Monday, November 30, 2009

What Do You Think About This?

GOP Purity Test Gets Mixed Grades, Even From Conservatives

Conservative activists in the Republican Party are pushing a proposal to deny funding to GOP candidates who fail what is being called a purity test, a move that is being met with skepticism by some Republican commentators.

The proposal, being pushed by 10 Republican National Committee members, calls for money to be withheld from candidates who disagree with more than two of 10 conservative principles.

The RNC will debate the idea at its winter meeting in January.

Among the principles on the test are support of limited government, market-based health care reform, legal immigration, gun rights and military-recommended troop surges in Iraq and Afghanistan. The list also requires opposing Obama's domestic policies, including his $787 billion stimulus bill, climate change legislation and his signature health care reform plan.


Continue reading

So what do you think about this?

Is this a chance to retake the GOP from the RINO's or is it a risky move that will keep Republicans from getting elected.?

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Quote Of The Week

The greatest tragedy here is that despite many years of outright fabrication, fraud and deceit on the part of the climate change denial industry, documented in James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore's brilliant new book Climate Cover-up, it is now the climate scientists who look bad...

George Monbiot

Source

Read the article to put this in perspective. This man was writing a blog about how damaging the infamous global warming e-mails are to the GW cause.

If you read his post, linked above, you will appreciate the incredible irony here. He is putting forth the opinion that people who do not prey at the altar of the Goracle commit "fabrication, fraud, and deceit" while talking about e-mails that show that people who are pushing the GW fantasy are committing, well, fabrication, fraud, and deceit.

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Schwarzeneggar Now Qualified For Obama's Cabinet

We all knew that Ahhnold was a RINO but he didn't quite seem "Democratic" enough for a position in the Obama White House. It is now official, Schwarzenegger is qualified.

Schwarzenegger Will Refile Tax Information to Clear IRS Lien

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will refile tax information to clear an IRS lien for nearly $80,000 after a celebrity Web site posted an IRS document showing Schwarzenegger owed the money, his spokesman said Friday.

The Web site TMZ.com posted a "notice of federal tax lien" filed in May with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office. The document showed Schwarzenegger owes $39,047 in taxes, fines or penalties from 2004 and $40,016 from 2005.

Schwarzenegger's spokesman, Aaron McLear, said a representative of the governor contacted the IRS Friday and determined there was a "paperwork tracking discrepancy."

"The governor had not been notified of any discrepancy or of the lien until today," McLear said in a statement. "The governor is resubmitting certain information to the IRS and we fully expect that the matter will be resolved and the lien expunged without any penalty assessed upon the governor."

He said the issue is "completely unrelated to the payment of taxes, which the governor has paid in full and on time."

The tax code referenced on the lien indicates it may be for failing to file correct returns. IRS spokesman Dean Patterson said the agency cannot comment on individual cases.


Source

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving to all

I will not be around much for the next couple of days.

I am spending today with my ER family.

Friday I am off and Brenda, the kids, and me will have our Thanksgiving then.

Actually my wife and kids are real sports with my schedule. For years they have had to work around my non-traditional schedule on holidays and weekends and they are real good about it.

We have always taken the approach that Thanksgiving (or Christmas, etc) are not the day itself but the togetherness. We do observe Christmas on Christmas Day but we also set aside a day either before or after to have our together time and observe the holiday as a family. This, I think is the real spirit of the holidays.

Anyways, I hope you all have a very Happy Thanksgiving and enjoy your time with your family.

I want to send a special wish to our friend AOW who is getting to spend Thanksgiving at home with her husband after his 10 week hospital stay. I hope this is a special day for you both.

Finally, let us all keep our friend Z in our thoughts today. Z lost her husband recently and this will be a rough time for her. Know we are thinking of you Z.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

What Will Be The Cost To Obama For The 9/11 Terror Trials?

Note: This is the conclusion of a 3 part series on the 9/11 terrorist trials in NYC. I have posed questions the last 2 days about the risks of trying the case in a civilian court and the possible rationales behind the decision.

We have talked here and at other blogs about the upcoming 9/11 terrorists trials in NYC. The question today is how will this effect the Obama Presidency?

I think we can dispense with any pretense that Obama did this for the noble goal of seeking justice. The men have already admitted their guilt, a military tribunal would have been the logical choice. So there is political calculation here, Obama sees himself gaining something from this. Will he?

The obvious first determinant is whether the men are convicted.

