Friday, April 29, 2011

Just in Time, Obama Changes the Subject

April 29, 2011
President Obama just did something only presidents can do: he changed the subject of our nation's political conversation. To his advantage, he and his handlers hope.

As American Thinker was one of the first to report, on Monday -- four days ago -- the President was well on his way to having a politically disastrous week.  A lengthy article by Ryan Lizza in the May 2 number of the New Yorker had exposed wide disarray and division among the President, his advisors, and Hillary Clinton's State Department over the American response to the Arab Spring, especially the non-intervention in Iran's Green Revolution last year and the more recent decision to intervene -- sort of -- in Libya.

Ryan Lizza is the New Yorker's chief Washington correspondent.  His reporting confirmed all the rumors about in-fighting and charges of sexism between the boys and the girls in the Administration over the whole idea of "liberal (or humanitarian) intervention."

R2P, as it's called, is a concept which originated during the Balkan and Rwandan genocides.  It posits that the United Nations and the great powers have a "responsibility to protect" ethnic and racial minorities (and, sometimes, political dissenters) against violent repression by their own government.  R2P is reviled by practitioners of realpolitik.

The rumor of in-fighting, the New Yorker reported, was true.  The women policymakers, it said, wanted the U.S. to move.  The men, most of them, didn't.  The exception was the late Richard Holbrooke, who literally collapsed (and subsequently died) in a meeting with Hillary Clinton in which he was advocating a stronger American response.  In the Obama White House, the New Yorker reporting also suggests, the most distinguished American diplomat of his generation couldn't get the time of day.

But it was the last paragraph of Lizza's story which had the real stinger in its tail.

Specifically, Lizza quoted an unnamed presidential advisor as saying that President Obama's foreign policy was based on "stealth and modesty."  In particular, said Advisor X, it involves "'leading from behind,'" based on "two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S.  is declining...and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world." nConservative blogs and talk show hosts pounced.

But the Lizza story quickly developed legs outside the conservative blogosphere.  In the Week-in-Review section, the New York Times' David E. Sanger had chimed in with a piece describing Obama's policy as "Letting Others Lead in Libya."  On the Monday morning the Lizza piece broke on the blogs, Eric Alterman in The Daily Beast posted an opinion piece headlined "Obama's Awful '70's Show Echoes Jimmy Carter."
Full stop: in a 48-hour period, the New Yorker, the New York Times, and The Daily Beast had all published highly critical pieces of President Obama's foreign policy in general and his response to the Arab Spring in particular.  Somewhere, a dam had been breached.  The whole story was acquiring critical mass.

It got worse.  On Tuesday, Hugh Hewitt interviewed Ryan Lizza on his nationwide radio program and posted the interview on-line, urging his followers to read both the New Yorker article and the interview.  On Wednesday morning, Terry Gross interviewed Ryan Lizza for a half hour on NPR's "Fresh Air."  It went up on NPR's website.

The New Yorker piece -- and its devastating "leading from behind" quote -- had entered the mainstream media.  The whole thing was, shall we say, about to metastatize.

Time to change the subject.  And a topic was readily at hand,.

That very morning, the White House released the President's long-sought Hawaiian birth certificate.  The President himself appeared at the podium of the White House Press Room to denounce the birthers and their enablers as "circus barkers."  Then he left to see Oprah and talk it up some more.  Donald Trump, meanwhile, was grandstanding on the subject before all available television cameras.

And the media herd went thundering off in another direction.  Suddenly, it was all-Trump-all-the-time.  As of Thursday night (helped, of course, by a terrible natural disaster across the Southeast), the Lizza story -- and "leading from behind" -- had disappeared as a political topic.

Nice move, White House.  We'll see if it works.  As American Thinker went to press, Charles Krauthammer's Friday column was posted on-line, addressing the Lizza revelations.

Its money quote: "[l]eading from behind is not leading. It's abdicating."

Stay tuned for the Sunday programs.

Paul Ryan ‘Debates’ President Obama on Medicare During Town Hall Meetings

At issue, how to bring the federal budget into balance, reform Medicare and still provide a medical safety net to America’s seniors. Hovering over the topic: the 2012 election.

Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan and President Barack Obama obviously have dramatically opposing views on budgetary matters.

Ryan explains his plan at a town hall meeting this week, and faces a few of his critics who bring OFA, MoveOn and SEIU talking points with them to the meeting.

How did he do?

Ameren Responds To Don Giljum’s ‘Sabotage’ Tactics

Ameren provides energy to millions of citizens in Illinois and Missouri. Given its past dealings with union official and labor activist Don Giljum, the company released an official statement earlier this week in response to videos on in which Giljum can be seen and heard telling students about organized labor’s tactics of sabotage, fear and intimidation.

Here’s a typical example, in which Giljum describes how to make labor negotiations “personal”–and note that at several points, his co-lecturer, Judy Ancel, laughs or interjects with approval:
Giljum: …we had to make him [the CEO] feel the concern and the anxiety that he was gonna have to live with. So we, you know, made all kinds of overtones about sabotaging the equipment, OK? We downloaded a lot of articles off of the Internet and laid them around the plant about, [Ancel: laughs] you know, this equipment being sabotaged and that equipment.
That’s all they were–nobody was doing anything.

  Ancel: You never said anything, did you?
Giljum: No, no. We just downloaded the articles and laid them out there, OK, for people to read. They–”Hey, look at this article I found,” you know. It wasn’t us, it was members that would do that. We had a group of guys that would always end up at the same shopping center, at the same church, as the CEO would on Sundays and that, in the evenings, OK? Wouldn’t say nothing, just kind of bumped into the guy and said, “Hey, how you doing,” that’s it. “How’s negotiations going? Heard they’re not going too well,” and then walk off, OK. [It] got to a point where, you know, the guy became very paranoid, very concerned, when he would walk out into the plant he would wear a flak jacket [Ancel: laughs], OK, and a helmet with a face guard on it, because he was afraid of being shot at…
In the original class footage, Giljum goes on to state that no one had actually threatened the CEO verbally, but indicates that he was clearly happy to have gained bargaining power through such methods. He advises students to do likewise, and “get a few guys to do a few things.” Ancel thanks him for his contribution without contesting his advice.

Here is the statement from Ameren.
We are appalled by the comments of the former business manager of a union representing our workers and employees of other companies and by the actions he describes in his lecture. If we ever had any evidence of sabotage at any of our facilities, we would have immediately notified law enforcement officials. We do not know of any such sabotage but would immediately turn over to law enforcement anyone who threatens our operations in any way. We have a policy of protecting anyone reporting information about sabotage or other illegal actions and encourage anyone to come forward with information about this. We have full confidence in our employees and have in place extensive security training programs and procedures aimed at protecting our facilities, our employees and the public.

