Even if this report, http://foreign.senate.gov/, is true the dubious timing should be alarming to any clear-thinking observer.
That the release of the report blames the Bush Administration for everything that's wrong the the War on Terror--Whoops!, rather the "Overseas Contingency Operation" comes as no surprise.
That the release of the information, written by Democrats, preceeds yet another major teleprompted speech by just days is shameless. And a disgrace to the nation.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
If This Doesn't Keep You Up At Night, Nothing Will
By Clifford D. May
The Heritage Foundation recently convened a meeting of experts to discuss “Weapons of Mass Destruction and America’s Communities,” the various ways our terrorist enemies might attack us and our allies in the future, and what might be done to stop them. You can imagine what a merry gathering this was.
The most obvious concern: the spread of nuclear weapons. Within the group, there was consensus that if Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, is not prevented from acquiring nukes, the result will be a nuclear proliferation “cascade.” Before long, so many countries would have so many nuclear devices that the chances of terrorist groups getting their hands on at least a few would increase exponentially.
A scenario perhaps even more frightening: Terrorists using biological weapons, setting off epidemics of smallpox, Ebola virus, or other hemorrhagic fevers; a crop duster spreading ten pounds of anthrax causing more deaths than in World War II; genetically engineered pathogens — for example, a super-contagious form of HIV. A bio attack would be much easier to carry off than a nuclear attack; biological weapons can be manufactured in hidden laboratories and spread by unarmed and innocent-looking individuals.
We also discussed radiological dispersal devices (RDD), more commonly known as “dirty bombs.” Such weapons are fairly simple to construct: radioactive materials — e.g. radium, radon, thorium — are wrapped around a core of conventional explosives. Though an RDD would not carry the lethality of a nuclear or biological weapon, its psychological and economic impact could be substantial.
How else might terrorists advance toward their goal, succinctly articulated by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as “a world without America”? Adm. Mike McConnell, until February of this year the director of National Intelligence — America’s top spy — recently told Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes that he was increasingly concerned about cyber warfare, the use of computers and the Internet as weapons.
“If I were an attacker and I wanted to do strategic damage to the United States . . . I probably would sack electric power” throughout as much of the country as possible, he said. McConnell worries also about the possibility that a cyber attacker could destroy the electronic processes and records that keep track of money and its movements, thereby setting off an economic collapse.
In the same report, Jim Lewis, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Kroft: “In 2007 we probably had our electronic Pearl Harbor. It was an espionage Pearl Harbor. Some unknown foreign power, and honestly, we don’t know who it is, broke into the Department of Defense, to the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, probably the Department of Energy, probably NASA.”
Another way to destroy the electric grid as well as everything computerized: an Electromagnetic Pulse Attack. In 2001 the U.S. government established a commission to “assess the threat to the United States” from an EMP attack. The commission reported to Congress that if a nuclear warhead were to be detonated at high altitude over the American mainland the blast would produce a shockwave so powerful that it would “cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure.” Before long, millions of Americans would, as the Wall Street Journal flatly phrased it, “die of starvation or want of medical care.” The CIA has translated Iranian military journals in which EMP attacks against the U.S. are explicitly discussed.
Among the experts attending this conference, all agreed that the use of such terrorist weapons is a more serious and imminent threat than is “global warming.” Yet no summits are being organized to decide how the U.S. and other targeted nations can best defend themselves.
I would argue also — as I did at the Heritage meeting — that defensive measures alone, while necessary, are not enough. Instead, we must recognize that we are engaged in a great global conflict, one that is no less serious because it is unconventional and asymmetrical.
Outreach, engagement, and exercises in “conflict resolution” are useful when the U.S. has a dispute with Mexico or when the Netherlands disagrees with Luxembourg. But this approach makes no sense when dealing with self-proclaimed jihadis eager to use 21st-century weapons to achieve 7th-century goals.
Iran’s ruling mullahs have been killing Americans for decades — for example, in Beirut, Iraq, and most recently in Afghanistan. They write “Death to America!” on their missiles. It would be both foolhardy and irresponsible to let such extremists acquire nuclear weapons in the hope that somehow, when their capabilities match their intentions, they will suddenly decide they would prefer our respect rather than our destruction.
If we are to prevent our enemies from doing the kind of damage they intend, we must stay on offense. We need to keep our enemies nervous, under pressure, and on the run. We’ll need to go after the bad guys in their training camps, laboratories, and safe houses — wherever those may be. We’ll need to force them to continually look over their shoulders and worry that they may be killed or captured — and being captured should not mean they are rewarded with a global stage to spout their propaganda at American taxpayer expense.
We need to choose: Do we intend to advance or retreat, hunt or be hunted — win or lose? There is no fortress we can construct, no balance of power and terror we can achieve, no gesture or concession that will make us inoffensive to our enemies. When the barbarians are at the gate, you need to do more than lock up — and we haven’t even done that yet.
George Orwell articulated a fundamental rule of national security: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” Most of the West is now led by people who believe that rule may have once applied but no longer. If that doesn’t keep you awake at night, nothing will.
Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.
The Heritage Foundation recently convened a meeting of experts to discuss “Weapons of Mass Destruction and America’s Communities,” the various ways our terrorist enemies might attack us and our allies in the future, and what might be done to stop them. You can imagine what a merry gathering this was.
The most obvious concern: the spread of nuclear weapons. Within the group, there was consensus that if Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, is not prevented from acquiring nukes, the result will be a nuclear proliferation “cascade.” Before long, so many countries would have so many nuclear devices that the chances of terrorist groups getting their hands on at least a few would increase exponentially.