If the men are convicted, Obama may get a little credit for this. I say a little not out of spite but in recognition of the fact that the men have already said they committed the crimes. While a conviction may bring some relief to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11, as far as suspense goes it will be anti-climactic.

If they are not convicted there could be Hell to pay for Obama for the very same reason, they have said they committed the crimes.

The worse case scenario here is that they are acquitted and a judge orders their release.

As I said yesterday there is strong speculation that if the men are acquitted the government will detain them immediately and hold them indefinitely as enemy combatants and I believe they will do this.

As I posted Monday though, a lot of this depends on the judge that hears the case. What if we get an activist judge who decides to take a stand against the US national security policies of the past and order the men released?

Obama's support would be down to the few far, far left radicals that think the US is an evil empire.

In a best case scenario of acquittal, the men will be taken into custody and Obama will come out of it looking like a complete and total fool, allowing guilty men game the US justice system and beat it. His support will not be much more than the above case because he will look like the inept man he is.

This brings us to a conviction. This is till a trap for Obama in my mind.

The most likely outcome here is that the terrorists, through their attorney, will be given a platform to attack the US war on terror, the arrogance of the US, and the brave struggle of the freedom fighters against the tyranny of an evil empire.

I have heard the comment on Fox News that the judge will likely keep a tight rein on the terrorists during the trial and there will not be cameras in the courtroom for them to perform to. This very well may be true but the real drama will be outside the courtroom.

We will have the defense attorney putting the US policy of combating terrorism on trial. He will discuss waterboarding, the fact that his clients were not afforded rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the fact that they have been detained in supposed horrid conditions at Gitmo.

None of these items are even remotely factual but when has a defense attorney been bound by the facts?

So again Obama has egg on his face because he is letting men who are known to be guilty game the US justice system for their propaganda.

So, how does Obama do after all of this? What are your thoughts?

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

What Is Really Going On With The Terrorism Trials?

Note: I posted about the 9/11 terror trials yesterday. I am so angry about this I am making it a 3 part series to conclude tomorrow.

We have talked about this before and will talk about it again. Mostly because it is important. The 9/11 terror trials upcoming in NY defy logic.

These men are going to be virtually impossible to prosecute in a civilian court. The men were not read their Miranda rights, as combatants are not. They were not given the same access to a lawyer during their entire stay as American citizens are afforded. (They have them now on our dime). We have likely not allowed them access to the embassy staff of their respective country as custom dictates for foreign prisoners, largely because many of them are not of a single country due to the nature of their crimes.

They will make it a show trial. Their lawyer has already said the defendants will plead not-guilty even though they have admitted to their crimes, so they can "explain" why they attacked us 9/11. These men have already offered to plead guilty and be martyred but will not now that they have a chance to speak out.

Their lawyer will have access to some confidential information. The information that the government does manage to keep away from them will in turn contribute to the difficulty that the prosecution will already be facing because it will limit what evidence can be presented.

Finally, we have already had a case of a terrorist defense lawyer aiding and abetting terrorists. If you think this is all mindless ranting, read this article about Lynne Stewart and how the federal courts can be real low key about punishing terrorists like her.

So with all of this, what is really going on here?

Obama and his staff are idiots but they are not stupid. They are all lawyers, they know the law well enough to know that these issues are real.

Further, there is strong speculation that if these men are acquitted they will immediately be detained and held indefinitely as enemy combatants as they are now. I think this is likely to happen. I don't think Obama is stupid enough to let these men walk out of a courthouse in NYC free men, it would destroy him and his party.

So what gives? Why the farce that they are playing out right now?

Is it as some of us suspect nothing more than a way to play the Bush card to distract people while he sneaks through health care and/or cap and trade, etc, etc?

Is he that cynical about our country that he is willing to screw us to show we are tolerant of those who have taken so many of our lives? Is this just another feather in his "President of the World" crown?

What are your thoughts?

Monday, November 23, 2009

What Do You Think About This?

I heard a comment on Fox News that got me thinking. It was a simple comment but often it is the simple ones that stir your thoughts.

The conversation was about trying the 9/11 terrorists in NYC. The comment was (paraphrasing) "it depends on which judge hears the case". It was in reaction to a discussion on what is going to happen during the trial as far as the discovery process. Will the prosecutions case be damaged by an inability to release sensitive material? Will the terrorists get a hold of information that we do not want them to? Will the whole discovery process cause a mistrial?

So this is the question - what are your thoughts on the statement "it depends on which judge hears the case"?