Big Government

The Conspiracy Theory That’s Worse Than Birthers or Truthers: ‘Racist-ers’

Jeff DunetzPosted by Jeff Dunetz Apr 29th 2011 at 11:45 am in CBS, Democrats, Healthcare, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Mainstream Media, Obama, Race, media bias 

There are many groups of political crazies out there: you have the truthers–those who believe that George W. Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks (like former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones). Then there are the birthers–a group on whom I have written plenty about over the past few weeks.  They are the people who believe that they can have the POTUS removed from office because of a belief that he was born in another country.  Former Hilary Clinton operative Philip Berg was the king of the birthers until Donald Trump came along.

But the most destructive of political conspiracy theorists are the sick minds that believe that every comment made by a conservative or Republican against President Obama is intended to demean people of color. I call them “Racerists.” What make the Racerists more dangerous than the typical conspiracy moonbat is they build upon the existing stereotyping suggested in liberal-made campaign slogans with one simple purpose: to end discussion by intimidating people not to criticize the President.

With Donald Trump’s enhanced attention on the President’s birth certificate, the Racerists have come out again to spew their nonsense.

For example, liberal propagandist Bob Schieffer delivered a scathing statement against Donald Trump on the CBS Evening News, reacting to Trump’s claim that President Barack Obama may not have had the grades to get into Harvard. Schieffer said, “That’s just code for saying he got into law school because he’s black. This is an ugly strain of racism that’s running through this whole thing.”

Gee, if that’s the case, well, then when people went on CBS to claim that Bush was stupid and it was Dick Cheney making all the decisions, was that an ugly strain of racism? Oh wait, Bush is Caucasian.

What was it called when Schieffer’s colleague at CBS, Dan Rather presented the “personal files” of the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, Bush’s squadron commander during his Air National Guard service? Those files described preferential treatment given to the former President, including pressure on Killian to “sugar coat” an annual officer rating report for the then 1st Lt. Bush. Those files were a fraud.

Was that racism? Of course not! Just as today, the motivation of most “conspiracy theorists” is policy, not race…  maybe with the exception of Donald Trump (he’s more of a showman). Trump is like the carnival talker who promises his audience the strangest things to get people to come into his tent. “See the bearded lady with no arms, four legs, and a nose that looks like Elvis Presley before he went into the Army!” I personally doubt that Trump believes what he is saying about Obama’s birth certificate or education; he just knows it will get people into his political “tent.”

Of course Trump’s possible “lack of religion” about the conspiracies he his pushing doesn’t stop other people from leaping on the Racerist bandwagon. Especially people in the liberal media.
PBS’s Tavis Smiley says that Trump is appealing to the most racist elements within the Tea Party:

MSNBC’s Ed Shultz is also claiming racism (but then doesn’t he always?):

And don’t think that the Racerists attempt to silence political opponents is either new, or all about Obama’s birth certificate.
For example, if you believe Huffington Post contributors David Sirota, there are only two types of people in the world: those who agree with everything about President Obama and racists. Sirota even believes that Van Jones was targeted because he was black, not because of his progressive policies or the fact that he was a truther.

Another famous Racerist is Janine Garafolo, who said that the people participating in the Tea Parties were doing so because they objected to an African American President.

And you cannot forget Congressman Charlie Rangel who missed claiming vacation property income on his tax returns but can spot a “racist” from a distance. He blamed protests anti-obamacare protests racism:
Some Americans have not gotten over the fact that Obama is president of the United States. They go to sleep wondering, “How did this happen?”
Former MSNBC host David Shuster is a serial Racerist. Shuster once called the Tea Party health-care protest an “orgy of bigotry, racism, Antisemitism, and hate.”
Shuster’s Crowning Racerist achievement happened last March. Usually when people describe a member of Congress they give the name and the town they represent.  Apparently Shuster never heard of this before because he complained to his MSNBC TV audience of maybe three non-family members and a three-legged Great Dane, that any Republican who described Charlie Rangel as the Harlem Congressman is being racist.

So let me get this straight: saying Charlie Rangel is from Harlem is racist, but saying Barack Obama is not from Hawaii is also racist? That’s very confusing.

These are just a very few of many, many examples. Racerism is one of the many overused themes coming out of the media today.  And it’s much worse than trutherism and birtherism, both of which I believe are misguided.  Birthers and truthers will debate you all day long; talk about why Donald Trump is right or the Popular Mechanics explanation of 9/11 is wrong. Heck, it seems as if they will stop people on the street to explain their positions.  But Racersists are trying to silence all debate about President Obama’s policies. Their goal is to shut you up.  That’s why Racersim is the worst kind of political conspiracy theory. Because one of the great things about America is freedom of speech, ultimately the purpose of Racerism is to take away that freedom.

Big Government

Time to End Fed’s Dual Mandate of Destruction

Let's pin the inflation tail on the big government/big Wall Street donkey.

Recent economic reports of Obamanomics have shown dismal GDP growth, rising jobless claims, an anemic dollar, and soaring inflation; all indications of stagflation.  There are two components to stagflation; high unemployment and high inflation.  The unemployment, along with the weak economic growth, is due in large part to Obama’s Keynesian fiscal policy of overtaxing, overspending, over-subsidizing, and over-regulating. 

While the profligate spending and corporate welfare are also responsible in part for inflation and the devaluation of the dollar, the major culprit is Obama’s Keynesian monetary policy of near-zero interest rates and printing money (QE I and II).

Both reckless spheres of Keynesian economics are supported by corporate cronies on Wall Street who benefit from true “handouts to the rich” to the determent of the rest of us through price-hiking market distortions.  Unfortunately, there is no single silver bullet to ending the cumbersome socialist fiscal policy (although, a spending amendment would go a long way).  The pernicious monetary policy, however, can be eliminated through one act of Congress; ending the Federal Reserve’s mandate to control the economy (H.R. 245-Mike Pence).

In 1977, Congress vested the Federal Reserve with a dual mandate of stimulating the economy and job growth in addition to keeping a stable currency.  This has allowed the Fed to become a fourth branch of government by initiating its own stimulus policies of printing money.  These stimulus policies exacerbate the fiscal stimuli of the other branches of government by devaluing the remaining dollars that we own (non-borrowed money).

Hence, as much as Obama’s trillions in stimulus and bailouts have bankrupted the country, Ben Bernanke’s $600 billion monetary stimulus has attenuated the value of our remaining savings and spiked the cost of vital commodities across the world.  Additionally, their rash intervention in the credit market was one of the big culprits of the housing crisis.  Thus, while the Fed seeks to achieve a dual mandate of low unemployment and low inflation, they are ultimately inimical to both goals.  It’s time for House leadership to bring Mike Pence’s H.R. 245 to a floor vote and end the Fed’s overreach into our economy.