A scenario perhaps even more frightening: Terrorists using biological weapons, setting off epidemics of smallpox, Ebola virus, or other hemorrhagic fevers; a crop duster spreading ten pounds of anthrax causing more deaths than in World War II; genetically engineered pathogens — for example, a super-contagious form of HIV. A bio attack would be much easier to carry off than a nuclear attack; biological weapons can be manufactured in hidden laboratories and spread by unarmed and innocent-looking individuals.
We also discussed radiological dispersal devices (RDD), more commonly known as “dirty bombs.” Such weapons are fairly simple to construct: radioactive materials — e.g. radium, radon, thorium — are wrapped around a core of conventional explosives. Though an RDD would not carry the lethality of a nuclear or biological weapon, its psychological and economic impact could be substantial.
How else might terrorists advance toward their goal, succinctly articulated by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as “a world without America”? Adm. Mike McConnell, until February of this year the director of National Intelligence — America’s top spy — recently told Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes that he was increasingly concerned about cyber warfare, the use of computers and the Internet as weapons.
“If I were an attacker and I wanted to do strategic damage to the United States . . . I probably would sack electric power” throughout as much of the country as possible, he said. McConnell worries also about the possibility that a cyber attacker could destroy the electronic processes and records that keep track of money and its movements, thereby setting off an economic collapse.
In the same report, Jim Lewis, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Kroft: “In 2007 we probably had our electronic Pearl Harbor. It was an espionage Pearl Harbor. Some unknown foreign power, and honestly, we don’t know who it is, broke into the Department of Defense, to the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, probably the Department of Energy, probably NASA.”
Another way to destroy the electric grid as well as everything computerized: an Electromagnetic Pulse Attack. In 2001 the U.S. government established a commission to “assess the threat to the United States” from an EMP attack. The commission reported to Congress that if a nuclear warhead were to be detonated at high altitude over the American mainland the blast would produce a shockwave so powerful that it would “cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure.” Before long, millions of Americans would, as the Wall Street Journal flatly phrased it, “die of starvation or want of medical care.” The CIA has translated Iranian military journals in which EMP attacks against the U.S. are explicitly discussed.
Among the experts attending this conference, all agreed that the use of such terrorist weapons is a more serious and imminent threat than is “global warming.” Yet no summits are being organized to decide how the U.S. and other targeted nations can best defend themselves.
I would argue also — as I did at the Heritage meeting — that defensive measures alone, while necessary, are not enough. Instead, we must recognize that we are engaged in a great global conflict, one that is no less serious because it is unconventional and asymmetrical.
Outreach, engagement, and exercises in “conflict resolution” are useful when the U.S. has a dispute with Mexico or when the Netherlands disagrees with Luxembourg. But this approach makes no sense when dealing with self-proclaimed jihadis eager to use 21st-century weapons to achieve 7th-century goals.
Iran’s ruling mullahs have been killing Americans for decades — for example, in Beirut, Iraq, and most recently in Afghanistan. They write “Death to America!” on their missiles. It would be both foolhardy and irresponsible to let such extremists acquire nuclear weapons in the hope that somehow, when their capabilities match their intentions, they will suddenly decide they would prefer our respect rather than our destruction.
If we are to prevent our enemies from doing the kind of damage they intend, we must stay on offense. We need to keep our enemies nervous, under pressure, and on the run. We’ll need to go after the bad guys in their training camps, laboratories, and safe houses — wherever those may be. We’ll need to force them to continually look over their shoulders and worry that they may be killed or captured — and being captured should not mean they are rewarded with a global stage to spout their propaganda at American taxpayer expense.
We need to choose: Do we intend to advance or retreat, hunt or be hunted — win or lose? There is no fortress we can construct, no balance of power and terror we can achieve, no gesture or concession that will make us inoffensive to our enemies. When the barbarians are at the gate, you need to do more than lock up — and we haven’t even done that yet.
George Orwell articulated a fundamental rule of national security: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” Most of the West is now led by people who believe that rule may have once applied but no longer. If that doesn’t keep you awake at night, nothing will.
Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.
We're Crashing At The White House
It's looking more and more like the cable network Bravo helped Tareq and Michaele Salahi crash the recent White House state dinner.
Bravo is owned by NBC. If Bravo is found to have helped these two idiots, what penalty is appropriate for NBC?
I'm sure if FOX NEWS were somehow involved, the Left would be calling for a ban of FOX NEWS. Let's see if the same applies for NBC News.
Bravo is owned by NBC. If Bravo is found to have helped these two idiots, what penalty is appropriate for NBC?
I'm sure if FOX NEWS were somehow involved, the Left would be calling for a ban of FOX NEWS. Let's see if the same applies for NBC News.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Ronald Reagan's Thanksgiving Day Address, 1985
“Good morning, everyone. You know, the Statue of Liberty and this wonderful holiday called Thanksgiving go together naturally because although as Americans we have many things for which to be thankful, none is more important than our liberty. Liberty: that quality of government, that brightness of mind and spirit for which the Pilgrim Fathers braved the seas and Americans for two centuries have laid down their lives.
“Today, while religion is suppressed in perhaps one third of the world, we Americans are free to worship the Almighty as we choose. While entire nations must endure the yoke of tyranny, we are free to speak our minds, to enjoy an unfettered and vigorous press, and to make government abide by the limits we deem just. While millions live behind walls, we remain free to travel throughout the land to share this precious day with those we love most deeply – the members of our families.
“My fellow Americans, let us keep this Thanksgiving Day sacred. Let us thank God for the bounty and goodness of our nation. And as a measure of our gratitude, let us rededicate ourselves to the preservation of this: the land of the free and the home of the brave.
“From the Reagan family to your family: happy Thanksgiving and God bless you all.”
Thanks to Mark Levin for finding this gem.
Brought to you by the editors and research staff of FamilySecurityMatters.org.
