rick Perry.
1. Perry is not George Bush. Don’t assume that because Bush and Perry served together in the Capitol, or because they’re both Republican Texans who wear boots, the two men have a lot in common. They don’t. As governor, Bush positioned himself as 'a uniter, not a divider,' championing education as one of his main priorities. Perry has been the opposite kind of chief executive: dismissive of Democrats and fond of political maneuvers that put the heat on moderates within his own party. And in the legislative session that just wrapped up, he presided over a budget that cut $4 billion from public schools. The cultural differences are striking too. Perry, the son of a Big Country cotton farmer, is at ease with a populist tea party message; W., the scion of a political dynasty, always seemed more comfortable with the country club set. They have followed starkly different paths. When W. began his political career, he had a famous name, access to his father’s huge national fund-raising base, and the backing of the establishment wing of the Republican party. As a late arrival in the Republican ranks, Perry had no fund-raising base and little name identification. He had no choice but to gravitate to the conservative wing of the GOP, where he could prove up his conservative bona fides. Nor is there any love lost between the two men. When Perry ran for lieutenant governor, in 1998, Bush’s camp wanted everyone on the ticket to run positive races; the Perry team defied the order, and ever since, relations have been frosty. There is one other critical difference. Bush lost his first race, for Congress. Perry has won every race he’s ever run.
2. It’s not a big deal that Perry was once a Democrat. To suggest otherwise will make you look foolish. When Perry was elected to the statehouse, in 1985, conservative Democrats ran the Legislature. In 1989, realizing that a conservative had little future in the party, Perry switched to the GOP. He has been a rock-solid Republican ever since and has driven the state party further to the right. Only twice has he made strategic errors that brought him into conflict with his hard-right base. One was an edict that twelve-year-old girls be inoculated against cervical cancer (it was quickly overturned); another was his promotion of a giant system of toll roads called the Trans-Texas Corridor, which stirred up significant opposition from landowners. These two bobbles aside, Perry has a genius for sensing where his base is on any given issue.
3. Perry is cannier than you think he is. Perry revels in political plays that are initially misunderstood by the press and his critics. Take his secession 'gaffe' on tax day 2009, when he responded to a TV reporter’s question with an acknowledgment that if the federal government continued to interfere with Texas, the state might have to leave the union someday. His response may have repelled Democrats and independents, but it hit a nerve among conservatives and led to his shellacking of Kay Bailey Hutchison in the 2010 Republican primary for governor.
4. Texas is not a 'weak governor' state. A common misconception. It used to be true, but during his historic governorship, Perry has reinvented the office as a power center. This may be his greatest accomplishment. Yes, our state constitution, written the year before Reconstruction ended, created a weak governor’s office (as did most constitutions of the states of the former Confederacy). We had two-year terms (the Legislature changed it to four-year terms beginning with the 1974 election) and a fragmented executive department with power divided among the governor, the lieutenant governor, the comptroller, the land and agriculture commissioners, the attorney general, and the railroad commission. But Perry has used his appointment power to install political allies in every state agency, effectively establishing a Cabinet form of government and making him vastly more powerful than any of his predecessors. In this regard, the Texas politician he most resembles is LBJ, who, Robert Caro reports, once told an assistant, 'I do understand power, whatever else may be said about me. I know where to look for it and how to use it.' Rick Perry, to a tee.
5. Perry is not a male hair model. The late Molly Ivins coined the nickname Governor Goodhair, and it has stuck, especially with liberals and journalists from up north. It is true that Perry has a much-remarked-upon coif, but don’t let this lead you to assume that he’s soft, or feckless, like that other recent walking shampoo ad, John Edwards. Perry is a hard man. He is the kind of politician who would rather be feared than loved—or respected. And he has gotten his wish. Perry does not have many friends in the Legislature.