The same Wall Street Democrat corporate cronies who work tirelessly on behalf of bailouts and fiscal stimulus have also promoted and benefited from monetary stimulus.  This is our opportunity to stand with the majority of the country who are harmed by stagflation and stick a fork in big government and big Wall Street.

It’s also time for presidential candidates to get serious about this issue and articulate to the average voter how the deleterious policies of the Fed are a direct result of anti-free market intervention.  Sarah Palin has hit this early and often; others must follow suit.  Democrats have long planned to counter the populist outrage against big government with righteous indignation against the unpopular Wall Street power players.  The candidate who exposes the truth about Democrat corporate cronyism and explains its relation to the high cost of living, will be the next president.

Earlier this week, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke asserted that low GDP growth and inflation will be “transitory.”  Republicans must show him that the only thing transitory in this era of perennial stagflation is his ability to destroy our economy.


GOP Shouldn't Play Trump Card

Donald Lambro Donald Lambro

  WASHINGTON -- Donald Trump has been saying things about himself and others lately that are untrue, suggesting that he has a tendency to make up his own reality as he goes along. In an interview with CNN's John King, Trump cited a CNN poll that he said showed him "statistically tied" with President Barack Obama; proclaimed that he has been a loyal Republican "for a long while"; and declared that the Unites States gets no oil from Libya, while China is Libya's "biggest customer."

Let's take these one at a time.

CNN denies that it has ever conducted a head-to-head matching poll between Obama and Trump, though other polls showed Trump trailing the president by double digits.

A more recent nationwide Gallup poll found that more than 6 in 10 registered voters -- 64 percent -- said they definitely would not vote for Trump in 2012. Forty-six percent said that about Obama. A mere 7 percent said they would definitely vote for the real estate magnate, versus 31 percent who said that about Obama.
King challenged Trump's statement, but Trump stuck to his claim that CNN said he was tied with Obama.

"We also rechecked with our polling department and our polling director specifically. The Trump people never got back to us and this is why. We're positive, positive, CNN never conducted such a poll," King said on CNN.

Trump's claim to have been " a very strong Republican" for "a long while" is open to substantial doubt, too. In the last decade he was a registered Democrat between 2001 and 2008, according to ace Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler.

Moreover, Trump did not vote in primary contests for more than two decades, according to a search of his voting record by NY1, a New York-based news channel. In the 2008 presidential election, Trump said he supported Obama, adding that he "has a chance to go down as the greatest president."

What does that tell you about Trump's political judgment?

Deeper doubts are raised about his claims of party loyalty when you look at the long list of liberal Democrats Trump has supported financially -- from Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada to former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who got a whopping $50,000 to bankroll his successful run for mayor of Chicago.

A majority of the candidates who benefited from Trump's deep pockets -- 54 percent of them -- were Democrats, and far left ones at that, including former senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Rep. Charles Rangel and Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, and the late senator Edward M. Kennedy.

And then there was Trump's claim that China is Libya's biggest oil customer and that the United States gets "no oil from Libya."

In truth, Kessler found, the United States does get a small share of Libya's oil -- only 3 percent -- but China is far from its "biggest customer."

The Department of Energy says Libya's biggest customers are Italy, which buys 28 percent of the civil war-torn country's oil, France at 15 percent, China at 11 percent and Germany and Spain at 10 percent each.

Then there were Trump's attacks on whether Obama's was born in the United States. Trump is claiming vindication now for elevating the issue in numerous interviews -- a tactic that catapulted him into the news and drew attention to his presidential ambitions -- clearly forcing Obama to produce his official birth certificate this week.

After three years of ignoring the issue, Obama signed a letter to Hawaii state officials Friday requesting a copy of his official birth certificate. It was delivered Tuesday night. But early on, Trump said he had hired investigators digging into the "birther" issue in Hawaii and, based on their reports, was convinced that the birth certificate didn't exist. Now that Obama has produced a copy, Trump is touting this as a big political achievement.

Trump certainly forced Obama's hand by lifting the issue beyond the second-tier attention it has received. But it's an issue among a relatively small segment of voters that he could have sidestepped, saying that it's not among the top concerns on most voters' minds.

But worse than Trump's tendency to make things up are his off-the-cuff, sometimes bombastic comments about how he would handle major issues like the budget deficit, skyrocketing oil prices, and the threat of China.

On Libya, he would invade, presumably with the military, get rid of Moammar Gadhafi and seize the oil fields, if the Saudis would pay us the $5 billion it would cost, plus a cut in their oil supplies. On overall oil prices, he would call up Arab OPEC leaders and tell them "you've had your fun, but it's over." This bellicose talk is a frightening prospect for a country still embroiled in two wars and now dealing with the situation in Libya.

China is a hot-button issue for candidates to expound upon when they lack a domestic economic plan to boost growth and jobs. China is not responsible for our weak, jobless economy, excessive tax levels and unprecedented $14.3 trillion debt. Obama's failed, anti-growth economic policies are to blame.

Trump's shallow, sound bite-based campaign, which invents "facts" to fit his own reality, his threats to the Arab world, his promises to bully China, and his bragging about how "easy" it is to fix the fiscal mess we're in, without the hint of a well-thought-out plan, may play with some voters.

But this is not a presidential contender who has serious answers to the critical economic and fiscal issues we now face. Obama's birth certificate will not create a single job.


Thursday, April 28, 2011

No One Expects the Muslim Inquisition

Wednesday, April 27, 2011
By Daniel Greenfield

Monty Python may have surprised us with the Spanish Inquisition, but today there is hardly anyone who doesn't expect the Muslim Inquisition. It is almost hard to imagine that there was a time not so long ago when it was possible to catch sight of Muslim terrorists in films and when it was permissible to crack jokes about Mohammed and the mountain.

 Today a few strokes of a pen can put you on the run, not in Islambad or Ridyah, but as far away as Seattle. And the mere whisper of a mosque protest can put you in a jail cell for 'breach of peace'. Peace being another way of saying Islam.

Ever since Mohammed couched his demand for surrender to the Byzantine Emperor with the words, 'Aslim Taslam'-- appeasing Muslims often comes gift wrapped as 'peace'. From the 'Peace Process' that condemns Israel to carve itself up to appease Muslim terror, to Terry Jones planted in a Dearbornistan jail cell for 'Breach of Peace' on charges of plotting to exercise his Constitutional right to protest-- the Religion of Peace finds ways to remind us that in the Islamic lexicon, peace is just another way of saying 'submission'. As Mohammed told Heracilus back in the day, the only peace to be found is under the rule of Islam.  