“Today, while religion is suppressed in perhaps one third of the world, we Americans are free to worship the Almighty as we choose. While entire nations must endure the yoke of tyranny, we are free to speak our minds, to enjoy an unfettered and vigorous press, and to make government abide by the limits we deem just. While millions live behind walls, we remain free to travel throughout the land to share this precious day with those we love most deeply – the members of our families.
“My fellow Americans, let us keep this Thanksgiving Day sacred. Let us thank God for the bounty and goodness of our nation. And as a measure of our gratitude, let us rededicate ourselves to the preservation of this: the land of the free and the home of the brave.
“From the Reagan family to your family: happy Thanksgiving and God bless you all.”
Thanks to Mark Levin for finding this gem.
Brought to you by the editors and research staff of FamilySecurityMatters.org.
Monday, November 16, 2009
RE: Is There Anyone Our President Won't Bow Before?
I think what we are seeing with Obama's latest tour is the long-anticipated political reckoning concerning our gargantuan national debt and epic annual deficit spending.
If Obama is going to bow, he should do it before the Chinese, who don't want to hear any more sermonizing about their human-rights record, their coal-burning, or their protectionist mercantile economy — not when the present U.S. government is running a near $2 trillion annual deficit, with plans to pile on another $9 trillion in aggregate annual debt.
Getting to the first $10 trillion in national debt meant an erosion of our national autonomy, but nearly doubling that in just a few years under Obama has brought us the present spectacle.
Bowing, apologizing, and granting concessions may be Obama's preferred style, but it is increasingly a realistic reflection of the catastrophic position in which the United States over the last decade has put itself — by living far beyond its means, borrowing from those it lectures, and expecting energy to be produced abroad under any conditions while selfishly declaring its own resources off limits.
[This will be my last post for a few days due to a family medical emergency.]
If Obama is going to bow, he should do it before the Chinese, who don't want to hear any more sermonizing about their human-rights record, their coal-burning, or their protectionist mercantile economy — not when the present U.S. government is running a near $2 trillion annual deficit, with plans to pile on another $9 trillion in aggregate annual debt.
Getting to the first $10 trillion in national debt meant an erosion of our national autonomy, but nearly doubling that in just a few years under Obama has brought us the present spectacle.
Bowing, apologizing, and granting concessions may be Obama's preferred style, but it is increasingly a realistic reflection of the catastrophic position in which the United States over the last decade has put itself — by living far beyond its means, borrowing from those it lectures, and expecting energy to be produced abroad under any conditions while selfishly declaring its own resources off limits.
[This will be my last post for a few days due to a family medical emergency.]
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Is There Anyone Our President Won't Bow Before?
For the love of God, who's next Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Our Leader
Does the man know he's the President of the United States? If he can bow to foreign leaders could he pledge our flag or salute our country?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
We Figured Him Out
By Ben Stein
Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?
Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:
The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008.
They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.
They ignored his anti-white writings in his books.
They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.
They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student.
They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.
The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.
Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth.
Barack Obama is a super-likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.
The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.
Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.
The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.
These are perilous times. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State,
has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation.
Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care.
It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud if believed to be caused by man.
Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms. There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America.
Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes "Ben Stein's Diary" for every issue of The American Spectator.
[H/T Ruthie]
Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?
Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:
The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008.
They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.
They ignored his anti-white writings in his books.
They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.
They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student.
They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.
The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.
Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth.
Barack Obama is a super-likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.
The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.
Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.
The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.
These are perilous times. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State,
has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation.
Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care.
It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud if believed to be caused by man.
Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms. There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America.
Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes "Ben Stein's Diary" for every issue of The American Spectator.
[H/T Ruthie]
The "Victim" Obama
George W. Bush inherited a recession.
He also inherited the Iraq no-fly zones, a Middle East boiling after the failed last-minute Clintonian rush for an imposed peace, an intelligence community wedded to the notion of Saddam's WMD proliferation, a Congress on record supporting "regime change" in Iraq, a WMD program in Libya, a Syrian occupation of Lebanon, Osama bin Laden enjoying free rein in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, a renegade Pakistan that had gone nuclear on Clinton's watch with Dr. Khan in full export mode, and a pattern of appeasing radical Islam after its serial attacks (on the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers, U.S. embassies, and the U.S.S. Cole).
In other words, Bush inherited the regular "stuff" that confronts most presidents when they take office.
What is strange is that Obama has established a narrative that he, supposedly unlike any other president, inherited a mess.
He also inherited the Iraq no-fly zones, a Middle East boiling after the failed last-minute Clintonian rush for an imposed peace, an intelligence community wedded to the notion of Saddam's WMD proliferation, a Congress on record supporting "regime change" in Iraq, a WMD program in Libya, a Syrian occupation of Lebanon, Osama bin Laden enjoying free rein in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, a renegade Pakistan that had gone nuclear on Clinton's watch with Dr. Khan in full export mode, and a pattern of appeasing radical Islam after its serial attacks (on the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers, U.S. embassies, and the U.S.S. Cole).
In other words, Bush inherited the regular "stuff" that confronts most presidents when they take office.
What is strange is that Obama has established a narrative that he, supposedly unlike any other president, inherited a mess.
Friday, November 13, 2009
KSM, Want Fries With That?
Trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda, tie up our courts for years on issues best left to the president and Congress, and further cripple our intelligence agencies’ efforts to fight terrorists abroad.
KSM and his co-defendants will have all of the benefits and rights that the U.S. Constitution accords those who live here, most importantly the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it was obtained.
KSM and his co-defendants will have all of the benefits and rights that the U.S. Constitution accords those who live here, most importantly the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it was obtained.
Eric Holder, Attorney General
This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution.
The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign.
It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring "torture" and "war crimes" indictments.
Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.
Today's announcement that KSM and other top al Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials.
They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.
Let's take stock of where we are at this point.
KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission.
As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them.
The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.
Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.
So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence.
That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America.
Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it.
The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war.
It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts.