6. Perry is from the middle of nowhere. The first place you need to go to understand Perry is Paint Creek, where he grew up. Paint Creek is not a town. It’s a watercourse that runs through the cotton fields of southern Haskell County. Perry’s parents were tenant farmers, and not just tenant farmers but dryland farmers, which is as hard as farming gets. In a June 2010 interview with TEXAS MONTHLY editor Jake Silverstein, Perry described an incident involving a new couch that his parents, who 'rarely ever bought anything,' had just purchased. 'There were places in our house that you could see outside through the cracks by the windows,' the governor recalled, 'and this dust storm came in and there was a layer of dust all over that new couch. And it just, you know, kind of—it was a hard life for them.' In the interview, Perry also described taking baths in the number two washtub and using an outhouse until his father built indoor plumbing in his early years. 'We were rich,' Perry said, 'but not in material things. I had miles and miles of pasture, a Shetland pony, and a dog. . . . I spent a lot of time just alone with my dog. A lot.'
7. Perry is an Aggie. Like many Texans with rural roots and sympathies, Perry attended Texas A&M University. This is the other place you need to go to understand him. Of course, it has changed dramatically, so you’ll have to envision it as it was when Perry was there, around 1970. A&M was uncompromising in those days. There was a saying, regarding the road to College Station, that was directed at students who resisted the A&M military culture: 'Highway 6 runs both ways.' You either bought into the school’s traditions or you didn’t. Perry bought all the way in, becoming a yell leader. To this day, Perry’s style on the stump is that of the Aggie yell leader ('Are you fired up?').
8. Don’t discount the luck factor. It is uncanny how often good fortune has been in Perry’s corner throughout his political career. His opponents self-destruct, as Jim Hightower did in 1990, when Perry, a big underdog, won his first statewide race, for agriculture commissioner, and as Kay Bailey Hutchison did in 2010. In 2006, when he was at his most vulnerable, Hutchison opted not to challenge him. Perry got only 39 percent of the vote, but because there were four major candidates in the race, he won with a plurality. This spring, he lost two top aides to the Gingrich-for-president campaign, only to see Gingrich self-destruct and the aides return with national campaign experience. The list goes on and on. If you look at Perry’s career, it seems that fate is always arranging the universe so that its favorite son will be in the right place at the right time.
So there you have it. In closing, I would like to request that you please do your best to avoid tin-ear clichés about barbecue, cattle, oil, football, and the Alamo. Remember, this is an urban state of 25 million people. We don’t go to sleep at night dreaming of William Barret Travis drawing a line in the sand. We do admire our rural history, as this month’s cover attests, but our vitality is in the cities. Enjoy your visit, best of luck, and please get it right this time.
Yours truly,
Paul Burka"
Thug-Style Politics
It's the Chicago way, and nobody does it better than Barack Obama.
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Obama Regime intimidating witnesses to keep silent on Fast & Furious
"Community Organizing 101.
(The Washington Times) — 'The Obama administration sought to intimidate witnesses into not testifying to Congress on Tuesday about whether ATF knowingly allowed weapons, including assault rifles, to be “walked” into Mexico, the chairman of a House committee investigating the program said in an interview Monday.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, California Republican, said at least two scheduled witnesses expected to be asked about a controversial weapons investigation known as “Fast and Furious” received warning letters from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to limit their testimony.
Mr. Issa’s committee is set to hear testimony from six current or former ATF employees, including agents and attaches assigned to the bureau’s offices in Mexico, about the operation — in which, federal agents say, they were told to stand down and watch as guns flowed from U.S. dealers in Arizona to violent criminals and drug cartels in Mexico.
The six-term lawmaker aired his concerns about the program in a wide-ranging interview with reporters and editors at The Washington Times on Monday.
Among other questions, the agents are likely to be asked about a large volume of guns showing up in Mexico that were traced back to the Fast and Furious program; whether ATF officials in that country expressed concerns about the weapons to agency officials in the U.S., only to be brushed aside; and whether ATF officials in Arizona denied ATF personnel in Mexico access to information about the operation.