Globalism, immigration and the internet have moved the blasphemy trial from the hinterlands of Islam to the rainy west coast. And it isn't just a few mullahs in dark garb writing out their fatwas anymore. The clerics may write the fatwas, but more and more it's the local justice departments of formerly free countries that enforce them. When a few angry Imams call for your head, you can always turn to the authorities for protection. But when the authorities are the ones calling for your head because you offended the imams-- who do you turn to?

You can't spell Socialism without Islam. And the difference between Sharia law as practiced in the formerly free West, from the one practiced in the minaret ridden slums of the east is that Western authorities don't lock away blasphemers because they believe that Mohammed was the final prophet of Allah and the Koran is his revelation to mankind. Rather they're afraid of the murderous offense taken by those who do.

It's bad enough when Muslims enact laws to promote the supremacy of a religion that they believe in, but what do we make of Western authorities who don't believe in their religion, but do abide by their definition of blasphemy. It's awful to be persecuted for your beliefs by authorities whose beliefs are at variance with yours, but even worse to be persecuted by authorities who believe in nothing at all. If Muslims have faith in Allah, they have faith in their own power to jail those who might give Muslims an excuse for kicking up a violent fuss.

Some call it the heckler's veto, but it's more like the Heckler and Koch veto. If the authorities were afraid of riots in the 60's, now they're afraid of massacres. And it's easier to put on the Dhimmi and pay out the Danegeld, than to stand up to the religion of the machine gun and the faith of the suicide bomb.

British authorities kept an open door and a warm meal ready for the friendless Islamist so as not to offend Muslims for fear of terror. In return, the civic leaders of Londonistan were rewarded with the 7/7 attacks. A bloody atrocity that did not in any way diminish the flow of bearded hostiles into Albion. After all, if this was how Muslims responded to not being offended, just imagine what they would do if you they really were offended.

Now England has become a nation where you can be arrested for a bad karaoke rendition of Kung Fu Fighting, but where Islamists cheerfully sit on the dole like so many murderous partridges in a rotten pear tree, composing their hymns of jihad, burning poppies and proclaiming that the end is near in Luton. It is perfectly safe to arrest bad singers and ex-soldiers who touch a lighter to the pages of a Koran. At least from the perspective of the authorities. But arresting Muslims is so much more dangerous altogether.

Spend enough time standing in line and you discover that there are two kinds of people. The kind who decide that lines may be uncomfortable, but they'll have to wait in them just like everyone else. And the kind who decide that only suckers wait in line and muscle their way through with violent tantrums daring anyone to stop them. The first kind have adapted to the discomforts of civilization, the second kind treat them like sheep, confident that people willing to stand in line at a bureaucrat's word don't have what it takes to stop them. And much of the time they're right.

Muslims are the violent queue jumpers of civilization, their violent tantrums putting not the fear of Allah, but the fear of violent disorder into the guardians of civilizations. The fragile order of the urban centers, chock full of multiculturalism and resentment, depends on everyone respecting authority. That has become the chief duty of all forms of law enforcement. Not so much to prevent crime, but to keep everyone properly respectful of all laws and regulations.

Most of the criticisms of the TSA miss the point. The blue shirted drones aren't fondling air travelers for any other reason than because frightened and humiliated people are how incompetent systems assert their authority in the face of problems that they cannot afford to tackle. You can grope a 6 year old and the only thing you have to worry about is Drudge pageviews. But try singling out Muslims for a rational airline security policy and the bureaucrats who make the policies are certain it will only increase terror. Grope an imam or grope a 6 year old? It's not a tough choice for the bureaucracy. It never is.

From throwing elderly preachers in jail to firing employees for burning korans on their day off to groping children-- the system is doing its best to protect itself from having to make difficult decisions. And the Muslim Inquisition has been outsourced to the overpaid employees of the modern socialist state. Their duty is not to serve or protect, but to keep the facade going for as long as possible.

We live in a world run by the smirking embodiments of the Peter Principle, screwups who have leveraged a screwed up system to get to where they are. The hereditary monarchies that Mohammed confronted in his day, have nothing on the parade of hopeless buffoons who are at the wheel today, insisting that there is no such thing as deficit spending, carving up their sole aircraft carrier before going to war, and insisting that the only way to stop terror is by surrendering to it. The authorities aren't mad, they're powermad. Smart enough to find their niche of power and stupid enough to cling to it at all costs with safe decisions and boldly inoffensive rhetoric.

The outsourcing of the Muslim Inquisition is now a depressing fact of life in the West. In the United States, the Constitution provides one last defense against the mandate of public order that has swept away the rights of citizen in Europe. But it is a defense unlikely to hold against the full tide. When the guardians of our public order insist that it is a choice between freedom of speech and dead soldiers in Afghanistan, you can expect that it won't just be Justice Stephen Breyer burning the Constitution on his lonesome.

There is a congruence between the public order mandate of the leaders of the declining west, and the imperative of the religion of peace. Both demand submission under the law. Not the law of men, but the law of systems.  The law of the West has become the law of the system. A system that is more important than any law abiding individual in it. Maintaining the pretense that the system is working just fine is the sole duty of its administrators and advocates. It's the slow bus version of Orwell's Oceania, a system whose totalitarianism is offset only by its incompetence. Whose greatest secret is its own helplessness in the face of organized opposition.

Unscramble Socialism and you get Islam. As the line cutters of the West, Muslims have stumbled on the pathetic truth of the system. That it is every bit as weak as they were told. The system will buy them off with money, with privileges and by enforcing their doctrines against its own citizens. Everyone has learned to expect the Muslim Inquisition from the state, as sure as BBC license fees, the DMV and every other bureaucratic nightmare of oppressive incompetence. But they don't always understand why.

The 'Why' is because the system has a thorough contempt for its compliant citizenry and a deep seated fear of the arriving hordes of Muslim immigrants who will not comply and not obey. Its officers will browbeat and berate ordinary cooperative citizens, but treat Muslims with kid gloves for fear that they will stop "cooperating" with authorities. It will confiscate guns from Americans, but let Islamists with their armed training camps. It will toss anyone who might even think of offending a Muslim in jail for a 'Breach of the Peace', but let the Islamists run wild shrieking their hate. Burning a Koran is a criminal offense, but putting a lighter to the Constitution is the duty of the judiciary.

The Blasphemy trial has left Pakistan for Londonistan and Lebanon for Dearborn, to be enforced by a system that would rather impose Islamic law on the peoples of the formerly free world, than admit that it has lost control over the consequences of its own immigration and social welfare policies.