We all have stories of activist judges allowing horrible criminals off because of a twisted interpretation of the US Constitution. Child rapists have gone free. Drug dealers.

Will we get a far left judge who wants to make a statement about the US war on terror? Will the terrorists fire their lawyer to get their hands on the info themselves as some have suggested? Will a judge allow them to get the info?

We have cases in the past in which defense lawyers have passed secrets on to terrorists. Will this happen again if an activist judge decides they have a right to classified secrets?

What are your thoughts?

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Quote Of The Week

Obama told Fox News in an interview Wednesday that additional settlement building doesn't make Israel safer. He said such moves make it harder to achieve peace in the region, and embitters the Palestinians in a way that he said could be very dangerous.

Source

Does this last sentence sum up the Obama Presidency to date or what? Keep the Muslims happy so they don't attack.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Climate Change Causes Prostitution And Aids?

I usually do not post entire articles but read it and see if you reach the same conclusions as I do.

‘Climate change pushes poor women to prostitution, dangerous work’

The effects of climate change have driven women in communities in coastal areas in poor countries like the Philippines into dangerous work, and sometimes even the flesh trade, a United Nations official said.

Suneeta Mukherjee, country representative of the United Nations Food Population Fund (UNFPA), said women in the Philippines are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change in the country.

“Climate change could reduce income from farming and fishing, possibly driving some women into sex work and thereby increase HIV infection," Mukherjee said during the Wednesday launch of the UNFPA annual State of World Population Report in Pasay City.

In the Philippines, small brothels usually pop up near the coastal areas where many women perform sexual services for transient seafarers. Often, these prostitutes are ferried to bigger ships by their pimps.

Based on the UNFPA report, there are 92 million Filipinos in the country as of 2009 and that number is expected to balloon to more than 146 million in the next 40 years.

Of the 92 million Filipinos, about 60 percent are living in coastal areas and depend on the seas for livelihood, said former Environment secretary Dr. Angel Alcala.

Alcala said that “we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of our marine environment."

But as the sea’s resources are depleted due to overpopulation and overfishing, fishermen start losing their livelihood and women are forced to share the traditional role of the man in providing for the family.

Alacala, who also heads the Angelo King Center for Research and Environmental Management in Siliman University, said some women often pick out shellfish by the coastlines, which exposed to storm surges.

Women who can no longer endure this work often go out to find other jobs, while some are tempted to go into prostitution, Alcala added.

In an interview with the Inter Press News Agency, Marita Rodriguez of the Centre for Empowerment and Resource Development, Inc. said women are taking the brunt of climate change.

"Aside from their household chores and participation in fishing activity, they have to find additional sources of income like working as domestic helpers in affluent families," she said.

The UNFPA noted that the temperature in the earth’s surface has risen 0.74 degrees Celsius in the past 100 years. The 10 warmest years globally since 1880 have also been recorded in the last 13 years.

“Slower population growth, for example, would help build social resilience to climate change’s impacts and would contribute to a reduction of greenhouse gas-emissions in the future," the UNFPA report said.

The UNFPA suggested five measures to mitigate climate change and overpopulation:
Bring a better understanding of population dynamics, gender and reproductive health to climate change and environmental discussions at all levels;

Fully fund family planning services and contraceptive supplies within the framework of reproductive health and rights, and assure that low income is no barrier to access;

Prioritize research and date collection to improve the understanding of gender and population dynamics in climate change mitigation and adaptation;

Improve sex-disaggregation of date related to migration flows that are influenced by environmental factors and prepare now for increases in population movements resulting from climate change; and

Integrate gender considerations into global efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change.


Source

First, there is nothing to back up their assertion that women will turn to prostitution because of climate change.

More importantly, there is nothing in the article to back up the notion that climate change is even causing any effect in the Philippines.

Finally where did "family planning" (read abortion) come into this?

This report is nothing but a far left propaganda piece. The argument, to be kind, is torturous. The list of actions at the end is nothing more than far leftist rantings by the United Nations.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Move Along, Nothing To See Here

Obama Calls Stimulus Data Errors 'Side Issue,' Says Focus Is on Job Growth

President Obama brushed off criticism over his administration's inaccurate reporting on job creation Wednesday, telling Fox News the accounting is an "inexact science" and that any errors are a "side issue" when compared with the goal of turning the economy around. He said job growth is his No.1 responsibility.

So Obama could not repeat the "1 million jobs saved or created" nonsense enough. Now that it has been thoroughly debunked the issue of it being untrue is a "side issue".

Move along, nothing to see here.

