US Defense Secretary Robert Gates is keeping up his long-held mantra (can’t blame Obama for this position Gates is taking) to normalize relations with the government in Iran. This government is run by a hostage-taker who stormed the United States Embassy in Iran and held Americans hostage for 444 days. That government. The government that calls the United States the “Great Satan.”
As to Iran’s rapidly developing nuclear weapons program, Gates says we and our “allies” (remember, Obama says we don’t have any allies anymore) need to convince Iran that its nuclear arms program will set off an “arms race” that will allegedly leave Iran less secure.
What the what???
Exactly what arms race does Gates think Iran is going to run? The United States has already won the arms race with Iran. What else will the US and its “allies” have to spend to win this arms race with Iran? What in the world does Gates think Iran is spending its money to achieve. I can guarantee you Iran’s government could not care less what the United States is spending its arms money on.
Gates’ other bad idea to isolate Iran is to pursue a “partnership” with Russia on missile defense programs. Oh yea, our “allies” (like Russia, one supposes) also need to put economic sanctions on Iran. You know, because they have been so willing to do so before.
So, Robert Gates, let me hip you on a few things.
First, Iran’s nuclear program is not aimed at the United States, and it will not engage the United States with a nuclear bomb. There is no arms race we can run that will be joined by Iran. No such arms race will destabilize Iran. Your plan is the same sort of mushy Harvard dorm room thinking that got Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions. Oh wait, North Korea is still pursuing the bomb. Well, I guess you got an A on your paper in college. This ain’t college.
Second, we don’t have allies. Obama said so. And Obama is right, when it comes to asking countries like Russia, China, Turkey, and others to stop providing Iran with trade, commerce, and materials and hit Iran with sanctions. Gates is starting to act like the skank gutter trash that keeps getting kicked to the curb, but still goes back to his abusive boyfriends China and Russia because he really, really wants to be liked by these abusive louts.
Third, missile defense programs are there to protect us FROM Russia. Cooperation with Russia on the systems merely gives Russia the ability to defeat our defenses. Did you not take an oath to DEFEND the United States.
I hope somebody in the Senate grows a pair an calls Gates out on this mushy-headed thinking. Gates is starting to sound like a full blown McGovernite.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Obama Finally Admits What I've Been Saying All Along
I have written that Obama is a sociopathic narcissist who believes he was put in the White House to transform the nation. That starts with destroying the existing national order and remaking the nation in his own Statist, socialist image.
Tonight, in what is becoming his twice-monthly habit of interrupting prime time television viewing with another round of sycophantic coverage, B. Hussein Obama said:
"We've begun the work of remaking America.
We are off to a good start. But it is just a start."
B. Hussein Obama is now so power drunk, he claims the power to direct bank business and design cars. He aims to save the American car company Chrysler LLC by selling it to Italy's Fiat.
Just wait until he issues wage and price controls, socializes health care, and starts ruling by decree. You read it here first.
Obama, America did not and does not need to be remade. By the time you are done, it will likely need a divorce attorney.
Tonight, in what is becoming his twice-monthly habit of interrupting prime time television viewing with another round of sycophantic coverage, B. Hussein Obama said:
"We've begun the work of remaking America.
We are off to a good start. But it is just a start."
B. Hussein Obama is now so power drunk, he claims the power to direct bank business and design cars. He aims to save the American car company Chrysler LLC by selling it to Italy's Fiat.
Just wait until he issues wage and price controls, socializes health care, and starts ruling by decree. You read it here first.
Obama, America did not and does not need to be remade. By the time you are done, it will likely need a divorce attorney.
Conservatism is the Philosophy of Hope
Since the declaration of Arlen Specter that he has been a liberal Democrat all along, the mainstream media has been having a field day declaring the Republican Party dead. The headlines have been laughable.
At issue for Republicans: Broaden, or contract?
Democrats say GOP should be more like their party
GOP in identity crisis
GOP confronts it future viability
First, Arlen Specter is a rudderless political hack; a rat that will do whatever it takes to survive. Knowing he would lose his GOP primary, he switched parties to try to keep his seat after the next election. This was not about the Republican's party's makeup – Specter does not have a political philosophy.
Second, it has not been liberals taking to the streets in a show of raw political power since B. Hussein Obama’s spending spree has started. The grassroots Tea Party Movement has bypassed the gutless national GOP apparatchiks and are taking back political power based on a real philosophy of smaller government and free markets. The combined power of the Tea Party Movement dwarfs the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, and Tea Party Movement will determine the 2010 congressional elections. The nation is setting up for 1994 all over again.
Moving forward, the GOP will expand the party the same way Reagan did. Talk to the people with a straight conservative philosophy of equal opportunity, capitalism, smaller government, and economic growth.
Conservatism is the philosophy of hope. Liberalism breeds hopeless dependency.
Conservatism – not Socialism, not government dependency – is the philosophy of hope.
The Democrats are at their zenith. They better enjoy it.
At issue for Republicans: Broaden, or contract?
Democrats say GOP should be more like their party
GOP in identity crisis
GOP confronts it future viability
First, Arlen Specter is a rudderless political hack; a rat that will do whatever it takes to survive. Knowing he would lose his GOP primary, he switched parties to try to keep his seat after the next election. This was not about the Republican's party's makeup – Specter does not have a political philosophy.
Second, it has not been liberals taking to the streets in a show of raw political power since B. Hussein Obama’s spending spree has started. The grassroots Tea Party Movement has bypassed the gutless national GOP apparatchiks and are taking back political power based on a real philosophy of smaller government and free markets. The combined power of the Tea Party Movement dwarfs the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, and Tea Party Movement will determine the 2010 congressional elections. The nation is setting up for 1994 all over again.
Moving forward, the GOP will expand the party the same way Reagan did. Talk to the people with a straight conservative philosophy of equal opportunity, capitalism, smaller government, and economic growth.
Conservatism is the philosophy of hope. Liberalism breeds hopeless dependency.