Nearly 50 weapons linked to the Fast and Furious program have been recovered to date in Mexico. Committee investigators said Mexican authorities also were denied information about the operation.
Mr. Issa also said he is certain the Fast and Furious operation was known by most top officials at the Justice Department and that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. either knew and misled Congress, or was so out of the loop that he’s guilty of mismanagement.
“How is it that the No. 2, 3, 4 at Justice all knew about this program, but the No. 1 didn’t?” Mr. Issa said. “Is it because he said ‘don’t tell me’? Is it because they knew what they were doing is wrong, and they were protecting their boss? Or is it that Eric Holder is just so disconnected. . . ?
“Whichever it is — he knew and he’s lied to Congress, or he didn’t know, and he’s so detached that he wasn’t doing his job — that really probably is for the administration to make a decision on, sooner not later,” Mr. Issa said.'
Keep reading. . ."
Read from Weasel Zippers:
Obama Regime intimidating witnesses to keep silent on Fast & Furious
"Community Organizing 101.
(The Washington Times) — 'The Obama administration sought to intimidate witnesses into not testifying to Congress on Tuesday about whether ATF knowingly allowed weapons, including assault rifles, to be “walked” into Mexico, the chairman of a House committee investigating the program said in an interview Monday.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, California Republican, said at least two scheduled witnesses expected to be asked about a controversial weapons investigation known as “Fast and Furious” received warning letters from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to limit their testimony.
Mr. Issa’s committee is set to hear testimony from six current or former ATF employees, including agents and attaches assigned to the bureau’s offices in Mexico, about the operation — in which, federal agents say, they were told to stand down and watch as guns flowed from U.S. dealers in Arizona to violent criminals and drug cartels in Mexico.
The six-term lawmaker aired his concerns about the program in a wide-ranging interview with reporters and editors at The Washington Times on Monday.
Among other questions, the agents are likely to be asked about a large volume of guns showing up in Mexico that were traced back to the Fast and Furious program; whether ATF officials in that country expressed concerns about the weapons to agency officials in the U.S., only to be brushed aside; and whether ATF officials in Arizona denied ATF personnel in Mexico access to information about the operation.
Nearly 50 weapons linked to the Fast and Furious program have been recovered to date in Mexico. Committee investigators said Mexican authorities also were denied information about the operation.
Mr. Issa also said he is certain the Fast and Furious operation was known by most top officials at the Justice Department and that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. either knew and misled Congress, or was so out of the loop that he’s guilty of mismanagement.
“How is it that the No. 2, 3, 4 at Justice all knew about this program, but the No. 1 didn’t?” Mr. Issa said. “Is it because he said ‘don’t tell me’? Is it because they knew what they were doing is wrong, and they were protecting their boss? Or is it that Eric Holder is just so disconnected. . . ?
“Whichever it is — he knew and he’s lied to Congress, or he didn’t know, and he’s so detached that he wasn’t doing his job — that really probably is for the administration to make a decision on, sooner not later,” Mr. Issa said.'
Keep reading. . ."
Love Turkish Style
What can I say? It's Islam pure and simple. Mohammed teaches men to beat their women.
From Jihad Watch:
Turkey: 42% of women report physical or sexual abuse from husbands
"See the previous entry below for a detailed discussion of how chapter and verse help explain why the problem is so widespread in Turkey as well as Gaza. If only Turkey's current establishment were so fixated on women's rights in these areas as in securing their rights to wear the veil. 'Marchers demand better protection for women in Turkey,' by Jeremiah Bailey-Hoover for CNN, July 24:
Istanbul (CNN) -- 'Hundreds of people in Istanbul called on Sunday for the Turkish government to be more proactive about protecting women from domestic abuse.
People in the crowd carried mock coffins and wedding dresses as they marched down one of the busiest pedestrian thoroughfares in Istanbul. Protestors also carried signs bearing the names and faces of murdered women.
Demonstrators urged the Turkish government to be more accountable for violence against women.