Continue reading

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Chuck Thinks Right Turns 500

My 500th post.

When I wrote my first post on March 28th, 2008 I wasn't sure how long I would do it for. I started it for the fun of it and as therapy. I can be a little high strung about politics (not to shock anyone) and my wife is not a huge fan of politics. The site therefore was an outlet for me to get out my pent-up frustrations.

As it turns out I enjoy it very much. I have met a lot of very good people while doing this, made some friends, and even met a few idiots. The idiots I appreciate because they are an example of why we do this, to hold off the insidious creep of leftism. The friends I have found invaluable.

Thank all of you for visiting all of these times.

Chuck

AP Getting To The Bottom Of Palin Book

AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check'

When the former Republican vice presidential candidate and former Alaska governor wrote her autobiography, the AP found a copy before its release date and assigned 11 people to fact check all 432 pages.

They must do this for other political books, right?

Reviewing books and holding public figures accountable is at the core of good journalism, but the treatment Palin's book received appears to be something new for the AP. The organization did not review for accuracy recent books by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, then-Sen. Joe Biden, either book by Barack Obama released before he was president or autobiographies by Bill or Hillary Clinton. The AP did more traditional news stories on those books.

The attraction to Palin doesn't appear to be partisan, since AP didn't fact-check recent political tomes by Republicans Rudy Giuliani or Newt Gingrich.


Source

Maybe not.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Dunn Puts On Her Foil Hat Again

Obama Aide Dunn Renews Criticism of Fox, Hails Jon Stewart

Nov. 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama’s outgoing communications director, Anita Dunn, renewed her attacks against Fox News as she praised the “investigative journalism” of Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and said MSNBC isn’t a biased cable news network.

She criticized Fox for using edited footage of a rally to make it appear that opposition to the president’s health-care plan was bigger than it was.

“The people who exposed this: Jon Stewart of the Daily Show on Comedy Central,” Dunn said yesterday at the Bloomberg Washington Summit. “That’s where you are getting fact-checking and investigative journalism these days.”


Continue reading

This woman is an absolute raving lunatic. I don't think she is being fired or has resigned, I think the mental health authorities have caught up with her again and are putting her safely back in an institution.

Monday, November 16, 2009

What Do You Think About This?

Some Fear Bush Administration Could Become Target in 9/11 Trial

The Obama administration, in deciding to try alleged Sept. 11 conspirators in a New York courtroom, has said it is setting its sights on convictions, but some critics say a civilian trial -- instead of a military tribunal -- could end up targeting the Bush administration and its anti-terror policies.

Continue reading

So what are your thoughts on this?

Is this a legitimate desire to give the terrorists justice?

Is this another way for the left to "get" Bush?

Is it another incident of Obama using the Bush card to get out of trouble on botching health care and pretty much everything else he has done?

Will it work?

Who would wind up paying the price, Bush or Obama?

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Quote Of The Week

"Mistakes are found, somebody put the wrong number in a column, or numbers are transposed. ... It's not uncommon,"

John Conklin state Board of Elections, New York

Source

This is in response to news that the election in the New York 23rd Congressional district is tightening.

Am I the only one alarmed at the cavalier attitude towards the electoral process on display here?

We are at the point in this country where election results simply cannot be trusted any more.

ACORN, the Senate election last year in Minnesota, constant stories about dead people voting, stories of Democratic operatives going into nursing homes and "helping" the elderly vote.

We have quietly turned into a banana republic.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Obama's Go Slow Approach To Investigating Terrorism

Obama Urges Congress to Delay Fort Hood Investigation

President Obama on Saturday urged Congress to hold off on any investigation of the Fort Hood rampage until federal law enforcement and military authorities have completed their probes into the shootings at the Texas Army post, which left 13 people dead.

Obama wants Congress to hold off on investigating the latest terrorist attack on US soil. He wants to "go slow".

First, hasn't the intelligence community and the Justice Department already been investigating this man? Before the shooting? We are supposed to let them investigate now without any oversight? Seems what Congress is investigating is not the shooting but the fact that it should have been prevented.

Second, I'm not a professional investigator but don't you want to do it as soon as possible so the evidence is still fresh?

Unless of course you don't want to find out what happened. Maybe Obama is a little concerned of what they will find in the investigation.

One thing that has not been talked about so far in this case is that this is a new chapter for Obama. While there is some evidence the intelligence community was looking at Hasan as far back as December, the majority of the time line that has come out so far is that the botched intelligence happened almost entirely on Obama's watch.