Conservatism – not Socialism, not government dependency – is the philosophy of hope.
The Democrats are at their zenith. They better enjoy it.
The Feds Begin Their Move to Socialize US Banks
Bloomberg news services is reporting that not less than six of the twenty largest U.S. banks require additional capital as indicated by the Treasury Department's fictitious stress tests. As predicted in my post yesterday, both Citi and BoA are in the group requiring "additional capital."
This information is attributed to persons who have been briefed on the matter.
The Treasury Department intentionally set up the stress test to favor the conversion of preferred shares to common voting shares of stock so that it can move to take a controlling interest in these large banks. What makes the matter laughable is that the conversion of the shares provides not one additional dollar to the banks. How this conversion provides "additional" capital in any real sense of the word requires a sincere act of faith in the US messiah President.
In short, converting the preferred shares to common voting stock is an objective, not a solution.
A church might call this a mystery, but I call it Socialism. President Barak Hussein Obama is a committed Socialist, and he is seeking to destroy the capitalist system in the United States.
This information is attributed to persons who have been briefed on the matter.
The Treasury Department intentionally set up the stress test to favor the conversion of preferred shares to common voting shares of stock so that it can move to take a controlling interest in these large banks. What makes the matter laughable is that the conversion of the shares provides not one additional dollar to the banks. How this conversion provides "additional" capital in any real sense of the word requires a sincere act of faith in the US messiah President.
In short, converting the preferred shares to common voting stock is an objective, not a solution.
A church might call this a mystery, but I call it Socialism. President Barak Hussein Obama is a committed Socialist, and he is seeking to destroy the capitalist system in the United States.
Obama Lie of the Day
Barak Hussein Obama said Wednesday morning that Americans "should know" the government is doing "whatever is necessary" to contain the emerging health menace.
While I do not believe the H1N1 flu outbreak is a more serious health threat to America than any other flu season, it is clear that Mexicans have come across the border infected with the virus seeking health care they cannot receive in their own country. While I empathize with Mexicans who wish to seek better treatment than the sorry medical treatment in their country, I care more about the United States citizens who may be infected unnecessarily by allowing the infected to come here.
If Obama wants to do "whatever is necessary" to stop the spread of the flu outbreak into the United States, he would close the border until the outbreak plays itself out in Mexico. Or he would at least stop the illegal border crossings.
Saying the government is doing whatever is necessary to protect Americans from the flu outbreak is a lie.
While I do not believe the H1N1 flu outbreak is a more serious health threat to America than any other flu season, it is clear that Mexicans have come across the border infected with the virus seeking health care they cannot receive in their own country. While I empathize with Mexicans who wish to seek better treatment than the sorry medical treatment in their country, I care more about the United States citizens who may be infected unnecessarily by allowing the infected to come here.
If Obama wants to do "whatever is necessary" to stop the spread of the flu outbreak into the United States, he would close the border until the outbreak plays itself out in Mexico. Or he would at least stop the illegal border crossings.
Saying the government is doing whatever is necessary to protect Americans from the flu outbreak is a lie.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Capitalism's Destruction Imminent
Redwarning was established to warn the American public of the coming wave of Socialist/Statist policies which were sure to come from the presidential election of 2008. I am not surprised with the speed and scope that Barak Hussein Obama has moved to place a stunning amount of the United States economy effectively under government control. I am surprised at how deluded the American public remains about Obama’s actual plans.
Barak Hussein Obama is a sociopathic narcissist who believes he was put in the White House to transform the nation. Transformation is not a modification; Obama is not content to be a good keeper of the nation. To transform the nation into his image, he must start with destroying the existing national order. The existing national order was republican form of government and a capitalist economy. Obama is methodically setting out to destroy the capitalist economy first. Can the over attacks on the republican form of government be far behind?
This past week, the Barak Hussein Obama has made it most dramatic grab for the control and destruction of capitalism. Barak Hussein Obama wishes to convert the preferred stock the Bush administration forced banks to issue in exchange for TARP funding for voting, controlling common shares. To kill capitalism, Obama must control the capital. To do this, he must control the banks. To control the banks, he must control the voting shares of the banks. To obtain the voting shares, he must trump up a reason to do so.
There is a reason by which the federal government may take control of a bank, namely, during a bank failure when the bank is insured by the FDIC or a similar program, and the government cannot find another health bank to buy or assume the failing bank. This is only in the case of an actual bank failure. Of course, in such an event where no merger partner can be found, the federal government undertakes to pay off the depositors and wind up the bank. At the end of the process, the federal government does not control and run a commercial bank.
What Obama is suggesting is different. The large, meaningful banks that have received TARP money are not failing. Many seek to repay TARP now to redeem the preferred shares and get the government out of the boardroom and back to a regulatory scheme.
Obama and Treasury Secretary Timmah! Geithner are afraid to lose control over the banks. Obama and Geithner have now invented a series of heretofore unknown and unpublished “stress tests” to determine, based on their own unpublished standards, whether banks are “sustainable” without a continued infusion of TARP money. The stress tests are a fiction designed to make the banks fail.
When the large commercial banks “fail” these stress tests, Obama and Geithner will declare that they need more capital, and will force the banks to take more TARP money in exchange for turning over control and ownership of the bank to the US Government through the conversion of the preferred stock to common voting stock.
I predict Bank of America and Citigroup will both be told that they are undercapitalized as a result of these “stress tests.”
Not even notorious Enron advisor and left wing economist Paul Krugman can see a benefit to the taxpayers of changing the preferred stock to common stock. In his April 20th blog post, Krugman writes “[C]onverting preferred into common does nothing: it’s just a swap among the junior stuff, with no impact further up the line. It’s certainly not a fresh infusion of capital in any meaningful sense. So who is supposed to be fooled by this?”
At least Krugman has the intellectual honestly to admit that there is no benefit the taxpayers or the banks to the conversion of the preferred stock. What the leftist Krugman takes pains in his blog to NOT point out, is that common stock is voting stock that permits the government to own and control – Socialize -- the banks.