And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.
[Andrew McCarthy--Prosecutor of the "Blind Sheik."]
The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign.
It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring "torture" and "war crimes" indictments.
Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.
Today's announcement that KSM and other top al Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials.
They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.
Let's take stock of where we are at this point.
KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission.
As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them.
The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.
Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.
So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence.
That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America.
Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it.
The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war.
It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts.
And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.
[Andrew McCarthy--Prosecutor of the "Blind Sheik."]
Your House Is My Bond
As has been widely speculated, the Federal Housing Administration is in serious financial trouble. It admitted as much yesterday. From the Boston Globe:
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he’s concerned that higher unemployment could curtail the agency’s ability to back loans. “We’re just going to keep watching them carefully’’ to determine whether they need congressional help to stay above water, he said.
Frank also said he has proposed taking $2 billion from funds repaid after the Wall Street bailout to “lend money to people facing foreclosure because of unemployment. I am pressing hard to get that done. I believe we can substantially reduce that second wave if we do that.’’
Yep, that’s the solution to the problem — put marginal borrowers further into mortgage debt by putting taxpayers further into bonded debt.
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he’s concerned that higher unemployment could curtail the agency’s ability to back loans. “We’re just going to keep watching them carefully’’ to determine whether they need congressional help to stay above water, he said.
Frank also said he has proposed taking $2 billion from funds repaid after the Wall Street bailout to “lend money to people facing foreclosure because of unemployment. I am pressing hard to get that done. I believe we can substantially reduce that second wave if we do that.’’
Yep, that’s the solution to the problem — put marginal borrowers further into mortgage debt by putting taxpayers further into bonded debt.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Stop Obamerica By Halting The So-Called Health Care Bill
If you want to have an impact on the future of this country you need to contact your senators to stop a health care bill that will have a negative impact for generations. Phone calls and letters work better than e-mail.
Example: Sen. Jack Reed
Call: (401) 943-3100
Fax: (401) 464-6837
Write:
The Honorable Jack Reed
1000 Chapel View Boulevard, Suite 290
Cranston, RI 02920
Example: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
Providence Office:
170 Westminster Street
Suite 1100
Providence, RI 02903
401-453-5294 phone
401-453-5085 fax
Washington Office:
Hart Senate Office Building
Room 502
Washington, D.C. 20510
202-224-2921 phone
202-228-6362 fax
It's the only way to make the difference fellow patriots.
Example: Sen. Jack Reed
Call: (401) 943-3100
Fax: (401) 464-6837
Write:
The Honorable Jack Reed
1000 Chapel View Boulevard, Suite 290
Cranston, RI 02920
Example: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
Providence Office:
170 Westminster Street
Suite 1100
Providence, RI 02903
401-453-5294 phone
401-453-5085 fax
Washington Office:
Hart Senate Office Building
Room 502
Washington, D.C. 20510
202-224-2921 phone
202-228-6362 fax
It's the only way to make the difference fellow patriots.
No Jihad Here (cont'd.)
Many in the media are arguing there is nothing more to the Major Hasan mass murder than derangement and the various personal "issues" that "set him off."
But there are two considerations that argue against such an interpretation.
First, we look for patterns in all cases of individuals' shooting others on a mass scale. Hasan gave every indication that he was channeling his own personal sense of frustration into a larger Islamic writ against the West — as have some 20 other killers since 9/11 who have shot, stabbed, or run over innocents at malls, airline counters, military facilities, and Jewish-affiliated centers.
If we once focused on postal conditions and security at post-office installations when workers (between 1986 and 1997) snapped under the thematic pretense of job stress, and if we investigated the nexus of video games, drugs, cults, and counter-culture alienation when suburban youths went on shooting sprees, then it seems legitimate to look for commonalities when someone self-identifies as a rather radical Muslim and shouts "Allahu Akbar!" as he fires — in the same manner that the mad driver in North Carolina, or the killer in Seattle, or the homicidal driver in San Francisco afterwards said they were acting out of Islamic religious fervor against Jews or Westerners.
Second, if we counted up the number of "lone wolf" incidents and added it to the number of Islamist terrorist plots that have been foiled since 9/11, we would arrive at more than 40 incidents of terrorist killings or efforts to kill on a wide scale.
If anyone could find a comparable series of anti-abortion terrorist acts, backlash attacks on Muslims, anti-Semitic attacks perpetrated by non-Muslims, Jewish attacks on Middle Easterners, or radical environmentalist killings, then one could argue that the public was unduly focusing on Islam.
It seems, instead, that about every three to four months, either a single Muslim male will shoot or run over somebody and tie the violence to some sort of jihadist theme, or a group of Muslim males will be caught trying to blow up something or shoot someone, usually on a mass scale.
The general conclusions one would draw, based on the statements of the authorities, those in the military, the media, and the general public, are something like the following:
(1) Most people do not wish to be smeared as bigots, racists, or anti-Muslim, and therefore they will resist suggesting that such violence fits a pattern involving radical Islamic hatred.
(2) Most people assume either that the authorities will break up the plot before it reaches 9/11 proportions, or that the lone-wolf attacker will kill someone else far away, and therefore conclude that they are safe enough and it is a tolerable problem.
(3) Most also accept that (a) most Muslims in the U.S. are not violent, and therefore (b) we have no way in a free society to pick out in advance possible bad actors, and (c) the most likely preemptive strategies — screening imams, infiltrating "charities," monitoring hate literature, reporting radicals at work, and screening web postings — are all fraught with civil-liberties and political-correctness land mines, and are as likely to boomerang on the authorities or well-intended citizens as they are to produce firm evidence that deters an Islamist killer before he acts.
Bottom line:
The society at large, driven by the sermonizing of its elites, has come to an unstated conclusion that, unfortunately, a few Americans will have to be sacrificed from time to time, for the larger goal of establishing the fact that Americans in no way think Muslims are any more likely than any others to commit either random or premeditated terrorist violence.