I said earlier Congress will try to blame this on Bush, and I still believe it. Problem is, sometimes the facts get in the way.

This could be the first thing Obama has to take full and total responsibility for. This may be the first thing he and his administration cannot hide behind Bush on

We need to listen to him though, he has everything covered:

Obama already had ordered a review of all intelligence related to Hasan and whether the information was properly shared and acted upon within government agencies. Several members of Congress, particularly Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, have also called for a full examination of what agencies knew about Hasan's contacts with a radical Muslim cleric in Yemen and others of concern to the U.S.

Source

See, he's going to investigate himself. We'll find the truth out, no need to worry.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Things That Make You Go WTF

I have decided to start a new series that will occur sporadically on my site. The inaugural Things That Make You Go WTF is from the RNC.

GOP Chairman Ends Abortion Insurance for Employees

WASHINGTON -- A chagrined GOP Chairman Michael Steele has told Republican National Committee staff to immediately stop providing RNC employees with insurance for elective abortions -- an option that Republicans strongly oppose as Democrats try to pass a health care overhaul bill.

"Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose," Steele said in a statement late Thursday after learning of the abortion coverage from a news report. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."


Continue reading

There's not much more to add to this. What in God's name is the RNC doing providing abortion coverage? Anybody still wonder why they are having trouble with conservatives?

Thursday, November 12, 2009

What Do You Think The Results Of This WIll Be?

Obama orders intel review on Fort Hood shooting

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama has ordered a review of all intelligence related to Fort Hood shooting suspect Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, and whether the information was properly shared and acted upon within government agencies.
The review will be overseen by John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism. The first results are due to the White House by Nov. 30.

Obama also ordered the preservation of the intelligence. Members of Congress, particularly Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, have called for a full examination of what agencies knew about Hasan's contacts with a radical imam and others of concern to the U.S., and what they did with the information.

The FBI confirmed this week that the U.S. government knew about 10 to 20 e-mails between Hasan and a radical imam beginning in December 2008.


So, let's see. The e-mails started surfacing in December. Anybody have a guess as to who's fault this whole Fort Hood mess will be?

Personally I wish they would just save us the money investigating it and type of the report right now, they already know the results of the investigation - it's Bush's fault.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Salute

From


To

Remember all who have served and sacrificed for our Freedom.

Finally, let's not forget the sacrifices of


There's may be the greatest sacrifice of all


Photo credits

http://www.nj.gov/dep/greenacres/images/washx.gif

http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2009/11/08/hayes.ft.hood.church.cnn.640x360.jpg

http://argentina.usembassy.gov/uploads/r9/Ms/r9MsauSff-AHJ--fuyZyng/veteransday.jpg

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Why Is The AARP Supporting Health Care Reform?

I have had this feeling lately that the AARP seems to be advertising their insurance plan more.

Is this a coincidence, my imagination, or something else?

The AARP has been pretty solidly behind the helath refrorm bill even though a lot of it's members, and a large part of the demographics that make up it's membership, have been solidly against it. They have lost members over their support.

So what gives? Does this health care bill have something in it that benefits the AARP financially?

I realize that the AARP is a non-profit and therefore they are not making money but the leadership of non-profits have always had an interest in the organizations remaining healthy. An interest that goes beyond simple idealism. Non-profits that stay financially lucrative can pay it's leadership better, it can be a way to ensure job security, and it can provide more perks for it's leadership.

The leadership of non-profits do not get to outwardly share in the rewards of a successful organization through stocks but they are able to get their money through the means I said above, salary, perks, retirement benefits, etc.

So what do you think? Coincidence the AARP is supporting a health bill that it's members do not at the same time that they sell insurance?

Homeland Security Chief Working To Prevent Violence

Only 3 days after the terrorist attack at Fort Hood, Janet Napolitano was already gearing up the Homeland Security Department to prevent further attacks - on Muslims.

Homeland chief warns against anti-Muslim backlash

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — The U.S. Homeland Security secretary says she is working to prevent a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas.

Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday's rampage by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim who reportedly expressed growing dismay over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The shootings left 13 people dead and 29 wounded.

Napolitano was in the United Arab Emirates on Sunday for talks with security officials and a meeting with women university students in Abu Dhabi.



Source

Ignoring the fact that we just had an attack by a Muslim against American interests in the US which looks a lot like terrorism, where is the evidence that we have a significant problem with anti-Muslim attacks in the US?