"We struggle with the government's laws because the government is the first responsible for the women's murders, because they don't protect," said Funda Koc, a 28-year-old teacher and activist.
"We want the government to make strict laws" against harming women, she said.
The organizers of the protest, the Platform to End Women's Murders, say women are murdered every day in Turkey.
According to a 2009 report released by the Turkish government, 42% of women surveyed said they had been physically or sexually abused by their husband or partner.
Turkey has adopted several progressive laws to protect women in the past 15 years, including the 1998 Protection Order against Domestic Violence. Reform of Turkey's Civil Code in 2001 gave women equal legal status to men in the family.
A constitutional referendum last September allowed for affirmative action in favor of women. But critics say the Turkish state has lapsed far behind in implementing these laws.
"Gaps in the law and implementation failures by police, prosecutors, judges, and other officials make the protection system unpredictable at best, and at times downright dangerous," Human Rights Watch said in a recently released report titled, "He Loves You, He Beats You."'"
From Jihad Watch:
Turkey: 42% of women report physical or sexual abuse from husbands
"See the previous entry below for a detailed discussion of how chapter and verse help explain why the problem is so widespread in Turkey as well as Gaza. If only Turkey's current establishment were so fixated on women's rights in these areas as in securing their rights to wear the veil. 'Marchers demand better protection for women in Turkey,' by Jeremiah Bailey-Hoover for CNN, July 24:
Istanbul (CNN) -- 'Hundreds of people in Istanbul called on Sunday for the Turkish government to be more proactive about protecting women from domestic abuse.
People in the crowd carried mock coffins and wedding dresses as they marched down one of the busiest pedestrian thoroughfares in Istanbul. Protestors also carried signs bearing the names and faces of murdered women.
Demonstrators urged the Turkish government to be more accountable for violence against women.
"We struggle with the government's laws because the government is the first responsible for the women's murders, because they don't protect," said Funda Koc, a 28-year-old teacher and activist.
"We want the government to make strict laws" against harming women, she said.
The organizers of the protest, the Platform to End Women's Murders, say women are murdered every day in Turkey.
According to a 2009 report released by the Turkish government, 42% of women surveyed said they had been physically or sexually abused by their husband or partner.
Turkey has adopted several progressive laws to protect women in the past 15 years, including the 1998 Protection Order against Domestic Violence. Reform of Turkey's Civil Code in 2001 gave women equal legal status to men in the family.
A constitutional referendum last September allowed for affirmative action in favor of women. But critics say the Turkish state has lapsed far behind in implementing these laws.
"Gaps in the law and implementation failures by police, prosecutors, judges, and other officials make the protection system unpredictable at best, and at times downright dangerous," Human Rights Watch said in a recently released report titled, "He Loves You, He Beats You."'"
More on Anders Behring Breivik
Something smells fishy in the Breivik case. The Norwegian terrorist does not fit the profile of a Christian conservative.
We keep hearing about his strong anti-Muslim beliefs. I have a question: If this carnage was carried out because of Breivik's hatred for Muslims, then why on earth did he not target a mosque or some other Islamic gathering? His victims were all non-Muslim. Chances are that there is more to this case than what we are hearing.
Read a fine article from Front Page:
The Norway Terrorist
"A year or two ago I was at a dinner party where a gentleman and his wife confronted me about my writing on Islamic terrorism. 'Why is it,' he asked irritably, 'that terrorism is always called "Islamic"? What about "Christian" terrorists?'
'Well, name a Christian terrorist,' I replied. I wasn’t being combative; I was genuinely curious to know whom they considered to be someone committing politically-driven murder and mayhem in the name of Jesus. The sentence was barely out of my mouth before the wife shot back, 'Timothy McVeigh .'
McVeigh’s bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City took place sixteen years ago. Unlike Muslim fundamentalists who theologically justify their acts of terrorism, McVeigh can not rightly be characterized as a 'Christian terrorist,' because he was, by his own admission, not a committed Christian, and he carried out the attack not because God or the Bible commanded him to, but because he hated the U.S. government. And yet after all these years his name remains virtually the sole flimsy example that people have at the ready to challenge what they consider to be the stereotype of Islamic terrorism.