Sultan Knish

The Deficit: Lead, Follow, or Get out of the Way!

April 28, 2011
By Frank Ryan

The entire budget debate on Capitol Hill and at the White House is a charade.  To put the $61 Billion dollar budget cuts in perspective, consider that we could save $38 Billion alone by putting the entire federal budget of $3.8 Trillion on a credit card.  The 1% cash back on the credit card gets us most of the way there!  This entire discussion is absurd.

What the White House and Congress do not understand is that if they do not get this one right, 2012 will be a tsunami of a wave election.  Our unemployment numbers will swell by the legions of politicians voted out of office. 

Our citizens know this debate on the deficit is insanity but apparently only a few in Washington get it.

It is now time for the White House and all 535 members of the legislative branch to either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

While our Constitution delegates the budget to the House of Representatives in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7, true power to set and define budgets rests with those that hold a nation's debt. 

Congress has surrendered its Constitutional responsibilities by placing our nation in great peril with unrelenting spending.

The projected budget deficit for 2011 is $1.6 Trillion!  The federal deficit is over $14 Trillion.  This is not funny any longer, not that it ever was.

Where are the economists in this debate?  Where were the economists in 1999 when financial analysts were saying "earnings no longer matter, we are in a new economy"?  Where were the CPA's (I am one) in 2005 when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac joined with Wall Street to create the scam known as the housing bubble?  Where was the education system in this country when economic nonsense was treated as economic fact?

Reality is reality.  You cannot legislate your way into fiscal responsibility.  Keynesian economics espouses that governments can balance economic cycles better than the free market.  His theory came out in 1936 at the height of the Depression.

The economic theory for the coming depression will be the Ryan economics which holds, "spending just for the sake of spending is not stimulating to an economy."

Spending does not stimulate when debt is excessive.  The very fiscal policy which gave the false impression that the economy can be manipulated by the government is going to be cause of the greatest fiscal implosion in history.

When businesses fix prices we call it anti-trust.  When government fixes interest rates in some misguided effort to stimulate the economy we call it monetary policy. 

When governments spend to manipulate an economy, unintended consequences surface such as growth in entitlement programs, unrestrained growth in government programs, and reallocation of funds from future generations to the current generation.

Let's face it, price fixing is price fixing.  Just because it is government doing it does not mean that it is logical or will be effective.

As someone who has spent time in seven different nations in my life that have undergone rapid and dramatic change, I can assure you that government has no major fix that the consumer and business do not have.  The difference is that the free market system is at least rational.  Government spending is legislated.

To effectively resolve the current debacle, Congress must stand firm.

The deficit ceiling must not be increased.  Not increasing the debt ceiling is not enough though.  Our nation must reduce spending.

Spending reductions must be done across the board.   

Government must get out of areas not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

We must become energy independent.  Exporting dollars and related tax revenues to the Middle East makes no sense.  In addition to the economic risk, energy dependence also poses a national security risk.

We must develop a meaningful program to reduce regulatory compliance costs.  In addition to the drain on our economy, the compliance costs merely encourage employers to export jobs. 

We must develop a sound health care policy.  Health insurance is not health care.  Health care reform is critical to our society to give our citizens the opportunity to live a healthy and prosperous life.  Repeal ObamaCare and enact real reform be seeking guidance and expertise from medical providers and not lawyers.

Financial regulations must be reformed to place our government on the same financial reporting and discipline required under accounting conventions and SEC guidelines for corporations.  This means that government must be held to the same standards for financial reporting as corporations and not-for-profit organizations.

The Federal Reserve must be subjected to audit and provide Congress with a clear sense of its financial risk.

This nation must adopt financial self-discipline before it is subjected to financial discipline by those who hold our debt.  Cosmetic budget cuts will not solve our nation's debt woes.  Real change is required to right our county.

Frank Ryan, CPA specializes in corporate restructuring and lectures on ethics for the state CPA societies.  Frank is a retired colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve and served in Iraq and briefly in Afghanistan.  He is on numerous boards of publicly traded and non-profit organizations.  He can be reached at

American Thinker

Obama's Real Strategy

April 28, 2011
Watching the machinations of Barack Obama, it seems as though he is creating what the Marxists call "internal contradictions."

Gas prices ready to breach the $5 mark, but a relentless Administration campaign against increased domestic energy production; midterm elections soundly rejecting the President and his party's command and control initiatives, but vigorous efforts to extend them in contempt not only of electoral, but legislative and judicial checks; foreign and defense policies that have produced nothing beyond betrayal of our interests and few remaining friends, but an eager embrace of fringe notions of a utopian internationalist order and our place in that order: every day brings new movements in this symphony of  dissonance.

Unfortunately, we are not simply enjoying a clarifying dialectic; we are in the middle of a high stakes race.  The objective in this race is not a place; it is a date: Election Day, November 6, 2012.

As the contending parties converge on the objective, the Administration understands that the conventional electoral calculus seems irreversible -- gas prices, inflation, unemployment, and geopolitical discomfiture will be joined in 2012 by the newfound fear of deficits and the national debt, and maybe even for the fate of constitutional government.  Their response to this looming threat of defeat is a version of the old Cold War communist strategy of "talk talk, fight fight."

The talk element is employed to waste time, obscure tactical maneuvers, divert and divide the opposition, and sometimes even to draw fire onto decoy targets.  Behind the screen of the talk is the "fight" or action element of the strategy -- executive, and to the extent still possible, fiscal measures calculated to bring the country by November 6, 2012 to a state in which an electoral majority, comprising both Obama partisans and opponents, is in such a high state of anxiety that they are unwilling to change presidents.

How does this work?  First, there is the talk element.  Obama and his people are drowning us in a talk tsunami.  I am convinced that much of it is, for them, meaningless, meant merely to overload our capacity for outrage and give their house media "issues," ostensibly to debate each evening, but really for generating a constant supply of vehicles through which to diminish the opposition and generally desensitize the country to the enormity of what Obama is doing.  The outrage fatigue grows and conservatives scramble to confront the dizzying torrent of talk, talk, with a tone increasingly shrill and desperation -- borne intramural wrangling.  The  release of the birth certificate, "Something special about the Resurrection," and other peculiar Easter omissions and commissions, the rise and disappearance of the political "civility" issue, keeping alive for months the fantasy of New York City trials for 9/11 conspirators, the great Fatwa against down time naps for drowsy air traffic controllers, UN international legal rights for Mother Earth, endless reprises of canards about the evil effects of conservative talk radio, the Ground Zero Mosque contretemps, TSA groping policy, attacking Arizona's immigration enforcement initiative, embracing Al Sharpton and giving the New Black Panthers a pass, Michelle's "You don't want fries with that!" campaign.