Obama is on a long march to Socialist centralized control of the US economy. The banks and auto manufacturers are first. The medical industry is next, and no one is safe from the march of the reds in Washington. The Tea Party patriots better man up for a fight.
Barak Hussein Obama is a sociopathic narcissist who believes he was put in the White House to transform the nation. Transformation is not a modification; Obama is not content to be a good keeper of the nation. To transform the nation into his image, he must start with destroying the existing national order. The existing national order was republican form of government and a capitalist economy. Obama is methodically setting out to destroy the capitalist economy first. Can the over attacks on the republican form of government be far behind?
This past week, the Barak Hussein Obama has made it most dramatic grab for the control and destruction of capitalism. Barak Hussein Obama wishes to convert the preferred stock the Bush administration forced banks to issue in exchange for TARP funding for voting, controlling common shares. To kill capitalism, Obama must control the capital. To do this, he must control the banks. To control the banks, he must control the voting shares of the banks. To obtain the voting shares, he must trump up a reason to do so.
There is a reason by which the federal government may take control of a bank, namely, during a bank failure when the bank is insured by the FDIC or a similar program, and the government cannot find another health bank to buy or assume the failing bank. This is only in the case of an actual bank failure. Of course, in such an event where no merger partner can be found, the federal government undertakes to pay off the depositors and wind up the bank. At the end of the process, the federal government does not control and run a commercial bank.
What Obama is suggesting is different. The large, meaningful banks that have received TARP money are not failing. Many seek to repay TARP now to redeem the preferred shares and get the government out of the boardroom and back to a regulatory scheme.
Obama and Treasury Secretary Timmah! Geithner are afraid to lose control over the banks. Obama and Geithner have now invented a series of heretofore unknown and unpublished “stress tests” to determine, based on their own unpublished standards, whether banks are “sustainable” without a continued infusion of TARP money. The stress tests are a fiction designed to make the banks fail.
When the large commercial banks “fail” these stress tests, Obama and Geithner will declare that they need more capital, and will force the banks to take more TARP money in exchange for turning over control and ownership of the bank to the US Government through the conversion of the preferred stock to common voting stock.
I predict Bank of America and Citigroup will both be told that they are undercapitalized as a result of these “stress tests.”
Not even notorious Enron advisor and left wing economist Paul Krugman can see a benefit to the taxpayers of changing the preferred stock to common stock. In his April 20th blog post, Krugman writes “[C]onverting preferred into common does nothing: it’s just a swap among the junior stuff, with no impact further up the line. It’s certainly not a fresh infusion of capital in any meaningful sense. So who is supposed to be fooled by this?”
At least Krugman has the intellectual honestly to admit that there is no benefit the taxpayers or the banks to the conversion of the preferred stock. What the leftist Krugman takes pains in his blog to NOT point out, is that common stock is voting stock that permits the government to own and control – Socialize -- the banks.
Obama is on a long march to Socialist centralized control of the US economy. The banks and auto manufacturers are first. The medical industry is next, and no one is safe from the march of the reds in Washington. The Tea Party patriots better man up for a fight.
RINO Hunting
Former Congressman and Pennsylvania Senate Candidate Pat Toomey went RINO hunting and bagged Arlen Specter. Today Arlen Specter switched parties to the Democrat Party, recognizing he has only one chance in five to beat Toomey in the primaries.
Arlen Specter has been a cancer to the GOP for 44 years. It is about time the GOP was rid of him. I hope an Obama-loving Democrat beats him in the Demo primary, too.
The GOP chairman sent me a fundraising email feigning outrage that Arlen Specter defected to the Dems. The GOP has been enabling this liberal bum for 44 years, and NOW they are outraged by him. Give me a break. RNC Chairman Michael Steele is clearly a clueless moron. His short reign has been one major mistake after another.
Arlen Specter would not even be in the Senate at all if it were not for the shortsightedness of former President George W. Bush. Bush supported Specter strongly in the last GOP primary, when Bush's support still meant something. He deserves some of the blame for this switcheroo as well. Way to campaign for Democrats, you idiot.
With the Dems holding large majorities in both the House and Senate, now is the time to purge all RINOs from the GOP. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, I'm looking at you.
Arlen Specter has been a cancer to the GOP for 44 years. It is about time the GOP was rid of him. I hope an Obama-loving Democrat beats him in the Demo primary, too.
The GOP chairman sent me a fundraising email feigning outrage that Arlen Specter defected to the Dems. The GOP has been enabling this liberal bum for 44 years, and NOW they are outraged by him. Give me a break. RNC Chairman Michael Steele is clearly a clueless moron. His short reign has been one major mistake after another.
Arlen Specter would not even be in the Senate at all if it were not for the shortsightedness of former President George W. Bush. Bush supported Specter strongly in the last GOP primary, when Bush's support still meant something. He deserves some of the blame for this switcheroo as well. Way to campaign for Democrats, you idiot.
With the Dems holding large majorities in both the House and Senate, now is the time to purge all RINOs from the GOP. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, I'm looking at you.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Communists Foist Earth Day on Us
Today is euphemistically called Earth Day, but it would be better called “Watermelon Day”. Like today’s environmentalists, watermelons are green on the outside, but red on the inside. Fittingly, Earth Day is held on Vladimir Lenin’s birthday. The birthright of murderous Communism runs from Lenin straight through to the Earth Day sycophants begging for their own destruction on this very day.
Earth Day was founded on a policy of zero growth. Every year, the heirs to Thomas Robert Malthus predict man is utilizing natural resources at a rate that the earth cannot support. Starting in 1798, the Malthusian dilemma has been suggested as some kind of natural law, and every year since then facts have proven that man’s capability to improve the science of resource production disproves the theories of Malthus and his ilk.
The latest version of Earth Day environmental nonsense is B. Hussein Obama’s “Cap and Trade” plan set forth in his 4.5 Trillion Dollar budget plan. The Cap in Cap and Trade is a cap on economic growth. The Trade part is simply more taxes on energy consumers passed along as higher costs.