No more. Now a new McVeigh has arisen, a symbol that the Left and Islamic supremacists themselves will use to bludgeon Christian conservatives and critics of jihad for the next sixteen years – Anders Behring Breivik. Breivik is in police custody for carrying out what some are calling Norway’s 'Oklahoma City,' a reference to McVeigh’s 1995 bombing, of course. Breivik, who claims to have acted alone, set off a massive bomb that devastated an Oslo government building and killed seven, then traveled to a nearby youth camp for hundreds of teen children of Labour Party politicians, where he proceeded to massacre as many as 90 of them with ruthless, methodical gunfire.
As the news began leaking out about Europe’s deadliest terror attack since the 2003 Madrid train bombing, there was a predictable – and perfectly reasonable – assumption on the part of terrorism experts, the media, and possibly anyone who follows the Clash of Civilizations , that the perpetrators were Islamists. After all, there were plenty of reasons to suspect initially that these were acts of Islamic terrorism: at least one Islamist group initially claimed responsibility (but later retracted it); Muslim extremists cheered the attacks in online chatrooms; Norway is still a target of Islamists burning to avenge the Muhammad cartoons; legal action was finally taken against the radical Mullah Krekar whom Norway has been sheltering for years, and he threatened retaliation; al Qaeda tried to attack Oslo last year; and, frankly, most terrorism carried out worldwide today is at the hands of jihadists.
But the truth was a stunning reversal. Not only is the perpetrator a well-educated, boyishly blond, ethnic Norwegian, he is a self-described Christian conservative bent on sparking a Pan-European resistance movement to oppose – by violence if necessary – the corrosive forces of multiculturalism, Islamic immigration, and 'cultural Marxism' that are destroying the fabric of European society and culture. It’s too soon to have all the facts –speculation, as usual, began flying at light-speed over the rumor-mongering internet, including the mystery of a fake Facebook page and the musing that Breivik is himself a jihadist posing as a Christian conservative. But as of this writing, the coldly rational Breivik has apparently confessed to what he described in a 1500-page manifesto as the 'systematical and organized executions of multiculturalist traitors.'
But the tragedy won’t end at the lives lost in Norway. Bruce Bawer, the author of Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom who lives in Norway, notes the broader concern that 'legitimate criticism of Islam, which remains a very real threat to freedom in Norway and the West, has been profoundly discredited by association with this murderous lunatic.' As the European anti-jihad blogger Fjordman puts it, Breivik
'has scored a major victory for his opponents. An agent provocateur seeking to discredit the right-wing conservative sliver of the European political spectrum would have a hard time doing a better job… It is the perfect excuse to persecute and silence opposing voices… We’re heading for dark days.'
The Left – including the mainstream media, and stealth jihadists themselves, like the ubiquitous Muslim Brotherhood legacy group CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations – won’t even bother to contain its collective glee over the fact that Breivik is a 'right-wing Christian.' The narrative is already being constructed that will use him to tar everyone on the Right, particularly vocal critics of Islamic fundamentalism. This is the same Left that hijacks any and all discussions of Islamic terrorism by jumping up to insist that all Muslims must not be smeared because of the actions of a 'tiny minority of extremists,' that not all terrorism is committed by Muslims and not all Muslims are terrorists. Of course, no responsible anti-jihadist has ever made such claims, but the Left never bothers to concede this. By contrast, instead of living by the standards they demand of the Right, Leftists will now be perfectly happy to politicize Breivik’s terrorism and use him to tar everyone on the Right – Christians, conservatives, anti-jihadists, the Tea Party – everyone. And in fact, they have already begun attempting to link the Norway terrorist to Sarah Palin, of all people.