This is not to say some of these do not merit real concern, but Obama and his minions are merely playing with them; the best evidence for which is the airiness of their arguments and the insouciance with which they and their media mouthpieces flit from one to the next.  The key here for the opposition -- forget about the talk.  It is just talk.  Republicans shouldn't play the other guy's game.  They have neither the language nor the style, as Speaker Boehner most recently demonstrated when he trod on the oil price banana peel; he should concentrate on the fight fight.

When national Republicans respond to Obama talk talk in their accustomed mush mouthed, tentative, and bloodless way, they generally turn off those they need the most to join them -- including the libertarians and the generally politically inert 25-somethings, for whom irony and not outrage is the preferred tone.  But show you can fight, win, and deliver and they will give you a chance.  In the end, for all their eloquence, Lady Thatcher, John Paul II, and Ronald Reagan did not outtalk the Soviets; they showed they were prepared to outfight them, and that was enough.

As good as Obama is with talk talk, the fight fight component has thus far has been equally well-executed.  Again, fight fight for Obama consists of using his executive power and remaining fiscal armory to create and maintain an atmosphere of pervasive anxiety.  The calculation is that fear and anxiety will induce his remaining supporters to stick with him, and that enough of the forty-odd percent who claim to oppose him will pull the Democrat lever as well out of fear -- fear of retribution and fear of losing what shreds they have left of their security as one from the gaggle of lame Republican contenders attempts to reverse the damage Obama has done.

The elderly are the most obvious target.  ObamaCare frightened them because of its potential negative impact on Medicare, and this presented a problem for the President.  So Obama moved recently to postpone one of the more onerous elements of his health reform until after the election.  With that flank secure he is free to focus the Medicare fears of the elderly on the Ryan budget blueprint.

On the union front, the Obama gang fostered maximum thuggery and rancor in Madison, as teachers became screaming harpies and schoolchildren pawns.  The line was clearly drawn -- standing between fiscal prudence and public employee vested interests is Obama, so stick with him or else.  What about the business community?  Obama has assiduously used executive and regulatory power to show that crony capitalism works for his friends like GE, GM, and assorted connected green scam artists, but the retributive hand of his federal Myrmidons can be heavy indeed.  One frightened hedge fund magnate recently was reduced to whistling past the graveyard: "I am sure, if we are really nice and stay quiet, everything will be alright and the president will become more centrist and that all his tough talk is just words...I mean, he really loves us and when he beats us, he doesn't mean it."  (Notwithstanding, he has apparently begun contributing to Republicans.  Now that is hedging.)

Some elements of an ever more pervasive sense of fear and anxiety are more directly attributable to Obama policies than others.  Regardless, the parlous state of the nation overall, from what appears to be a fraying social fabric at fast food joints from coast to coast and soaring gold prices, to a feckless foreign policy allegedly necessitated by a reported presidential conviction "that the relative power of the U.S. is declining," reinforces the more directly-attributable fear and anxiety effects of fight fight.  Some are scared to oppose, some are scared that with a change they will lose even more, some are scared that the price of saving the economy, our institutions, and restoring our international standing will be too high.

Right now the course of the campaign is being controlled by the Administration.  The first step in wresting the initiative is to recognize their strategy.

Police Union Bosses File Complaint against Police Chief Stopping Crime while he was off-duty

Scranton, PA provides another example that Big Government Unions are more concerned about union power and control than citizens and crime in the street.

This attempt to intimidate a police chief by union bosses is shameless and the city council apparently unanimously agrees:
City Council unanimously passed a motion in support of Police Chief Dan Duffy on Tuesday, asking the police union to withdraw their unfair labor complaint against the city that involves the chief.

 Filed on April 14, the grievance takes issue with Duffy’s off-duty arrest of a man in possession of marijuana on March 20. The chief, who is not part of the collective bargaining unit, should not be allowed to perform bargaining unit work, FOP President Bob Martin explained to council last week, but Duffy would be “legally and morally obligated” to stop a crime if he came upon one in progress.
Martin clarified that the March 20 case was an example of the chief leaving his home to conduct police work, but noted that the chief also “happens to be a part of the collateral damage” in their attempt to convince city administration “to sit down and negotiate” the terms of their contracts.

It is pretty easy to see who the hero is in this story — hats off to you, Police Chief Dan Duffy.

Big Government

Americans Discern Correctly that Public Schools are a Poor ‘Investment’

We continue to hear the rhetoric from teachers unions and others in the education establishment that we need to “invest” more in America’s public schools.

Want smarter, better-prepared kids, the teacher unions ask? Give us more money! (And get the “rich” to pay for it.)

That’s been the nation’s approach to public education for, oh, the last 50 years.

But after decades of increased education spending, it’s time to ask the obvious question: What kind of return are American taxpayers getting for all this “investment”?

The answer: not much.

According to a  new survey by Rasmussen Reports, a whopping 72% of taxpayers say they “are not getting a good return on what they spend on public education, and just one-in-three voters think spending more will make a difference.”

Americans are correctly discerning that simply spending more money will not improve educational outcomes.

Sure, throwing more dollars at education helps shore up the teacher unions’ Cadillac health insurance and pension plans. The money also helps cover automatic step raises for teachers. The problem is, none of those things help children read better or compute a calculus equation. Not one iota.

Think of it this way: If you owned stock in a company that was producing a lousy, inferior product that the public was unhappy with, would you buy more stock in that company?

If you’re a savvy investor, you’d demand new leadership that has a clear plan for producing a better product before you gave them a single dollar more.

Why shouldn’t the same principle apply to public schools?

For years, the teachers union and their surrogates in elective office could get away with guilting Americans into spending more on public education. It was for the children, after all!

It was a cozy setup. More education dollars meant more union dues and more union political contributions for Democrats (and the occasional incompetent Republican who bought into the teacher union propaganda). Everyone benefitted.  Except the students.

This Rasmussen poll indicates that Americans are catching onto this racket.

If the nation’s public schools were producing college-ready, workforce-ready graduates, there is little doubt that Americans would be willing to spend even more money on public education.

But our education system is graduating many students who are lacking in basic skills. The number of college freshmen who have to take remedial English and math classes just to get up to academic speed is an indictment of the entire system.  “Kids Aren’t Cars” told the story of a graduate who couldn’t read his own diploma.

If leaders of the education establishment want more of our money, they must show a commitment to quality. That means holding teachers accountable (merit pay, ending tenure) and providing students with greater choices in education (charter schools, online learning). Do those things, National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers, and then we’ll talk about more spending.

Until that happens, 72% of Americans understand that more school spending is simply throwing good money after bad.