Abundant affordable energy is the lynchpin of economic growth. Any effort to cap the growth of energy production, or tax the production of new energy, only hurts the economy, and thus, the people and the nation. Not even Jimmy Carter has sought to weaken the United States as quickly or dramatically as B. Hussein Obama.
Earth Day should be a reminder to all those who love liberty and progress that poorly educated fools and useful idiots desire to rot the nation from the inside out.
On April 22, I will celebrate human achievement, technological progress, and redouble my efforts to combat those who wish to damage this nation’s economy.
Earth Day was founded on a policy of zero growth. Every year, the heirs to Thomas Robert Malthus predict man is utilizing natural resources at a rate that the earth cannot support. Starting in 1798, the Malthusian dilemma has been suggested as some kind of natural law, and every year since then facts have proven that man’s capability to improve the science of resource production disproves the theories of Malthus and his ilk.
The latest version of Earth Day environmental nonsense is B. Hussein Obama’s “Cap and Trade” plan set forth in his 4.5 Trillion Dollar budget plan. The Cap in Cap and Trade is a cap on economic growth. The Trade part is simply more taxes on energy consumers passed along as higher costs.
Abundant affordable energy is the lynchpin of economic growth. Any effort to cap the growth of energy production, or tax the production of new energy, only hurts the economy, and thus, the people and the nation. Not even Jimmy Carter has sought to weaken the United States as quickly or dramatically as B. Hussein Obama.
Earth Day should be a reminder to all those who love liberty and progress that poorly educated fools and useful idiots desire to rot the nation from the inside out.
On April 22, I will celebrate human achievement, technological progress, and redouble my efforts to combat those who wish to damage this nation’s economy.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Semper F - You
Let today be marked as a particularly black day in the B. Hussein Obama administration. It is an equally black day in the Eric Holder-led Justice Department’s history.
For on this, day B. Hussein Obama and Eric Holder broke faith with the men and women who stand at the forefront of protecting this nation from harm, and did the bidding of the Communist party front American Civil Liberties Union by releasing detailed Top Secret Office of the Legal Counsel memorandums describing interrogation techniques of Islamists intending to do the United States and its citizens grievous harm.
The release of the memos reflect a naiveté in the Obama administration that this nation has not seen since Jimmy Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran and left what is now a nuclear-armed Iran for the Ayatollah Khomeini.
On a related note, this event further highlights what a punk former CIA officer and current ACLU hack Bob Barr has become.
For on this, day B. Hussein Obama and Eric Holder broke faith with the men and women who stand at the forefront of protecting this nation from harm, and did the bidding of the Communist party front American Civil Liberties Union by releasing detailed Top Secret Office of the Legal Counsel memorandums describing interrogation techniques of Islamists intending to do the United States and its citizens grievous harm.
The release of the memos reflect a naiveté in the Obama administration that this nation has not seen since Jimmy Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran and left what is now a nuclear-armed Iran for the Ayatollah Khomeini.
On a related note, this event further highlights what a punk former CIA officer and current ACLU hack Bob Barr has become.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
It is April 15th -- Tea Party Tax Protest Day!
"Today is the last day for filing income tax returns -- a day that reminds us that taxpayers pay too much of their earnings to the Federal Government. ... While April 15 serves as a reminder, the people of the United States truly do not need to be reminded. They are victims of inflation, which pushes them into higher tax brackets. They are robbed daily of a better standard of living. They are discouraged from work and investment. ... The choice before us is clear. I strongly feel that the great majority of Americans believe that nothing would better encourage economic growth than leaving more money in the hands of the people who earn it. It's time to stop stripping bare the productive citizens of America and funneling their hard-earned income into the Federal bureaucracy." --Ronald Reagan
Today is the day that government demands its pound of flesh.
And today is the day you can do something about out of control government. Please attend your local Tax Day Tea Party. Stand up as our Founders stood up. Stand up and support what our Founders supported. The Founders all supported limited government, but it seems only Conservatives do today.
Support for limited government does not simply mean opposing unnecessary and unconstitutional spending. It also means that Conservatives support the rights of the individual and the several States against the encroachment upon their rights by the federal government. It also means keeping a check on the ability of the federal government to coerce individuals and the several States to behave in a way which is in contravention to their rights. Mostly, it means Conservatives must constantly remind themselves, and the federal government, that whatever power the federal government does enjoy, it enjoys by the consent of the people, which consent may be withdrawn at any time. Rights do not flow from the government down, instead, the power to infringe upon individual rights flows down from individuals and State governments to the federal government.
Today is a good day to remind the federal government of this truth!
Today is the day that government demands its pound of flesh.
And today is the day you can do something about out of control government. Please attend your local Tax Day Tea Party. Stand up as our Founders stood up. Stand up and support what our Founders supported. The Founders all supported limited government, but it seems only Conservatives do today.
Support for limited government does not simply mean opposing unnecessary and unconstitutional spending. It also means that Conservatives support the rights of the individual and the several States against the encroachment upon their rights by the federal government. It also means keeping a check on the ability of the federal government to coerce individuals and the several States to behave in a way which is in contravention to their rights. Mostly, it means Conservatives must constantly remind themselves, and the federal government, that whatever power the federal government does enjoy, it enjoys by the consent of the people, which consent may be withdrawn at any time. Rights do not flow from the government down, instead, the power to infringe upon individual rights flows down from individuals and State governments to the federal government.
Today is a good day to remind the federal government of this truth!
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Homeland Security is Watching You!
Obama's Department of Homeland Security officially declares the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the Authors of the Bill of Rights, and opposers of his "historic" presidency "Rightwing Extremists".
I downloaded the document from the Washington Times website.
Issued by the DHS just in time for the Tax Day Teaparties. The document says that federal intelligence and law enforcement personnel "will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months" to gather information on "rightwing extremist activity in the United States."