Breivik is a terrorist. His targeting of helpless schoolchildren makes him no better than the slaughterers at Beslan. But that doesn’t make everyone concerned about unfettered Islamic immigration, jihad, or the rapid disintegration of Europe’s cultural heritage a terrorist or even a sympathizer. There is no connection between the legitimate, courageous, lawful work of notable anti-jihadists and such evil. No true Christian, conservative, or responsible critic of jihad would condone Breivik’s despicable, cowardly acts or deem them to be in accordance with our beliefs and values. Much less would we celebrate those acts, unlike our Islamist counterparts. But denouncements of Breivik will be purposefully ignored by the Left.
Nor does it make Islamic terrorism any less of a threat. But the Left will use Breivik to divert attention from worldwide jihad, to advance their cultural Marxism, and to demonize the defenders of freedom. To echo Fjordman, we are facing dark days. We must face them with the truth."
Comments from Bill O'Reilly as he goes after the American Pravda for calling Breivik a Christian extremist:
We keep hearing about his strong anti-Muslim beliefs. I have a question: If this carnage was carried out because of Breivik's hatred for Muslims, then why on earth did he not target a mosque or some other Islamic gathering? His victims were all non-Muslim. Chances are that there is more to this case than what we are hearing.
Read a fine article from Front Page:
The Norway Terrorist
"A year or two ago I was at a dinner party where a gentleman and his wife confronted me about my writing on Islamic terrorism. 'Why is it,' he asked irritably, 'that terrorism is always called "Islamic"? What about "Christian" terrorists?'
'Well, name a Christian terrorist,' I replied. I wasn’t being combative; I was genuinely curious to know whom they considered to be someone committing politically-driven murder and mayhem in the name of Jesus. The sentence was barely out of my mouth before the wife shot back, 'Timothy McVeigh .'
McVeigh’s bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City took place sixteen years ago. Unlike Muslim fundamentalists who theologically justify their acts of terrorism, McVeigh can not rightly be characterized as a 'Christian terrorist,' because he was, by his own admission, not a committed Christian, and he carried out the attack not because God or the Bible commanded him to, but because he hated the U.S. government. And yet after all these years his name remains virtually the sole flimsy example that people have at the ready to challenge what they consider to be the stereotype of Islamic terrorism.
No more. Now a new McVeigh has arisen, a symbol that the Left and Islamic supremacists themselves will use to bludgeon Christian conservatives and critics of jihad for the next sixteen years – Anders Behring Breivik. Breivik is in police custody for carrying out what some are calling Norway’s 'Oklahoma City,' a reference to McVeigh’s 1995 bombing, of course. Breivik, who claims to have acted alone, set off a massive bomb that devastated an Oslo government building and killed seven, then traveled to a nearby youth camp for hundreds of teen children of Labour Party politicians, where he proceeded to massacre as many as 90 of them with ruthless, methodical gunfire.
As the news began leaking out about Europe’s deadliest terror attack since the 2003 Madrid train bombing, there was a predictable – and perfectly reasonable – assumption on the part of terrorism experts, the media, and possibly anyone who follows the Clash of Civilizations , that the perpetrators were Islamists. After all, there were plenty of reasons to suspect initially that these were acts of Islamic terrorism: at least one Islamist group initially claimed responsibility (but later retracted it); Muslim extremists cheered the attacks in online chatrooms; Norway is still a target of Islamists burning to avenge the Muhammad cartoons; legal action was finally taken against the radical Mullah Krekar whom Norway has been sheltering for years, and he threatened retaliation; al Qaeda tried to attack Oslo last year; and, frankly, most terrorism carried out worldwide today is at the hands of jihadists.
But the truth was a stunning reversal. Not only is the perpetrator a well-educated, boyishly blond, ethnic Norwegian, he is a self-described Christian conservative bent on sparking a Pan-European resistance movement to oppose – by violence if necessary – the corrosive forces of multiculturalism, Islamic immigration, and 'cultural Marxism' that are destroying the fabric of European society and culture. It’s too soon to have all the facts –speculation, as usual, began flying at light-speed over the rumor-mongering internet, including the mystery of a fake Facebook page and the musing that Breivik is himself a jihadist posing as a Christian conservative. But as of this writing, the coldly rational Breivik has apparently confessed to what he described in a 1500-page manifesto as the 'systematical and organized executions of multiculturalist traitors.'