That is the initial lesson of Fort Hood. (Remember something similar from the 1980s and 1990s, when we accepted that to be a diplomat or a soldier stationed in the Middle East or Africa or anywhere in the Muslim world meant that there was some chance that your barracks, camp, hotel, embassy, or ship would be attacked — and very little chance that the U.S. government would do much in response other than launch an occasional ineffectual cruise missile or offer a bombastic "this will not stand" speech?)
If the lone-wolf incidents start happening ten times a year, rather than three or four, and if one or two terrorist plots succeed and result in several hundred killed, then attitudes may change (at least for a while).
But there are two considerations that argue against such an interpretation.
First, we look for patterns in all cases of individuals' shooting others on a mass scale. Hasan gave every indication that he was channeling his own personal sense of frustration into a larger Islamic writ against the West — as have some 20 other killers since 9/11 who have shot, stabbed, or run over innocents at malls, airline counters, military facilities, and Jewish-affiliated centers.
If we once focused on postal conditions and security at post-office installations when workers (between 1986 and 1997) snapped under the thematic pretense of job stress, and if we investigated the nexus of video games, drugs, cults, and counter-culture alienation when suburban youths went on shooting sprees, then it seems legitimate to look for commonalities when someone self-identifies as a rather radical Muslim and shouts "Allahu Akbar!" as he fires — in the same manner that the mad driver in North Carolina, or the killer in Seattle, or the homicidal driver in San Francisco afterwards said they were acting out of Islamic religious fervor against Jews or Westerners.
Second, if we counted up the number of "lone wolf" incidents and added it to the number of Islamist terrorist plots that have been foiled since 9/11, we would arrive at more than 40 incidents of terrorist killings or efforts to kill on a wide scale.
If anyone could find a comparable series of anti-abortion terrorist acts, backlash attacks on Muslims, anti-Semitic attacks perpetrated by non-Muslims, Jewish attacks on Middle Easterners, or radical environmentalist killings, then one could argue that the public was unduly focusing on Islam.
It seems, instead, that about every three to four months, either a single Muslim male will shoot or run over somebody and tie the violence to some sort of jihadist theme, or a group of Muslim males will be caught trying to blow up something or shoot someone, usually on a mass scale.
The general conclusions one would draw, based on the statements of the authorities, those in the military, the media, and the general public, are something like the following:
(1) Most people do not wish to be smeared as bigots, racists, or anti-Muslim, and therefore they will resist suggesting that such violence fits a pattern involving radical Islamic hatred.
(2) Most people assume either that the authorities will break up the plot before it reaches 9/11 proportions, or that the lone-wolf attacker will kill someone else far away, and therefore conclude that they are safe enough and it is a tolerable problem.
(3) Most also accept that (a) most Muslims in the U.S. are not violent, and therefore (b) we have no way in a free society to pick out in advance possible bad actors, and (c) the most likely preemptive strategies — screening imams, infiltrating "charities," monitoring hate literature, reporting radicals at work, and screening web postings — are all fraught with civil-liberties and political-correctness land mines, and are as likely to boomerang on the authorities or well-intended citizens as they are to produce firm evidence that deters an Islamist killer before he acts.
Bottom line:
The society at large, driven by the sermonizing of its elites, has come to an unstated conclusion that, unfortunately, a few Americans will have to be sacrificed from time to time, for the larger goal of establishing the fact that Americans in no way think Muslims are any more likely than any others to commit either random or premeditated terrorist violence.
That is the initial lesson of Fort Hood. (Remember something similar from the 1980s and 1990s, when we accepted that to be a diplomat or a soldier stationed in the Middle East or Africa or anywhere in the Muslim world meant that there was some chance that your barracks, camp, hotel, embassy, or ship would be attacked — and very little chance that the U.S. government would do much in response other than launch an occasional ineffectual cruise missile or offer a bombastic "this will not stand" speech?)
If the lone-wolf incidents start happening ten times a year, rather than three or four, and if one or two terrorist plots succeed and result in several hundred killed, then attitudes may change (at least for a while).
Three Card Monty
In Copenhagen our president may give away our money to third-world nations.
If he signs this there will be no going back for our country, ever.
No president in our history has been able to change such all-inclusive legislation.
Please write and stop this redistribution of our hard-earned tax dollars to third-world countries.
This is equally frightening as our country is becoming a socialist nation. The signing of the bill begins the downward spiral of our economy from which we may never recover.
As with health care the presidential plan will not take effect until he has won a second term.
Current trends suggest that may not occur.
[Submitted by Ruthie]
If he signs this there will be no going back for our country, ever.
No president in our history has been able to change such all-inclusive legislation.
Please write and stop this redistribution of our hard-earned tax dollars to third-world countries.
This is equally frightening as our country is becoming a socialist nation. The signing of the bill begins the downward spiral of our economy from which we may never recover.
As with health care the presidential plan will not take effect until he has won a second term.
Current trends suggest that may not occur.
[Submitted by Ruthie]
Senator Lindsey Grahamnesty
The senator warns against going after "every soldier who shows discontent with the war and every soldier that has a bad performance report."
He adds, "You can be in the military and disagree with policy." (Who is taking the other side of that argument?)
And: "Don't accuse people of basically giving him a pass because he's a Muslim because I don't think there's any evidence of that."
No, no, none at all. Anyone who presents any is probably a phobe.
He adds, "You can be in the military and disagree with policy." (Who is taking the other side of that argument?)
And: "Don't accuse people of basically giving him a pass because he's a Muslim because I don't think there's any evidence of that."
No, no, none at all. Anyone who presents any is probably a phobe.