The document's definition of Rightwing extremism includes pro-life groups, immigration law enforcement supporters, supporters of Constitutional limits to federal government authority over states, firearm owners, and returning military veterans.
I am reminded of Barry Goldwater's quote: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!" I will have a more in-depth post on this document later.
The entire document can be viewed here http://www.thelibertypapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf
I downloaded the document from the Washington Times website.
Issued by the DHS just in time for the Tax Day Teaparties. The document says that federal intelligence and law enforcement personnel "will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months" to gather information on "rightwing extremist activity in the United States."
The document's definition of Rightwing extremism includes pro-life groups, immigration law enforcement supporters, supporters of Constitutional limits to federal government authority over states, firearm owners, and returning military veterans.
I am reminded of Barry Goldwater's quote: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!" I will have a more in-depth post on this document later.
The entire document can be viewed here http://www.thelibertypapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf
Fascist Quote of the Day
Sounding like other fascists that came before her, Nancy Pelosi, current Speaker of the House, said the following on April 10, 2008 on the Good Morning America show:
“We don’t want to take their guns away, [but] we want [firearms] registered."
“We don’t want [firearms] crossing state lines.”
“We need to rid the debate of the misconceptions people have about what gun safety means.”
What “misconceptions” are “the people” laboring under? Are we laboring under a misconception that the gun registration is the first step to prohibition?
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal".
– Democrat Attorney General Janet Reno
"1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! The world will follow our lead to the future!"
- Adolf Hitler
Are we laboring under a misconception that those in power do not want an armed citizenry?
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."
- Adolf Hitler
"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms."
- Aristotle
"If the citizenry disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."
- Josef Stalin
We citizens would do well to recall the words of the United States’ greatest President on the matter of gun ownership.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wago,n and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."
- George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress.
The liberal’s favorite commentator on original intent, Thomas Jefferson, said this about an individual's right of gun ownership:
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
America, who do you trust with protecting your liberty? George Washington and Thomas Jefferson on one side, or Nancy Pelosi and Janet Reno on the other?
There is one absolute truth that must be discerned from the whole of history as it related to the relationship between government and its citizens: Citizens must jealously guard all of its liberties against any encroachment, or the citizens will surely be robbed of liberty by the government.
“We don’t want to take their guns away, [but] we want [firearms] registered."
“We don’t want [firearms] crossing state lines.”
“We need to rid the debate of the misconceptions people have about what gun safety means.”
What “misconceptions” are “the people” laboring under? Are we laboring under a misconception that the gun registration is the first step to prohibition?
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal".
– Democrat Attorney General Janet Reno
"1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! The world will follow our lead to the future!"
- Adolf Hitler
Are we laboring under a misconception that those in power do not want an armed citizenry?
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."
- Adolf Hitler
"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms."
- Aristotle
"If the citizenry disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."
- Josef Stalin
We citizens would do well to recall the words of the United States’ greatest President on the matter of gun ownership.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wago,n and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."
- George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress.
The liberal’s favorite commentator on original intent, Thomas Jefferson, said this about an individual's right of gun ownership:
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
America, who do you trust with protecting your liberty? George Washington and Thomas Jefferson on one side, or Nancy Pelosi and Janet Reno on the other?
There is one absolute truth that must be discerned from the whole of history as it related to the relationship between government and its citizens: Citizens must jealously guard all of its liberties against any encroachment, or the citizens will surely be robbed of liberty by the government.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Navy 3, Pirates 0
Once again, the United States of America is up against Muslim pirates. Once again, it will do us well to remember our history with the Barbary Corsairs. In 1784 and 1785, American merchant ships were being seized by North African Muslim pirates, their crews held for ransom and the cargo and ships sold. For years, these crewmembers were held as slaves.
In 1786, then-ambassadors Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, met a visiting ambassador from Tripoli named Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja in London. When Adja was asked why his government was hostile to American ships, the ambassador had told them it was written in their Koran that all non-Muslim nations were sinners and it the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave such persons. Of course, he added, for an outrageous sum of money, they could make peace.
After fifteen years of paying ransom, the United States started fighting back in 1801.
We were fighting back again this Easter Sunday. After being held hostage for five days by Muslim pirates, Capt. Richard Phillips was freed by the United States Navy by three well-placed simultaneous head shots by Navy Seals or US Marines. For the sake of symmetry and poetry, I hope it was Marines, who in centuries past brought death to the Muslim pirates on the “shores of Tripoli.”
The United States has taken a back seat in fighting the scourge of Muslim piracy off the eastern horn of Africa. Perhaps now, our considerable naval resources will be brought to bear on these Muslim terrorists and extortionists. Or perhaps, Barak Hussein Obama just wants to apologize to his fellow native Kenyans and Somali brothers. At any rate, what Obama could not bring himself to say in his statement tonight, I will state for him on behalf of the American people.
We do not negotiate with terrorists who do not possess nuclear weapons.
In 1786, then-ambassadors Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, met a visiting ambassador from Tripoli named Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja in London. When Adja was asked why his government was hostile to American ships, the ambassador had told them it was written in their Koran that all non-Muslim nations were sinners and it the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave such persons. Of course, he added, for an outrageous sum of money, they could make peace.
After fifteen years of paying ransom, the United States started fighting back in 1801.
We were fighting back again this Easter Sunday. After being held hostage for five days by Muslim pirates, Capt. Richard Phillips was freed by the United States Navy by three well-placed simultaneous head shots by Navy Seals or US Marines. For the sake of symmetry and poetry, I hope it was Marines, who in centuries past brought death to the Muslim pirates on the “shores of Tripoli.”
The United States has taken a back seat in fighting the scourge of Muslim piracy off the eastern horn of Africa. Perhaps now, our considerable naval resources will be brought to bear on these Muslim terrorists and extortionists. Or perhaps, Barak Hussein Obama just wants to apologize to his fellow native Kenyans and Somali brothers. At any rate, what Obama could not bring himself to say in his statement tonight, I will state for him on behalf of the American people.