But the tragedy won’t end at the lives lost in Norway. Bruce Bawer, the author of Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom who lives in Norway, notes the broader concern that 'legitimate criticism of Islam, which remains a very real threat to freedom in Norway and the West, has been profoundly discredited by association with this murderous lunatic.' As the European anti-jihad blogger Fjordman puts it, Breivik
'has scored a major victory for his opponents. An agent provocateur seeking to discredit the right-wing conservative sliver of the European political spectrum would have a hard time doing a better job… It is the perfect excuse to persecute and silence opposing voices… We’re heading for dark days.'
The Left – including the mainstream media, and stealth jihadists themselves, like the ubiquitous Muslim Brotherhood legacy group CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations – won’t even bother to contain its collective glee over the fact that Breivik is a 'right-wing Christian.' The narrative is already being constructed that will use him to tar everyone on the Right, particularly vocal critics of Islamic fundamentalism. This is the same Left that hijacks any and all discussions of Islamic terrorism by jumping up to insist that all Muslims must not be smeared because of the actions of a 'tiny minority of extremists,' that not all terrorism is committed by Muslims and not all Muslims are terrorists. Of course, no responsible anti-jihadist has ever made such claims, but the Left never bothers to concede this. By contrast, instead of living by the standards they demand of the Right, Leftists will now be perfectly happy to politicize Breivik’s terrorism and use him to tar everyone on the Right – Christians, conservatives, anti-jihadists, the Tea Party – everyone. And in fact, they have already begun attempting to link the Norway terrorist to Sarah Palin, of all people.
Breivik is a terrorist. His targeting of helpless schoolchildren makes him no better than the slaughterers at Beslan. But that doesn’t make everyone concerned about unfettered Islamic immigration, jihad, or the rapid disintegration of Europe’s cultural heritage a terrorist or even a sympathizer. There is no connection between the legitimate, courageous, lawful work of notable anti-jihadists and such evil. No true Christian, conservative, or responsible critic of jihad would condone Breivik’s despicable, cowardly acts or deem them to be in accordance with our beliefs and values. Much less would we celebrate those acts, unlike our Islamist counterparts. But denouncements of Breivik will be purposefully ignored by the Left.
Nor does it make Islamic terrorism any less of a threat. But the Left will use Breivik to divert attention from worldwide jihad, to advance their cultural Marxism, and to demonize the defenders of freedom. To echo Fjordman, we are facing dark days. We must face them with the truth."
Comments from Bill O'Reilly as he goes after the American Pravda for calling Breivik a Christian extremist:
Monday, July 25, 2011
Tampering with Facebook Page of Norwegian Terrorist
Innocent people, many of who are children, have been slaughtered at the hands of a madman in Norway, and what does the American Pravda do? Why, they rush into agenda mode. Let's blame these atrocities on Christians and other conservatives. That way when conservatives target Islamic extremism, they can throw "Christian extremism" in our faces. These people behind these attempts are vile and so godless that they are unaware that Christians don't call for the deaths of innocents; that is the tactic of Muslims, who later boast about their acts of horror. The Bible teaches us to value our lives and the lives of others.
Surely, Sarah Palin had something to do with this horrific attack. You can't have violence without input from Sarah, now can you? Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer and Atlas Shrug's Pamela Geller have both been accused of inciting violence toward Muslims when they have done nothing more than expose the truth about Islam. Never have they called for violence against Muslims. Even Glenn Beck's name has been associated with this crime.
Norway and the rest of Europe want nothing to do with Christianity. I would guess that Europe is the most spiritually dark continent on the face of the earth. Sure sounds like a hit job on Christianity to me. It's also interesting that this tragedy took place in the most anti-Semitic country in Europe.