Another Brick In The Wall
In "The Ambition and The Power" (p. 486) John Barry reports how House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas) reacted to President Reagan’s speech at the Berlin Wall:
Wright’s face hardened. Reagan’s declaration had destroyed any chance of the wall coming down, since Gorbachev could not appear to bow to him.
Wright fumed, “It just makes me have utter contempt for Reagan. He spoiled the chance for a dramatic breakthrough in relations between our two countries. It bespeaks his pettiness and self-centeredness. He just couldn’t bear Gorbachev doing it of his own volition.”
Thankfully President Obama made us proud.
Wright’s face hardened. Reagan’s declaration had destroyed any chance of the wall coming down, since Gorbachev could not appear to bow to him.
Wright fumed, “It just makes me have utter contempt for Reagan. He spoiled the chance for a dramatic breakthrough in relations between our two countries. It bespeaks his pettiness and self-centeredness. He just couldn’t bear Gorbachev doing it of his own volition.”
Thankfully President Obama made us proud.
NYT Spot-On Reporting
In this New York Times story on Muslims serving in the U.S. military, the Times presents Navy SEAL Michael Monsoor, who earned the Congressional Medal of Honor for throwing himself on a grenade to save his team members in 2006, as a Muslim.
It quotes a Muslim Army reservist who cites Monsoor as an example of a Muslim service member who gave his life for his country, and the Times lets the assertion stand.
But Monsoor was a devout Catholic, as his Department of Defense official biography clearly states.
[Update: The link has been disabled. Go figure.]
It quotes a Muslim Army reservist who cites Monsoor as an example of a Muslim service member who gave his life for his country, and the Times lets the assertion stand.
But Monsoor was a devout Catholic, as his Department of Defense official biography clearly states.
[Update: The link has been disabled. Go figure.]
Sunday, November 8, 2009
No Jihad Here
The Sunday Telegraph reports:
Major Nidal Malik Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a "spiritual adviser" to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001.
Hasan's eyes "lit up" when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday's horrific shooting spree.
Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt [sic]. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.
The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations [sic].
Major Nidal Malik Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a "spiritual adviser" to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001.
Hasan's eyes "lit up" when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday's horrific shooting spree.
Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt [sic]. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.
The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations [sic].
Starve A Cold, Feed A Bureaucracy
Speaker Pelosi and President Obama are declaring political victory today over health reform, but in so doing, they are going against the will of the American people who know they will be the real losers in the massive bill the House passed late last night that would turn our health sector into a nightmare of government bureaucracy.
Many Democrat members of Congress were strong-armed into voting for a bill that they know violates the basic freedoms upon which this country was founded because they didn't want to be the ones to hand defeat to their own party.
But next week they will head home to answer to constituents who will be learning more and more of the details about the bill they supported — the jobs-killing mandates on businesses, higher taxes, burgeoning entitlement programs, government intrusion into personal medical decisions, higher health costs, and federal dictates about the kind of health insurance Americans must have to avoid federal penalties — for starters.
And members of Congress will have to explain the false promises that the president made to win passage of the bill.
In his statement Saturday, Mr.Obama said: "The bill that the House has produced will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality, affordable options for those who don't; and lower costs for American families and American businesses."
In fact, the bill the House passed Saturday night violates every one of those promises, as numerous independent studies have proven.
And members will have to explain to their constituents why they supported legislation that dramatically changes the relationship between the American people and their government — forcing them to relinquish freedom over health care decisions for themselves and their families to the political will of Washington.
This bill is awakening a sleeping giant — Americans who are deeply concerned about the growing size and reach of government and trillions of dollars in deficit spending. They are not going to be swayed by flowery rhetoric. They are going to want real answers.
Many Democrat members of Congress were strong-armed into voting for a bill that they know violates the basic freedoms upon which this country was founded because they didn't want to be the ones to hand defeat to their own party.
But next week they will head home to answer to constituents who will be learning more and more of the details about the bill they supported — the jobs-killing mandates on businesses, higher taxes, burgeoning entitlement programs, government intrusion into personal medical decisions, higher health costs, and federal dictates about the kind of health insurance Americans must have to avoid federal penalties — for starters.
And members of Congress will have to explain the false promises that the president made to win passage of the bill.
In his statement Saturday, Mr.Obama said: "The bill that the House has produced will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality, affordable options for those who don't; and lower costs for American families and American businesses."
In fact, the bill the House passed Saturday night violates every one of those promises, as numerous independent studies have proven.
And members will have to explain to their constituents why they supported legislation that dramatically changes the relationship between the American people and their government — forcing them to relinquish freedom over health care decisions for themselves and their families to the political will of Washington.
This bill is awakening a sleeping giant — Americans who are deeply concerned about the growing size and reach of government and trillions of dollars in deficit spending. They are not going to be swayed by flowery rhetoric. They are going to want real answers.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Why One Shouldn't Buy The Farm
Here's part of a speech that Candidate Obama gave in Ohio in October 2008, a few weeks before he was easily elected president of the United States:
"Part of the reason this crisis occurred is that everyone was living beyond their means—from Wall Street to Washington to even some on Main Street. CEOs got greedy. Politicians spent money they didn't have. Lenders tricked people into buying homes they couldn't afford and some folks knew they couldn't afford them and bought them anyway. We've lived through an era of easy money, in which we were allowed and even encouraged to spend without limits; to borrow instead of save."
Here the president identifies several state actions that caused or enabled the financial meltdown, ranging from problems in the financial sector to the collapse of housing prices.
He noted both monetary and fiscal policy that made money incredibly cheap, thus incentivizing anybody who could to borrow more and more money.
The government spent too much money AND he tips his hat to government programs designed to increase the percentage of people who owned homes.
Yet, all he has done since he took office is to do more of the same things that got us in this mess in the first place — just on a bigger scale.
The extension and expansion of the $8,000 tax credit is a good example of that.