We do not negotiate with terrorists who do not possess nuclear weapons.
Stalinist Quote of the Day
What is more important than being right? For the dangerous and disingenuous supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the answer is: being quoted approvingly by foreign courts.
In a Saturday speech at Ohio State University, supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg demonstrated her lack of understanding about what is wrong with using foreign cases to help decide cases before the United States supreme Court.
“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law.” “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?”
Remarking that the Supreme Court of Canada is quoted more widely by other foreign courts, Ginsburg said “You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”
During her speech, Ginsburg also pointed out that the US Supreme Court used to look at various foreign courts’ (generally, the courts of England and Wales) in the 1800’s, with the impression that it didn’t destroy the country.
These remarks are astounding in their utter disregard for the role of the United States supreme Court, post 1938. To understand that role, we must look to the document that created the supreme Court (and disregard foreign courts’ opinions on the matter), and the 1936 court case that puts Ginsburg’s remarks on their head.
Article. III, Section. 2. of the United States Constitution
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
--to Controversies between two or more States;
--between a State and Citizens of another State;
--between Citizens of different States,
--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
You will notice that the supreme Court has no jurisdiction on deciding matters related to foreign law. You will notice that the supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction subject to the regulation of Congress (so much for the co-equal branch of government).
And, under Article 1, Section 1, you will also notice that only Congress can establish inferior courts to the supreme Court, and Congress cannot create a foreign court.
I suppose it falls upon Redwarning to point out the following:
1. Foreign courts are not interpreting the United States Constitution;
2. Foreign courts are not interpreting United States federal law; and
3. Foreign courts are not interpreting the law of one of the several States of the United States.
Of course, liberals find merely interpreting law very confining. They cannot really do “justice” as they see it by merely interpreting the laws someone else makes. Liberal judges are compelled to make law from the bench.
When judges create law by their decisions, it is called “common law”. State courts routinely make common law. In most States the common law generally follows the common law of England as described by William Blackstone’s pre-Revolutionary war treatise Commentaries on the Law of England. Recall that before the Revolutoinary War, we were under the law of England (as colonies). Post-Revolution, we kept the framework and relied on the more mature courts in England for additional guidance on the English Common law applicable to the several States.
Remember, Ginsburg helpfully points out the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts. There is no doubt that in the 19th Century United States, and before then, we were either under the law of England (as colonies) and then kept the framework and relied on the more mature courts in England for additional guidance on the English Common law adopted by the several States. That all sounds fine and good, and contributed to a body of work generally referred to as the Federal Common Law.
Ginsburg’s justification seems to be: we used to do it, why shouldn’t we do it now?
The short answer is, there no longer is a Federal common law. Federal judges have no business looking to create judge-made common law, and haven’t been since the 1938 case Erie RR v. Tompkins. Ginsburg is well aware of the rule of Erie, making her statement completely disingenuous.
The decision in the Erie case means that Federal judges do not look at facts and circumstances and create “judge-made” common law. Common law creation is limited to the courts of the several States. Federal judges must interpret the laws and statutes that they did not create, apply those to the facts of the case, and render an opinion -- not create a law.
So, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose job is to NOT make federal common law, but only interpret the Constitution, federal statutes, state law, and treaties, wants to take a look to the common law of foreign courts just like United States “law review articles.”
Why would a supreme Court judge want to look at the decisions of a foreign court? The only possible answer is because the liberal supreme Court judge wants to make some new law, and the language of the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and the laws of the several States does not support their position. We call this results-based decision-making – liberals excel at this.
Put simply, Foreign Court decisions have no more relevance to a case and controversy before the US supreme Court than the lyrics of the latest Jonas’ Brothers album. By definition, foreign Court decisions are completely unrelated to any case and controversy before the United States supreme Court. At least US law review articles discuss US legal issues. Of course, a law review article does not have the imprimatur of being issued by a Jurist sitting in judgment, handing down the law to the unwashed who could not conceive of this heretofore unrecognized truth.
But liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg cannot be confined to her constitutionally-defined role. She will grasp at any reasoning that alings with hers to legislate from the bench. Reference to irrelevant foreign court decisions is just one tool in the liberal jurist’s toolbox.
In a Saturday speech at Ohio State University, supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg demonstrated her lack of understanding about what is wrong with using foreign cases to help decide cases before the United States supreme Court.
“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law.” “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?”
Remarking that the Supreme Court of Canada is quoted more widely by other foreign courts, Ginsburg said “You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”
During her speech, Ginsburg also pointed out that the US Supreme Court used to look at various foreign courts’ (generally, the courts of England and Wales) in the 1800’s, with the impression that it didn’t destroy the country.
These remarks are astounding in their utter disregard for the role of the United States supreme Court, post 1938. To understand that role, we must look to the document that created the supreme Court (and disregard foreign courts’ opinions on the matter), and the 1936 court case that puts Ginsburg’s remarks on their head.
Article. III, Section. 2. of the United States Constitution
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
--to Controversies between two or more States;
--between a State and Citizens of another State;
--between Citizens of different States,
--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
You will notice that the supreme Court has no jurisdiction on deciding matters related to foreign law. You will notice that the supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction subject to the regulation of Congress (so much for the co-equal branch of government).
And, under Article 1, Section 1, you will also notice that only Congress can establish inferior courts to the supreme Court, and Congress cannot create a foreign court.
I suppose it falls upon Redwarning to point out the following:
1. Foreign courts are not interpreting the United States Constitution;
2. Foreign courts are not interpreting United States federal law; and
3. Foreign courts are not interpreting the law of one of the several States of the United States.
Of course, liberals find merely interpreting law very confining. They cannot really do “justice” as they see it by merely interpreting the laws someone else makes. Liberal judges are compelled to make law from the bench.