What's especially suspicious is that two Facebook pages of the Norway terrorist have surfaced, one in Norwegian and one in English. Check this out, via Atlas Shrugs:
Who Added "Christian" and "Conservative" to Norway Shooter's Facebook Page Yesterday?
"While the leftist and Islamic supremacist ghouls rush to portray Norway mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik as a Christian and even as an anti-jihadist, the unanswered questions multiply. Why did a jihad group take credit for the atrocities, and then retract? And who altered the murderer's Facebook page? Yesterday, at the time that his name was released, his Facebook page looked like this (hat tip Vivien for the screenshots):
But shortly thereafter, this screenshot started circulating, of an altered Facebook page on which Breivik identified himself as a Christian and a conservative: (screenshot hat tip Vivien)
Did he have two different Facebook pages, one in Norwegian and one in English, and he only identified himself as a Christian and a conservative on the English one? Or did he pause from his murder spree to add 'Christian' and 'conservative' to his Facebook profile? Or maybe the whole page is a fake, as has been reported here.
But in the case, who faked it, and why? Who is so anxious to portray Breivik as a Christian and conservative? And if this was faked, can we trust any of the material that is now being released about Breivik being anti-jihad?
UPDATE: Craig confirms:
'I have confirmed the Google cache on Jul 22, 2011 23:52:36 GMT of the Facebook profile page supports the theory of the adding of Christian/Conservative (see below).
Our PDF printout from the Facebook profile was done Jul 23 01:39 GMT, and the profile was deleted soon afterwards by Facebook, so how was a detained Anders Behring Breivik able to change it?
My money is on DHS asking Facebook for a favor....'"
Surely, Sarah Palin had something to do with this horrific attack. You can't have violence without input from Sarah, now can you? Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer and Atlas Shrug's Pamela Geller have both been accused of inciting violence toward Muslims when they have done nothing more than expose the truth about Islam. Never have they called for violence against Muslims. Even Glenn Beck's name has been associated with this crime.
Norway and the rest of Europe want nothing to do with Christianity. I would guess that Europe is the most spiritually dark continent on the face of the earth. Sure sounds like a hit job on Christianity to me. It's also interesting that this tragedy took place in the most anti-Semitic country in Europe.
What's especially suspicious is that two Facebook pages of the Norway terrorist have surfaced, one in Norwegian and one in English. Check this out, via Atlas Shrugs:
Who Added "Christian" and "Conservative" to Norway Shooter's Facebook Page Yesterday?
"While the leftist and Islamic supremacist ghouls rush to portray Norway mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik as a Christian and even as an anti-jihadist, the unanswered questions multiply. Why did a jihad group take credit for the atrocities, and then retract? And who altered the murderer's Facebook page? Yesterday, at the time that his name was released, his Facebook page looked like this (hat tip Vivien for the screenshots):
But shortly thereafter, this screenshot started circulating, of an altered Facebook page on which Breivik identified himself as a Christian and a conservative: (screenshot hat tip Vivien)
Did he have two different Facebook pages, one in Norwegian and one in English, and he only identified himself as a Christian and a conservative on the English one? Or did he pause from his murder spree to add 'Christian' and 'conservative' to his Facebook profile? Or maybe the whole page is a fake, as has been reported here.
But in the case, who faked it, and why? Who is so anxious to portray Breivik as a Christian and conservative? And if this was faked, can we trust any of the material that is now being released about Breivik being anti-jihad?
UPDATE: Craig confirms:
'I have confirmed the Google cache on Jul 22, 2011 23:52:36 GMT of the Facebook profile page supports the theory of the adding of Christian/Conservative (see below).
Our PDF printout from the Facebook profile was done Jul 23 01:39 GMT, and the profile was deleted soon afterwards by Facebook, so how was a detained Anders Behring Breivik able to change it?
My money is on DHS asking Facebook for a favor....'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