Big Government

Retarded Leftist Projection: The Dark Soul of Collectivism

Adam BaldwinPosted by Adam Baldwin Apr 28th 2011 at 2:50 pm in Featured Story, New Media, Obama

A queer rhetorical and ideological alliance is found recently between President Obama and Joe Guzzardi, a senior writing fellow for Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) and a prominent contributor to, which Leftists have denounced as a “White Supremacist/hate group” website.

Mr. Guzzardi writes:
population control [is] the ultimate green practice. As long as the most environmentally enlightened Americans ignore the relationship between population growth and environmental sustainability, then America will lose the green fight. In the 1970s, reducing population was so mainstream that biologist and Stanford University Professor Paul Ehrlich regularly appeared on the Johnny Carson Show as an advocate. Today, it’s rarely mentioned…

[A] solution to slowing America’s population… advocate for limiting family size. Having two or more children is not an obligation.
In a stunning display, Mr. Obama echoes Guzzardi’s “solution” in a recent town hall appearance. During the question-and-answer, Mr. Obama singled out for Alinsky-ridicule at least two attendees for their dissent in driving “Big SUV/Monster Trucks,” and having too many kids:

Obama has also championed abortion and callously mocked the Special Olympics and “water heads.”
The Urban Dictionary defines “water head” as “a person with mental health problems, i.e. downs syndrome, or retard.”

Paul Erlich’s Malthusian indoctrination, taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger’s targeting of the “feeble-minded,” or maybe even daddy issues, during these men’s formative years likely explains their eugenicist synergy.

Coincidentally arises the vile “humor” of Jack Steuf at Wonkette, a website that is to internet satire as Westboro Baptist is to churches.

Stuef targeted for ridicule three-year-old Trig Palin — whose mother, Sarah, is a political enemy of Stuef and Obama. Stuef called Trig “retarded,” “born somewhat alive,” and incapable of dreaming. Wonkette is now reaping the moral and financial consequences of the Stuef publication.

While the term “retarded” itself is not a cause for offense, as pointed out by K. J. Adan in her Open Letter to Jack Stuef, his assertion that retarded people cannot dream is an unwitting admission of ignorance. Adan points out, “The new politically correct term is ‘mentally challenged’ or ‘intellectually disabled’, but mentally retarded is a correct way to describe [her brother],” so “The issue is that you don’t know what retarded people can and can’t do.”

Stuef “apologized” on his blog, apparently in shame for the use of a non-PC term, but not the degrading things he said about a Down Syndrome toddler, his family who loves him, or the images he used before Adan’s post went up. He later sent a tweet of thanks for her perspective, so an outreach for understanding at least made his radar.

Why Leftists feel compelled to dehumanize their fellow man in order to make political hay is easily explained.

They need control over others to perpetuate their anti-humanitarian ideology. An ideology whose own intellectual disability agitates for, and all too often has achieved the prior restraint of centralized population control, economic control, even thought control (i.e., Political Correctness “hate crime”).

As much as Leftists covet other people’s money, they seem to detest other people’s children — unless of course those children can be exploited as political props; human shield victim-mascots used in pursuit of narcissistic political ends.

Although many Leftists detest children altogether, those who do have children of their own proudly hold them up as an example of the proper family. The Obamas have their two, and that fits into the Leftist paradigm of the intellectually responsible family. Obama, Erlich, Sanger, Stuef et al. ridicule and denounce the natural family — which may or may not include the intellectually disabled — as irresponsible.

One can read the subtext plainly. Smart (i.e., socially conscious) people ought to perpetuate their genes, while the stupid (bitter clingers to guns, God, and individual Liberty) ought to be limited. Genetic diversity is forsaken for the leftist code word “diversity,” which means “You idiots wouldn’t know a balsamic reduction if it dripped on your can of Bud.”

History proves how truly evil governments must be to limit genetic diversity.

And, as per Greg Gutfeld, if you disagree with them, you’re fair game to be demonized as “unsustainable,” “retards,” or worse… aborted before ever having the chance to learn about and fight against Leftism’s retarded, bankrupt, anti-humanitarian creed.

Big Journalism

Obama’s Birth Certificate Proved Americans Are Powerless

Jeffrey Scott ShapiroPosted by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro Apr 27th 2011 at 7:12 pm in Featured Story, Mainstream Media, Obama, media bias

Many Americans were shocked yesterday when President Obama finally released his long form birth certificate from the State of Hawaii. The real surprise however is that for the past three years our democratic institutions did not address the matter.

The press refused to tackle this issue with the same investigative drive with which they did investigated Watergate, President Clinton’s alleged indiscretions and the Bush administration’s missteps in Iraq – the courts declined to hear a single case on the issue, and the Congress failed to hold any hearings on the matter.   Perhaps the saddest part of this story is its ending.

President Obama did not release the birth certificate because the media pressured him or because the courts actually listened to one of the many cases that were filed. He released it because an obsessed billionaire threatened his electability in 2012, which forces us to ask the question – what good are our democratic institutions if they don’t stand up for the people?

Journalists did not address the fact that the president was refusing to resolve an issue about his constitutional eligibility. Instead, they covered the “birther” movement in an effort to discredit any American who had a legitimate question. Mainstream press organizations did not want to get grouped in with “birthers” since they had been effectively compared to the 9/11 “truther” movements, and anyone who raised birth certificate questions was labeled paranoid, crazy and even racist. However, there’s a big difference between people who just wanted to see Obama’s birth certificate and those who believe that our own government caused the worst terrorist attack in American history, especially when there is already a mountain of evidence pointing to al-Qaeda as the perpetrators.

With the Obama birth certificate issue, the archive of evidence was slim, and his refusal to release the more extensive version of his birth certificate rightfully created more suspicion. In fact, the Obama birth certificate issue is more similar to what happened when President Clinton refused to give a straight answer about his indiscretions in the White House.

The more the president evaded the issue, the more curious and upset people became. Americans want to know who their president is, plain and simple – and they have a right to know. Citizens who have wanted the issue resolved were frustrated because they felt powerless. The courts declined to hear cases filed and the Fourth Estate refused to pursue the story to get it resolved. Congress did nothing.

The more our institutions remained inactive on the issue, the more powerless we felt and the angrier we became, prompting us to question what good it was to have democratic institutions if they didn’t exercise their power. The courts repeatedly used the excuse that Americans filing suit in federal court lacked standing to get access to the birth certificate. Although the document may have been a vital health record protected under federal and state law, there was a higher constitutional issue of the president’s eligibility at stake.

If the people didn’t have standing on that issue, who did? Our government and our Fourth Estate failed America in this case. We the people of the United States had a right to resolution on this crucial issue, but no one did anything about it. In the end, the White House only relented because they knew it could cost them votes and a much more expensive 2012 presidential run for Obama. Money, not democracy was the currency that brought this issue to a final resolution.

