Tea Party To GOP: We Built Your Majority

by Tony Lee 29 Aug 2012

 Tuesday's theme at the Republican National Convention was "We Built It," but the night's speakers did not reference or mention the Tea Party movement that built the current Republican majority in the House during the 2010 midterm elections and infused a party that seemed all but moribund after the 2008 elections and the latter part of George W. Bush's presidency with enthusiasm, life, confidence, money, manpower, purpose, and a little swagger. On Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who, like his father, Ron, is one of the most prominent symbols of the Tea Party movement that revolted in part against the spending habits of Republicans and Democrats during the last decade, addressed the RNC.

But even Paul did not explicitly mention or make note, by name, of the Tea Party movement.

This has left many Tea Partiers to wonder if the Romney campaign and the RNC are deliberately trying to disassociate the Republican and Romney brands on the national stage from the Tea Party brand that has given them momentum against Obama. Tea Party members were also perturbed, to say the least, that the RNC passed rules concerning delegate selection and convention rules that stripped power away from the grassroots on Tuesday.

"Their words and their actions speak for themselves," Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the influential Tea Party Patriots wrote. "The term 'tea party' appears to have been banned from the convention."

This strategy is risky for Romney and Republicans for three reasons.

First, 2012 is going to be a base election, and Tea Party voters need to turn out enthusiastically for Romney for him to win. Second, should Romney win, this strategy could potentially create a rift between establishment Republicans and the Tea Party, making it tougher for Romney to govern and push his agenda.

Third, should Romney lose, the feud with the Tea Party could potentially cause an even bigger internecine conflict.

On Wednesday, Paul spoke about some of the themes Tea Partiers hold most dear. He discussed how the “explosion of debt is unconscionable and unsustainable” and “Republicans and Democrats must slay their sacred cows” when it comes to military and domestic spending, respectively.

He also talked about his aversion to Obamacare and defending “our God-given rights.”

"We have nothing to fear except our own unwillingness to defend what is naturally ours, our God-given rights," Paul said. "To thrive we must believe in ourselves again, and we must never -- never -- trade our liberty for any fleeting promise of security."

But he did not mention the Tea Party -- or its successes -- by name.

On Tuesday night, three prominent Tea Party politicians -- Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley -- addressed the RNC without mentioning or making reference to the Tea Party movement of which they are a part.

Cruz spoke movingly about his father and said that when his dad came to America, "él no tenía nada, pero tenía corazón. He had nothing, but he had heart, a heart for freedom."
"Something extraordinary is happening, something that has dumbfounded the chattering class,” Cruz said. “What is happening is a Great Awakening.”

The heart (or corazón, as Cruz would say) of this Great Awakening, though, has been the Tea Party movement, and it may be symbolic that the movement's greatest star -- former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- is, like any mention or reference to the Tea Party movement, nowhere to be found in Tampa, Florida.

Photo credit: Human Events

Big Government

Government Clampdown on Free Speech: Marine vs. Occupier

August 29, 2012
By M. Catharine Evans

In mid-August, government and law enforcement officials went to former Marine Brandon Raub's door with no warrant.  They questioned Raub about what they considered ominous Facebook postings, handcuffed him, and forced him to undergo a psych evaluation at a local hospital.

The 26-year-old North Chesterfield, Virginia man was taken into custody by FBI and Secret Service agents as well as Chesterfield police for posting anti-government messages on his private Facebook page.
Raub was released on August 23, but not before he was transferred to a veterans' hospital psychiatric unit 188 miles away from his home.

John W. Whitehead, a constitutional lawyer and executive director of the Virginia-based Rutherford Institute, dispatched two of the group's attorneys to represent Raub at a mental health hearing.  Whitehead expressed concern that government officials were monitoring citizens' private Facebook accounts and targeting people with opposing views.

For government officials to not only arrest Brandon Raub for doing nothing more than exercising his First Amendment rights but to actually force him to undergo psychological evaluations and detain him against his will goes against every constitutional principle this country was founded upon[.] ...

The posts I read that supposedly were of concern were libertarian-type posts I see all the time[.] ...

Dee Rybiski, an FBI spokeswoman in Richmond, Virginia, said there was no Facebook intrusion.

"We received quite a few complaints about what were perceived as threatening posts," she said. "Given the circumstances with the things that have gone on in the country with some of these mass shootings, it would be horrible for law enforcement not to pay attention to complaints."

Ms. Rybiski should have added, "Unless the person in question is in agreement with the current administration."

Raub's exercise of his First Amendment rights didn't come close to the violent Facebook postings of a 26-year-old Philadelphia man, Joshua Scott Albert. 