When judges create law by their decisions, it is called “common law”. State courts routinely make common law. In most States the common law generally follows the common law of England as described by William Blackstone’s pre-Revolutionary war treatise Commentaries on the Law of England. Recall that before the Revolutoinary War, we were under the law of England (as colonies). Post-Revolution, we kept the framework and relied on the more mature courts in England for additional guidance on the English Common law applicable to the several States.
Remember, Ginsburg helpfully points out the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts. There is no doubt that in the 19th Century United States, and before then, we were either under the law of England (as colonies) and then kept the framework and relied on the more mature courts in England for additional guidance on the English Common law adopted by the several States. That all sounds fine and good, and contributed to a body of work generally referred to as the Federal Common Law.
Ginsburg’s justification seems to be: we used to do it, why shouldn’t we do it now?
The short answer is, there no longer is a Federal common law. Federal judges have no business looking to create judge-made common law, and haven’t been since the 1938 case Erie RR v. Tompkins. Ginsburg is well aware of the rule of Erie, making her statement completely disingenuous.
The decision in the Erie case means that Federal judges do not look at facts and circumstances and create “judge-made” common law. Common law creation is limited to the courts of the several States. Federal judges must interpret the laws and statutes that they did not create, apply those to the facts of the case, and render an opinion -- not create a law.
So, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose job is to NOT make federal common law, but only interpret the Constitution, federal statutes, state law, and treaties, wants to take a look to the common law of foreign courts just like United States “law review articles.”
Why would a supreme Court judge want to look at the decisions of a foreign court? The only possible answer is because the liberal supreme Court judge wants to make some new law, and the language of the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and the laws of the several States does not support their position. We call this results-based decision-making – liberals excel at this.
Put simply, Foreign Court decisions have no more relevance to a case and controversy before the US supreme Court than the lyrics of the latest Jonas’ Brothers album. By definition, foreign Court decisions are completely unrelated to any case and controversy before the United States supreme Court. At least US law review articles discuss US legal issues. Of course, a law review article does not have the imprimatur of being issued by a Jurist sitting in judgment, handing down the law to the unwashed who could not conceive of this heretofore unrecognized truth.
But liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg cannot be confined to her constitutionally-defined role. She will grasp at any reasoning that alings with hers to legislate from the bench. Reference to irrelevant foreign court decisions is just one tool in the liberal jurist’s toolbox.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Obama's Insidious Lies in Turkey
“We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country[sic].”
So said Barak Hussein Obama in a speech to the parliament of Turkey, and referring (I think) to the United States, not Kenya.
I have parsed his language for several days, trying to peel off the layers of this onion. It is a masterful statement, which includes two lies, one a white lie, and one a truthful statement told for a disingenuous purpose.
Let me start the critique with another quote from his speech: “The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans.” Again, this is a truth told for a disingenuous purpose. It is true that more than one Muslim American has paid taxes, thus enriching the United States. It is also true that more than one Muslim American has served his country honorably in the service of the military. However, there is nothing particular to the fact that they were Muslim that makes their actions enriching to the United States. Paying taxes and serving honorably is common to all major faiths in the United States, except for the Pennsylvania Dutch Amish.
Just for fun, perform an Internet search on “great American Muslims”. The responses are Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan. The adjective “enriching” does not spring to mind.
As to the initial quote, there are three elements to the sentence:1. We [the United States] has a “deep appreciation for the Islamic faith”.2. The Islamic faith has done so much over the centuries to shape the world.3. The Islamic faith has done so much to shape the United States.
One of these elements is a truthful statement not told for a disingenuous purpose. It is true that the Islamic faith has shaped the world over the centuries. Too bad they stopped progressing past the 14th Century.
Now to the white lie about a deep appreciation of the Islamic faith. Clearly he is saying this to be nice and curry favor with people who really cannot and do not help the United States. Most United States citizens do not understand the tenants of the Islamic faith, have never read the Koran, and do not understand Islamic history. What they know about Islam, they do not like at all. And, the mainstream media continues to lie about the so called “Religion of Peace” at every turn, so what Americans might appreciate about the Islamic faith is really not true Islam.
But the third phrase is the insidious lie, in that is the truthful on its face, but is implied that the truth is positive. In fact, Islamists HAVE worked to shape the United States, almost exclusively to the detriment of the United States and its citizens. Here is a little history:
1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian Islamists seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were held for 444 days and released only after President Carter agreed to pay ransom.
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
1993
Jan. 25, a Muslim gunman named Mir Amal Kansi killed two people and injured three others outside CIA Headquarters at Langley in Fairfax County, Virginia.
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. Islamists Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and at least 9 others carried out the bombings.
1995
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 and injuring thousands more. The bombing was carried out by Islamists who had received training at Islamist camps in Afghanistan.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives was detonated alongside the ship. 17 US sailors were killed.
2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: Muslim hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into the World Trade Center; another jet was hijacked by Islamists was crashed into the Pentagon. A fourth jet was hijacked by Muslim terrorists and crashed into a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered: 2,992. The World Trade Center’s twin towers and other buildings were destroyed.
Since September 11, 2001 no successful Islamic terrorists attacks have occurred in the United States, but attacks to US locations and citizens persists overseas.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Muslim homicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners.
2004
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Muslim terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Muslim suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57.
2008
Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians. Islamic terrorists conducted the attack.
President Barak Hussein Obama may enjoy going overseas to bow and scrape to Islamists and apologizing for the United States offending Muslim sensibilities, but the American citizens do not suffer from such warped thinking. Obama has been one embarrassment after another to the United States. In time, this embarrassment will be shaken from this great nation as the earth shook off the dinosaurs.
So said Barak Hussein Obama in a speech to the parliament of Turkey, and referring (I think) to the United States, not Kenya.
I have parsed his language for several days, trying to peel off the layers of this onion. It is a masterful statement, which includes two lies, one a white lie, and one a truthful statement told for a disingenuous purpose.