 Big Journalism

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Move Along, Mullahs Say, ‘Nothing to See Here’

The following comes from someone in the financial industry who for professional reasons must remain anonymous:

Rep. Peter King’s  congressional hearings last month on the radical threat from Islam has been on the receiving end of caterwauling from liberals, Muslim radicals, assorted allies of the religion of peace, including the lame-stream media.  But for the all the protests the numbers speak for themselves.
First of all, nearly all the armed conflicts that are either recent or in progress around the world, not even withstanding the recent uprisings in Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Syria and Tunisia, have Muslims as a combatant on one side of the conflict, and in some cases, both sides.  Muslims are involved in nearly every recent armed conflict in the world.  Why exactly is that?

Recent wars with Muslim aggressors. In the 1990s violence occurred between Muslims and non-Muslims occurred in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kashmir, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, the Middle East, Sudan, Nigeria., Algeria, Chad, Sudan (Darfur), Somalia, Erithrea/Ethiopia, Nigeria,Western Sahara, Morocco, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Gaza strip, Cyprus, Pakistan/India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Indonesia, Philipines China, Russia, Albania, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Armenia, Azerbijan, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Uzbeskistan, Thailand and Kashmir.  Forgive me, if I left any other Islamic battleground out. .

The list would be nearly twice as long if it were to include countries suffering from systemic Islamic terrorism such as in England, Germany, Spain and the United States.
Here is Arab Psychiatrist Wafi Sultan in a clash with Egyptian Islamist cleric on Al-Jazeera TV. You’ll love it!

Domestic Terrorism. Now why should the US hold congressional hearings or be concerned by the religion of peace? First, although most readers haven’t forgotten 9/11, most have forgotten that this was not the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center.  That happened in 1993. That resulted in merely 1,040 injured and 6 deaths.

Every year, it seems as though the FBI and Interpol are foiling dozens of terrorist plots or actions of Islamic extremists. Unfortunately, some they miss preventing. Last year in Glendale, Arizona, a woman dies from injuries suffered when her father runs her down with a car for being too ‘Westernized.’ Also last year, an owner of a television station in Buffalo, NY which was established to show to Americans the peacefulness and normalcy of Islam in the US, goes on to behead his wife and then uses “spousal abuse” as his defense in court.

Every year, the FBI is intercepting Muslim terrorist plots in the US, few get much coverage.  The last one that did get serious coverage was the foiled Christmas day bomber in 2009.  But that was only one of many that the FBI uncovered.  Every name currently on the FBI terrorist most wanted list are Muslims. Imams are often telling their congregants not to cooperate with the FBI.  Is that a part of freedom of speech or do we have a 3rd column, rife with traitors aide by a complicity and politically correct court system that is aligned with these traitors?  I don’t know if we have a full fledged 3rd column in the US, but it often appears that way.

The Patriotic Muslim. We often hear that the Muslim community is very patriotic and that they love America just like you and I.  But consider this simple litmus test of being an American:
There are just 3,409 Muslims in the active-duty military as of April 2008, according to Pentagon statistics.   However, according to the U.S. News and World Report, there were 5 million Muslims in the US in 2008.   This would put the percentage of Muslims serving in the US military at about .0006 percent.  That’s just 6 ten-thousands of one percent! This is by far, the lowest percentage of any religious or ethnic group in the United States.   And unfortunately, of the few who do serve in the military, watch your back, many may have religious objections to actually fighting in America’s wars.  Certainly, Fort Hood’s Nidal Malik Hasan, a major, a psychiatrist and a certified nutcase, who murdered 13 and wounded 29 others is the most famous objector.

The Arabic speaking shortage at the FBI. Here’s another litmus test for Islamic citizens to show their American patriotism:  Arabic speakers are not seeking positions in the FBI, despite a huge need.  Less than one percent of the Bureaus 12,000 agents can speak any Arabic.   And this dismal record is despite of aggressive marketing efforts to the Arabic community.  It’s not hard to make a reasonable conclusion.  The Arabic speaking community is apparently reluctant to help root out the terrorists among us.

In this video Lebanese born, Brigitte Gabriel, offers an explanation of the Muslim’s national identity schizophrenia in America.  She recounts the growing threat of Islam to Americans. She’s alarmed that 26% of Muslims in America support suicide bombings to achieve Sharia law.

Nearly, every major critic of Islam in Europe or America has a Fatwa for death on their head.  Seattle cartoonist, Molly Norris, of “Draw Mohammed Day” fame is in hiding. And worse, her paper will no longer publish her. Chilling.  South Park creators have a Fatwa too for some mild satire and hired extra security.  Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch filmaker and critic of Islam should have gone into hiding sooner.  He was killed by Islamic radicals for his work.   Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the beautiful, recovering Muslim and writer of Submission, a film critical of Islam, is still in hiding.

Rep. King was right to conduct those hearings.  They were long overdue. But the hearings should be just a beginning to a long investigation as to why home grown terrorism is rampant in the US and what we can do about combating it.  Then comes the heavy lifting; when Americans rise up and change the politically correct policies that are choking us.  We have a long row to hoe.  As of now, we still have a very generous immigration policy to those who hail from nations that support terrorism.  Thank you, Obama, we’ll show you the door in 2012.

Big Peace

Endangered listing of lizard may shut down Texas oil

April 27, 2011
Greg Halvorson

You can't make this up.  First, a Spotted Owl destroyed the timber industry of the Pacific Northwest, then a minnow turned the most productive agricultural land in the world into a dustbowl, and now, as energy prices spike and the economy sputters, they're going after Texas with a scurrilous reptile.   

Specifically, the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard.  That's the latest more-important-than-people critter being used to lock-up resources in the name of planet Earth.  The drilling moratorium didn't cause enough pain, so onto the Endangered Species Act - known at the Sierra Club as "Ol' Reliable" - to make certain Texas has lizard-filled poverty.   

Lizard or livelihood?  That's what's at stake.  And the pro-poverty Earth Firsters stratifying government can't have both.  If it determines that the lizard is indeed endangered, the Fish and Wildlife Service will shut down the most productive oil counties in Texas, ban roads, and slow farm activity, as it "studies the ecosystem" for up to five years.   

This should please Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, who in 2008 said, "We must increase gas taxes to force people to turn to alternative energy.  Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in Europe."

That's the goal-Europe.  Low growth.  High taxes.  As our economy shrivels and land is restricted, as we ignore wealth beneath our feet and slide toward uncertainty, they slither along, creating dependency....  Sauve le lezard!

They should say it in French.  

American Thinker