Another good question to ask is why is she in the United Arab Emirates when we just had a terrorist attack here in the United States last Thursday? Meeting with UAE security officials. Shouldn't she be here doing her job? Meeting with US security officials?


In my mind, her going to a foreign country, a Muslim country at that, after a terrorist attack at a US military base by what appears to be a Muslim extremist and promising to defend Muslims borders on sedition.

Of course, I'm just a paranoid, far-right, ultra-conservative just out to get Obama. There's nothing to worry about here in the United States. The government is working to protect us. Were safe.

British spies help prevent al Qaeda-inspired attack on New York subway

Officials: U.S. Aware of Hasan Efforts to Contact al Qaeda

Lieberman Suggests Army Shooter Was 'Home-Grown Terrorist'

Some predicted trouble from Fort Hood's Maj. Hasan

Intelligence Officials Deny Sitting on Information About Fort Hood Shooter

Radical Imam Praises Alleged Fort Hood Shooter, Urges Muslims to 'Follow in Footsteps'

U.S. Knew of Suspect’s Tie to Radical Cleric

Hasan e-mails to cleric didn't result in inquiry

I Have this update after I posted:

Despite ban, Holder to speak to CAIR-linked group

Attorney General Eric Holder has agreed to give a keynote speech next week to a Michigan group which includes the local branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations even though the FBI has formally severed contacts with the controversial Muslim civil rights organization
.
.
.
An FBI spokeswoman confirmed that the FBI’s Special Agent-in-Charge in Detroit, Andy Arena, will serve as co-chair for the Nov. 19 dinner.


Source

I don't get it. I almost have to believe our government has made a conscious decision to side with the terrorists over the United States.

Monday, November 9, 2009

What Do You Think About This?

I don't typically paste entire articles into my post but you cannot get the full effect of what this sick bastard is saying without reading the article.

New York-Based Radical Muslim Hails Fort Hood Massacre

NEW YORK — A New York City bicycle cabbie who mocked the murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl and posted a prayer on the Web calling for the murder of Jews is now sending a "Get Well Soon" message to the suspected Fort Hood gunman, the New York Post reported.

Yousef al-Khattab, 41, a radical Muslim in the borough of Queens who runs RevolutionMuslim.com, claims on the site that the soldiers massacred at the Texas base deserved to be massacred, and he insists the victims are in "eternal hellfire." As for the suspected gunman — Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan — Al-Khattab hails him as a hero.

"An officer and a gentleman was injured while partaking in a pre-emptive attack," al-Khattab wrote on the site. "Get well soon Major Nidal. We love you."

Al-Khattab, a Jewish-born New Jersey native formerly named Joseph Cohen, converted to Islam in 2004. Known by the FBI for posting radical messages online, al-Khattab claims that the 13 murdered and 38 wounded soldiers at Fort Hood were "terrorists" who deserved to die.

"These people are soldiers in a volunteer army," al-Khattab told the Post. "They expect to see combat. They know the danger."

"Rest assured the slain terrorists at Ft. Hood are in the eternal hellfire," al-Khattab writes online.

On Oct. 7, al-Khattab posted a message on the Web calling on Allah to carry out "wrath on the Jewish occupiers of Palestine & their supporters."

"Please throw liquid drain cleaner in their faces," he wrote. " … burn their flammable sukkos while they sleep … Ya Allah (Oh God) answer my duaa (prayer)." ("Sukkos" refers to the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, during which Jews build and eat their meals in outdoor huts known as "sukkahs," which represent the huts the Jews lived in during their exodus from Egypt.)

Al Khattab insists that his hatred is protected by the First Amendment. "If it was a threat, I'd be in jail," the 41-year-old al-Khattab told FoxNews.com in October.

Hasan — a radical Muslim — reportedly shouted "Allahu akbar," or "God is great" in Arabic, before unloading more than 100 rounds at soldiers preparing to ship off to Iraq and Afghanistan.


Source

So, where is our government? Do we have another massacre brewing with this nutjob? Will we be reading sometime down the road that the man that shot up the mall in Anywhere, USA was under suspicion by the FBI but they never acted?

What about his claim to free speech? What are the limits to this freedom? Are there any?

What are your thoughts?

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Quote Of The Week

‘The Today Show’ certainly doesn’t make these kinds of statements, and I think the danger is if what Fox is propagating out there becomes embraced by media.”

David Plouffe, former Obama campaign manager

This was an indictment of Fox News and their dastardly habit of reporting the truth about the Obama administration.