Let me start the critique with another quote from his speech: “The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans.” Again, this is a truth told for a disingenuous purpose. It is true that more than one Muslim American has paid taxes, thus enriching the United States. It is also true that more than one Muslim American has served his country honorably in the service of the military. However, there is nothing particular to the fact that they were Muslim that makes their actions enriching to the United States. Paying taxes and serving honorably is common to all major faiths in the United States, except for the Pennsylvania Dutch Amish.
Just for fun, perform an Internet search on “great American Muslims”. The responses are Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan. The adjective “enriching” does not spring to mind.
As to the initial quote, there are three elements to the sentence:1. We [the United States] has a “deep appreciation for the Islamic faith”.2. The Islamic faith has done so much over the centuries to shape the world.3. The Islamic faith has done so much to shape the United States.
One of these elements is a truthful statement not told for a disingenuous purpose. It is true that the Islamic faith has shaped the world over the centuries. Too bad they stopped progressing past the 14th Century.
Now to the white lie about a deep appreciation of the Islamic faith. Clearly he is saying this to be nice and curry favor with people who really cannot and do not help the United States. Most United States citizens do not understand the tenants of the Islamic faith, have never read the Koran, and do not understand Islamic history. What they know about Islam, they do not like at all. And, the mainstream media continues to lie about the so called “Religion of Peace” at every turn, so what Americans might appreciate about the Islamic faith is really not true Islam.
But the third phrase is the insidious lie, in that is the truthful on its face, but is implied that the truth is positive. In fact, Islamists HAVE worked to shape the United States, almost exclusively to the detriment of the United States and its citizens. Here is a little history:
1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian Islamists seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were held for 444 days and released only after President Carter agreed to pay ransom.
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
1993
Jan. 25, a Muslim gunman named Mir Amal Kansi killed two people and injured three others outside CIA Headquarters at Langley in Fairfax County, Virginia.
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. Islamists Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and at least 9 others carried out the bombings.
1995
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 and injuring thousands more. The bombing was carried out by Islamists who had received training at Islamist camps in Afghanistan.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives was detonated alongside the ship. 17 US sailors were killed.
2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: Muslim hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into the World Trade Center; another jet was hijacked by Islamists was crashed into the Pentagon. A fourth jet was hijacked by Muslim terrorists and crashed into a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered: 2,992. The World Trade Center’s twin towers and other buildings were destroyed.
Since September 11, 2001 no successful Islamic terrorists attacks have occurred in the United States, but attacks to US locations and citizens persists overseas.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Muslim homicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners.
2004
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Muslim terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Muslim suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57.
2008
Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians. Islamic terrorists conducted the attack.
President Barak Hussein Obama may enjoy going overseas to bow and scrape to Islamists and apologizing for the United States offending Muslim sensibilities, but the American citizens do not suffer from such warped thinking. Obama has been one embarrassment after another to the United States. In time, this embarrassment will be shaken from this great nation as the earth shook off the dinosaurs.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Some of the MSM are starting to get it
Stuart Varney, a refugee of European Socialism and Fox Business News commentator, describes in the Wall Street Journal how President Obama is behaving like a Statist.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
Thursday, April 2, 2009
GOP members voting for Statism
The following House members of the GOP voted in favor of legislation that will allow a Government bureaucrat to determine “reasonable” wages for each and every worker in any industry that receives Government money. This is old-style Soviet central control of the economy. The Government has no business regulating salaries to be determined by employers and employees.
I cannot imagine that even the Dems’ precious Unions like this legislation. The UAW better hope that no Government bureaucrat reviews how much lug nut turners earn on the line at GM.
At any rate, here are the names of the RINOs, further demonstrating why a philosophy-free GOP is a minority party.
Bilirakis
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cao
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Duncan
Jones
McHugh
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
I cannot imagine that even the Dems’ precious Unions like this legislation. The UAW better hope that no Government bureaucrat reviews how much lug nut turners earn on the line at GM.
At any rate, here are the names of the RINOs, further demonstrating why a philosophy-free GOP is a minority party.
Bilirakis
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cao
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Duncan
Jones
McHugh
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
RIP -- Life on Mars
If I may digress, tonight I will watch the end of yet another brilliantly-conceived, well-acted, smart, funny, entertaining television series. Life On Mars (US/ABC) was the one new television series this year that stuck with me. I loved everything about it, the back-story, the setting, the cast (what a marvelous cast!), the props, the story lines, even the soundtrack.
However, smart series are not able to compete with “reality” programming. Most US television viewers would rather feel superior to the trash typically on display in reality a series than watch a television series that requires active listening and the ability to follow a plot from week to week. A populace that is the result of homogenized public education may not have the ability to enjoy any entertainment that may require them to think and focus. A smart series does not have immediate gratification for the viewer.
Of course, this may explain why the U.S. was given such a poor choice of presidential candidates from which to choose last November. National elections have taken on the aura of a reality TV show on the Short Attention Span Network. Good looks and smooth talking are better than intelligence and experience. Little effort is used to discover what a candidate’s philosophy is, or even if he or she has a philosophy.
So tonight, I will watch the last episode of a television series set in the past. What was in many ways a more complex, more interesting, and certainly a more intelligent time than that in which we presently find ourselves.
Say goodnight, Gracie.
However, smart series are not able to compete with “reality” programming. Most US television viewers would rather feel superior to the trash typically on display in reality a series than watch a television series that requires active listening and the ability to follow a plot from week to week. A populace that is the result of homogenized public education may not have the ability to enjoy any entertainment that may require them to think and focus. A smart series does not have immediate gratification for the viewer.
Of course, this may explain why the U.S. was given such a poor choice of presidential candidates from which to choose last November. National elections have taken on the aura of a reality TV show on the Short Attention Span Network. Good looks and smooth talking are better than intelligence and experience. Little effort is used to discover what a candidate’s philosophy is, or even if he or she has a philosophy.
So tonight, I will watch the last episode of a television series set in the past. What was in many ways a more complex, more interesting, and certainly a more intelligent time than that in which we presently find ourselves.
Say goodnight, Gracie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