The cost of the whole thing is $11 billion.
And who wants to bet it will be more, not to mention the terrible distortions such a program introduces to the economy?
Even the Washington Post and the New York Times editorialized against the tax credit.
Here is the Post:
The credit is a bad idea. It merely shifts demand from elsewhere in the economy to one sector government has chosen to help — having been urged to do so by a powerful lobby — and from the future to the present.
And here is the Times:
Congress threw good money after bad this week when it voted to extend and expand a wasteful home buyer’s tax credit set to expire at the end of the month.
Note that the New York Times has nothing against the government spending more money than it has already. It just wants the money spent on other bad programs.
"Part of the reason this crisis occurred is that everyone was living beyond their means—from Wall Street to Washington to even some on Main Street. CEOs got greedy. Politicians spent money they didn't have. Lenders tricked people into buying homes they couldn't afford and some folks knew they couldn't afford them and bought them anyway. We've lived through an era of easy money, in which we were allowed and even encouraged to spend without limits; to borrow instead of save."
Here the president identifies several state actions that caused or enabled the financial meltdown, ranging from problems in the financial sector to the collapse of housing prices.
He noted both monetary and fiscal policy that made money incredibly cheap, thus incentivizing anybody who could to borrow more and more money.
The government spent too much money AND he tips his hat to government programs designed to increase the percentage of people who owned homes.
Yet, all he has done since he took office is to do more of the same things that got us in this mess in the first place — just on a bigger scale.
The extension and expansion of the $8,000 tax credit is a good example of that.
The cost of the whole thing is $11 billion.
And who wants to bet it will be more, not to mention the terrible distortions such a program introduces to the economy?
Even the Washington Post and the New York Times editorialized against the tax credit.
Here is the Post:
The credit is a bad idea. It merely shifts demand from elsewhere in the economy to one sector government has chosen to help — having been urged to do so by a powerful lobby — and from the future to the present.
And here is the Times:
Congress threw good money after bad this week when it voted to extend and expand a wasteful home buyer’s tax credit set to expire at the end of the month.
Note that the New York Times has nothing against the government spending more money than it has already. It just wants the money spent on other bad programs.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Check Under The Hood
The narrative after 9/11 largely remains that Americans have given in to illegitimate "fear and mistrust" of Muslims in general.
A saner approach would be to acknowledge that there is a small minority of Muslims who channel generic Islamist fantasies, so that we can assume that either formal terrorist plots or individual acts of murder will more or less occur here every three to six months.
At some point, if organized plots (see the most recent in Boston) and isolated acts of lone gunmen and homicidal drivers continue, and if the prevailing theme continues to be fears of American intolerance and unfairness to Muslims after 9/11, the public will resent the disconnect between what they are told to think and what they believe, on the basis of the overwhelming evidence.
A saner approach would be to acknowledge that there is a small minority of Muslims who channel generic Islamist fantasies, so that we can assume that either formal terrorist plots or individual acts of murder will more or less occur here every three to six months.
At some point, if organized plots (see the most recent in Boston) and isolated acts of lone gunmen and homicidal drivers continue, and if the prevailing theme continues to be fears of American intolerance and unfairness to Muslims after 9/11, the public will resent the disconnect between what they are told to think and what they believe, on the basis of the overwhelming evidence.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Kick The Can
It was noted earlier that the Democratic health-care can might get kicked into 2010.
Now that Christie has defeated Corzine, this was officially a bad election night for the Democrats, which raises the question of whether this kicks that can beyond the tenure of the Obama administration.
Blue Dogs nervous about the trillion-dollar Pelosi bill or Harry Reid adding the public option to the Senate bill despite having insufficient votes to get it through committee will be even more nervous after Tuesday's demonstration of the public mood.
If scoring issues and other delays require the vote to take place in 2010, when members themselves are actually up for reelection, expect even more skittishness from the Blue Dogs.
And if 2010 is a bad election year for the Democrats, as off-year elections often foreshadow, the Pelosi Democrats may not control the House schedule for the last two years of the presidential term.
Let us pray.
Now that Christie has defeated Corzine, this was officially a bad election night for the Democrats, which raises the question of whether this kicks that can beyond the tenure of the Obama administration.
Blue Dogs nervous about the trillion-dollar Pelosi bill or Harry Reid adding the public option to the Senate bill despite having insufficient votes to get it through committee will be even more nervous after Tuesday's demonstration of the public mood.
If scoring issues and other delays require the vote to take place in 2010, when members themselves are actually up for reelection, expect even more skittishness from the Blue Dogs.
And if 2010 is a bad election year for the Democrats, as off-year elections often foreshadow, the Pelosi Democrats may not control the House schedule for the last two years of the presidential term.
Let us pray.
Why You Owe It To Your Country
Because while I was receiving CNN Breaking News about Economy growing for first time in a year, with GDP rising 3.5 percent in the third quarter, the receptionist in my office was being laid off because my company – a company that employs engineers repairing RI’s bridges – has no work because there’s no money to fix them.
Because I can’t get an H1N1 Vaccination unless I conspire against my country and end up at Gitmo.
Because the Government that can’t even get enough vaccines to all who want it feels that they can run an entire health care industry.
Because nobody seemed to care that the President fired the CEO of a publicly held company, and wants to limit the pay of others.
Because while the liberal press oohs and aahs over the sparring between Rush, Fox News, and the White House, the President is quietly building an administration so ripe with avowed socialists, anti-gun activists, illegal alien supporters, and left-wing anti-capitalist initiatives that we’ll likely be goose stepping before the next general election (assuming there is one).
Because eight years ago we were attacked. We were attacked in our offices, on our way to our honeymoons, standing in line for coffee. We were attacked without provocation – without warning (well, that’s up for debate I suppose), and without mercy. Dads. Moms. Sons. Daughters. Aunts. Uncles. Children. Grandchildren. Pets. Murdered...