This was the preceding sentence in his statement:

“The fact that they’re out there reporting that health care is going to cost a trillion-and-a-half dollars, the president is at war with the CIA, the president must not be serious about terrorism – they’re just out there,”

Continue reading

You have to love when the left gives us this kind of insight into the bias of the fringe media.

What Mr Plouffe is admitting, without saying so, is that Fox is reporting what other networks will not. What is most telling about these types of statements is that the person making them never seems to back themselves up with why Fox is wrong.

For instance, read the second quote above again. Which of these things Fox is reporting, according to Mr Plouffe, are actually false?

One could argue about how much health care reform is going to cost but they could not argue with any credibility at all that it will cost less than a trillion dollars.

President Obama, his staff, and key members of Congress are at war with the CIA.

Finally, has anyone reading this post seen any indication yet that Obama is serious about terrorism?

So Obama apologists like Mr Plouffe simply say Fox is wrong, they're anti-Obama, or, to borrow his phraseology, they are "out there". No reason as to why, no proof that Fox is wrong, no explanation, just 'they're wrong'

Why do they do this? Because they can. These types of statements are allowed to stand in the fringe media without any proof.

Truth doesn't matter to them. Neither the truth about Fox New's supposed bias or the truth about the Obama administration.

Friday, November 6, 2009

Just When You Thought He Couldn't Appear Less Presidential

I was watching the events unfold on the shooting at Fort Hood yesterday when Obama's press conference came on.

I sat listening, stunned, while he talked about the Indian Affairs conference he had been attending all day. I watched as he greeted people in the audience.

I waited for mention of the shooting. As it turns out, I had to wait 3 minutes. This is how long it took him to mention the fact that 12 people had died and around 30 had been wounded.

This blog says it much better than I can.

Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting

President Obama didn't wait long after Tuesday's devastating elections to give critics another reason to question his leadership, but this time the subject matter was more grim than a pair of governorships.

After news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president. The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace and perspective.

But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner." Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?

Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That's the least that should occur.


Continue reading, it's worth it

Quite frankly I did not hear most of Obama's remarks about the shooting, I turned the Son of a Bitch off. This is why I do not watch his press conferences.

He is absolutely inept, narcissistic, and callous.

I believe that in time people are going to look back at the Bush presidency as one of class. For all of the yucking it up about his mangled speech and hick expressions, he makes Obama look small and petty in comparison.

Finally, I believe this country cannot wait until 2012 to rid themselves of him. We need to retake Congress in 2010 and impeach him. I almost think I would rather take my chances with his idiot sidekick Joe Biden.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

The Democratic Health Care Shell Game

I was reading this article about the Democrat's promise to insure people with pre-existing conditions with a public pool. The pool will be part of their public option consumer option plan.

The article is a good read and makes the point that as of right now, the Senate version will make these people with cancer or diabetes wait 6 months before they get insurance. The obvious hope here is that they will be dead and therefore not need the insurance anymore.

I digress though, that is not the point of this post. This part of the article caught my eye.

Now, concerns are being raised about the design of the high-risk pools. In addition to the six-month wait, there's a more fundamental issue -- whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough. The money would be used to help people in poor health pay premiums.
.
.
It may be easier to fix the waiting period than the financing.

Both the House and the Senate Finance bills set aside $5 billion for the pools.

"It doesn't seem like it's near enough money," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was a top domestic policy adviser for McCain. The McCain campaign ultimately concluded it could take as much as $20 billion a year to properly run risk pools, he said. The White House says McCain's proposal was more elaborate and not directly comparable to Obama's.


(sidebar: note the last sentence. The WH acts as if the bills in Congress do not have Obama's input, he will weigh in once they have a finished project. This gives him political cover in case they prove unpopular. Does this last sentence seem a little contradictory to that notion?)

Continue reading

So there is the question. Is Congress running a shell game on us?

This is not the first time we have heard people, from analysts to pundits to the CBO question whether Congress is properly funding the health care overhaul.

Is this how they are keeping costs down? Keeping the reform "budget neutral"? By underfunding it?

Is there a plan to push these bills through with tepid public support because they will not destroy our economy and then come in later and pass supplemental bills to fund them? Traditionally supplemental funding bills can be tacked onto more palatable legislation such as funding the military and the added cost of the supplemental doesn't get as much public attention. Further, it is hard for a Congressional member to vote against such a bill because they then get accused of not supporting the troops, or whatever the bills intent is.

Then we have this:

If the Democrats' risk pool starts running out of money, the government may have to start a waiting list, raise premiums or take other unpopular measures. Congress could be asked for a bailout.

So there you have it. We will have a choice between paying more for the coverage, rationing, or, of course, increased funding.

There is a limit to how much they can raise premiums, especially on the poor or those who are chronically ill and cannot work.

As far as rationing, I believe it will already happen but again there is a limit to this. The public is only going to hear so many stories of people dying on waiting lists before there is push-back. Americans are not used to a European style health care system and will not take well to long waiting lists. Americans are simply too inpatient. We complain if we wait too long in line for fast food. Let these same people wait 6 months for an MRI or wait a year for a hip replacement.

There is only one logical alternative left, increased funding.

Finally, we have this

Health Care Reform Assumes Millions Would Pay Fine Rather Than Get Coverage

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in its study last week that the House health care bill would bring in $167 billion over 10 years in penalties from those who don't get coverage.

The health care reform bill awaiting debate in the House assumes millions of workers and employers would rather pay $167 billion in fines than purchase or provide adequate coverage, according to a recent analysis, raising questions about whether the plan does enough to make insurance affordable.

Though the bill is estimated to expand coverage from the current 83 percent to 96 percent of legal U.S. residents, the windfall of projected penalty payments also exposes a potential contradiction in reform. A significant part of the plan to expand coverage relies financially on fines from the uninsured.


Source

Watch the shells and see if you can keep track of the peanut.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

A Year After The Election, Obama Still Not President

One year on, Obama cites struggle with Bush legacy

MADISON, Wis. (Reuters) - A year after his historic election, President Barack Obama sought to remind Americans on Wednesday the biggest problems he is grappling with -- from the economy to the war in Afghanistan -- are the legacy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

With his approval ratings down from once-lofty levels and Tuesday's Democratic election losses raising questions about his political clout, Obama held no special ceremony to mark the anniversary of his election as America's first black president.

He instead traveled to Wisconsin to appear before a friendly audience in a school gymnasium and promote education as a pillar of his economic recovery efforts.

Obama was elected on a promise of sweeping change after eight years under Bush, but many Americans are increasingly expressing impatience that his pledge has yet to bear fruit.

He used the preamble of his speech to insist his administration had indeed had important successes and also to remind Americans of the litany of daunting challenges he inherited when he took office in January.


Continue reading

The only question here is if this man is ever going to grow and take some responsibility for his actions? I personally think this plays a large factor in why his poll numbers are going south. Constantly playing the Bush card makes him look weak and small.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

The Racism Of The Associated Press

I was reading this article from the Associated Press. I was directed there by a post by Z at her blog, Geeeeez.

I will not speak much to the basic premise of the article, that any GOP wins in the off year elections tomorrow do not mean much. You can read the article for yourself (it is worth going just to see how ridiculous it is) and because Z did a wonderful job. Stop by her site and read her take on it.

One thing caught my eye though when I was reading it. (emphasis mine)

Fiery talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have become the angry white face of the party...

Tell me the last time you have read an article in which Al Sharpton was referred to as the angry black face of the left.

How the Hell does the fringe media and the rest of the left continue getting away with this overt racism?

Monday, November 2, 2009

What Do You Think About This?

Lieberman Marching Further Right in 2010

Sounding more like an independent than a Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., tells ABC News he will campaign for some Republican candidates during the 2010 midterm elections and may not seek the Democratic Senate nomination when he runs for re-election in 2012.

I probably will support some Republican candidates for Congress or Senate in the election in 2010. I'm going to call them as I see them," Lieberman said in an ABC News "Subway Series" interview aboard the U.S. Capitol Subway System.


Continue reading

So what are your thoughts about this?

As you all remember, Joe Lieberman was Al Gore's running mate in 2000. While he has always been fairly independent, he has been a loyal Democrat.

This is not a small thing. Lieberman can have significant leverage in the Senate in 2011 depending on how the 20101 elections swing. Why the change?

Is it still hard feelings about the 2006 Senate election in which the Democratic leadership actively undermined him in the primary and supported another candidate, Ned Lamont, who went on to beat him. (in the primary, Lieberman won the general election as an Independent)

Is it that the Democratic party has lurched so far to the left that the centrist Lieberman could not follow?

Or is it that Lieberman can read the writing on the wall? Does he think the GOP will retake the Senate in 2010 and he is positioning himself for a place in a Republican run Senate?

What are your thoughts.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Quote Of The Week

"trying on every front to increase the role of government."

Barney Frank




Straight from the jackass' mouth.