Because after we were attacked, we did what any sovereign state would –we retaliated – we pursued villains – we extracted information – we “Tortured” – although I would have to defer the defining of the term “Torture” to John McCain as I don’t think receiving an H1N1 Vaccination before my pregnant sister is able to qualifies as torture, but…
Because now, eight years later, people have forgotten. No no, not the average, reasonable person; but the people who have taken over our Government – this concentration of elite left who feel that the members of our Government that kept us safe and prevented further attacks should be prosecuted as war criminals – they are more concerned with the rights of those who proliferated these atrocities than the victims.
Because for the first time in my almost 40 years I’m scared.
Because for the first time in their almost 70 years, my parents are scared.
Because people who voted thinking they were one of the 95% who would get a tax cut – haven’t – but still think they will, because their head is in the sand.
Because no matter where I turn, it seems the majority of people I talk to think and feel like I do, yet our government still spends trillions of dollars against our wishes, mortgages our future without our permission, spends months pushing their health care agenda when 12% of the country can’t find a job (and those are the ones who want to).
Because I’m angry.
Because you should be too.
Because we can’t stop this unless we do step out of the shadows and lend our voices – loud.
Because if you don’t tell everyone you know about this blog – and tell them again – and again – and again – we may not be able to stop it.
Because your country – our country – the country that gave you the highest standard of living in the world, the best medical care available, the right to think how you please and to be as successful as you want to, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – is dying.
You Owe It To Your Country.
[Submitted by Gordon Horton]
Because I can’t get an H1N1 Vaccination unless I conspire against my country and end up at Gitmo.
Because the Government that can’t even get enough vaccines to all who want it feels that they can run an entire health care industry.
Because nobody seemed to care that the President fired the CEO of a publicly held company, and wants to limit the pay of others.
Because while the liberal press oohs and aahs over the sparring between Rush, Fox News, and the White House, the President is quietly building an administration so ripe with avowed socialists, anti-gun activists, illegal alien supporters, and left-wing anti-capitalist initiatives that we’ll likely be goose stepping before the next general election (assuming there is one).
Because eight years ago we were attacked. We were attacked in our offices, on our way to our honeymoons, standing in line for coffee. We were attacked without provocation – without warning (well, that’s up for debate I suppose), and without mercy. Dads. Moms. Sons. Daughters. Aunts. Uncles. Children. Grandchildren. Pets. Murdered...
Because after we were attacked, we did what any sovereign state would –we retaliated – we pursued villains – we extracted information – we “Tortured” – although I would have to defer the defining of the term “Torture” to John McCain as I don’t think receiving an H1N1 Vaccination before my pregnant sister is able to qualifies as torture, but…
Because now, eight years later, people have forgotten. No no, not the average, reasonable person; but the people who have taken over our Government – this concentration of elite left who feel that the members of our Government that kept us safe and prevented further attacks should be prosecuted as war criminals – they are more concerned with the rights of those who proliferated these atrocities than the victims.
Because for the first time in my almost 40 years I’m scared.
Because for the first time in their almost 70 years, my parents are scared.
Because people who voted thinking they were one of the 95% who would get a tax cut – haven’t – but still think they will, because their head is in the sand.
Because no matter where I turn, it seems the majority of people I talk to think and feel like I do, yet our government still spends trillions of dollars against our wishes, mortgages our future without our permission, spends months pushing their health care agenda when 12% of the country can’t find a job (and those are the ones who want to).
Because I’m angry.
Because you should be too.
Because we can’t stop this unless we do step out of the shadows and lend our voices – loud.
Because if you don’t tell everyone you know about this blog – and tell them again – and again – and again – we may not be able to stop it.
Because your country – our country – the country that gave you the highest standard of living in the world, the best medical care available, the right to think how you please and to be as successful as you want to, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – is dying.
You Owe It To Your Country.
[Submitted by Gordon Horton]
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Definition of "Is"
Something strange is afoot with the story about H1N1 vaccination for Gitmo detainees.
Robert Gibbs denied it earlier, saying that “There is no vaccine in Guantanamo. There is no vaccine on the way to Guantanamo." Case closed, right?
Apparently, though, the statement was not as definitive as one would think. FoxNews reports that:
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Gibbs was correct in saying the vaccine is not currently on its way, but clarified that it is scheduled to be at the naval base on Cuba by the end of November.
This reminds me of a former president who famously said that a question of perjury turned on the definition of what the word is is.
Fond memories aside, Gibbs’s statement is exactly the kind of issue Rush Limbaugh warned about last week when he said that credibility is one of the most valuable commodities the federal government has in a public-health crisis.
If the White House press secretary is juggling verb tenses to create a misleading impression that is directly contradicted by a Pentagon spokesman, it calls into question the veracity of other statements by federal officials on that subject, which is a problem we can ill afford should there be a more serious flu outbreak.
Robert Gibbs denied it earlier, saying that “There is no vaccine in Guantanamo. There is no vaccine on the way to Guantanamo." Case closed, right?
Apparently, though, the statement was not as definitive as one would think. FoxNews reports that:
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Gibbs was correct in saying the vaccine is not currently on its way, but clarified that it is scheduled to be at the naval base on Cuba by the end of November.
This reminds me of a former president who famously said that a question of perjury turned on the definition of what the word is is.
Fond memories aside, Gibbs’s statement is exactly the kind of issue Rush Limbaugh warned about last week when he said that credibility is one of the most valuable commodities the federal government has in a public-health crisis.
If the White House press secretary is juggling verb tenses to create a misleading impression that is directly contradicted by a Pentagon spokesman, it calls into question the veracity of other statements by federal officials on that subject, which is a problem we can ill afford should there be a more serious flu outbreak.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