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the former restaurant worker launched a "Kill Mitt Romney" page earlier this month.  Then, just days ago, Albert, the creator of a well-known site which criticized the restaurant industry, posted another incendiary page in support of two alleged cop-killers.  The "I Support Chancier McFarland & Rafael Jones" page showed graphic "images of police officers, one headless and the other with no hands."

The U.S. Secret Service said it was aware of the "Kill Mitt Romney" post, but apparently Albert's direct threat against a presidential candidate didn't warrant an involuntary trip to a psych facility.

"We are aware of it and we are taking appropriate investigative steps," Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan told FoxNews.com.

Donovan said Albert could potentially face prosecution, if the page is deemed more than an ill-advised lark.

"People have a right to free speech, but we have to determine what their intent is," Donovan said.

In an interview with the Philly Post, Albert said his support for alleged cop-killers was "a joke, a parody."  He also says he's hiding out somewhere in New England:

There are reports that District Attorney Seth Williams is looking into the possibility of filing charges against you. Have you spoken with an attorney?

No. I know that I've done nothing illegal. I am completely conscious of that. I have not made any threats. I would not make any threats. And I genuinely don't want Mitt Romney to be assassinated. That page hasn't gone national, has it? No one else has reported on it, have they? ... I hope he gets elected so I have something to make fun of. And no, that's not me endorsing Mitt Romney.

So, again, I ask you. Why don't you just go away?

I enjoy the humor aspect of me being able to say all this. But in all honesty, I am living in a remote area in New England. I mean remote.

Why the double standard?  Raub, a former Marine who served his country from 2005 to 2011, gets picked up at his home by various government personnel while the Secret Service protects Albert's right to free speech.

Could it be that Albert was involved with Occupy Philly?  A December 6, 2011 article in the Philadelphia Weekly made mention of none other than Joshua Scott Albert.  The then 25-year-old occupier described a confrontation with police at an early December Occupy protest.

The article makes it clear that videos obtained that evening suggested the occupiers were the ones responsible for any rough stuff.

Joshua Scott Albert, 25, says he was attacked twice by cops that night. Albert says a cop threw him up against the wall at the 7-11 near 18th and JFK. "I was on the ground and they hit me with their bikes," says Albert. "I preface this by saying since day one, I have not been friendly to the cops ... I've said some really harsh things to them, but they have a gun and badge."

Earlier this year, Albert was arrested for disorderly conduct after giving a cop the finger.
"They were going to arrest me until the crowd shouted, 'Let him go.'" He says he has a bruise on his shin.

"There was a barricade there [that] we took down," says Albert. "We started running. Sgt. Smith of Civil Affairs grabbed me by the neck, slammed me up against the news stand, and held me there for a good few seconds, taunting me."

It's pretty obvious with the tale of these two 26-year-olds which way the wind is blowing.  Raub is hauled in for a mental health examination because he's not too keen on the current administration, while Albert gets a pass for his unabashed hatred of Romney and cops.

The Obama regime will just ignore Albert's little lark.  Not so with Raub.
Remember this administration's support of the Occupy movement?  Obama defended the protesters as exhibiting a "broad-based frustration" with the folks in the Republican Party and Congress.

Who can forget Obama's attorney general looking the other way when Black Panthers put a bounty on George Zimmerman's head?  Or when Holder refused to prosecute the club-wielding thugs stationed at a polling booth in 2008?

Now a former Marine is shoved into a police car in violation of his constitutional rights while an Occupier with an arrest record and a bona fide threat against a presidential candidate is protected.

Read more M. Catharine Evans at Potter Williams Report.

American Thinker

New SEAL Ad Hammers Obama for Bowing to Foreign Leaders

Leah Barkoukis 

“We sacrifice not because we have to. We bleed not because we want to. We fight because we need to - and sometimes, we die because we love this country. I believe in American exceptionalism. As a Navy SEAL I fought so that I would never have to see my president bow to anyone.”

Obama bowing to Japan’s Emperor Akihito:

Obama bowing to Saudi King Abdullah:

Obama bowing to Mexican President Felipe Calderon:

SoFA has been involved in the slight controversy going on regarding the role of veterans’ groups in politics (read: liberals are upset they’re criticizing the president for national security leaks and politicizing the raid that killed OBL).  Four of these groups were even added to an Obama campaign’s ‘enemies list’ – SoFA included.

Former Navy SEAL and Montana State Senator Ryan Zinke launched SoFA in July as “a call of duty to take back America from a Commander-in-Chief that is incapable of understanding the sacrifices that have been made for the values that have made America great.” In an interview with Breitbart, Zinke offers some perspective on the new ad and what role former SEALs should have in speaking out politically:

“The ad itself accurately portrays where this President is,” said Zinke. “It accurately portrays his core belief that America should not lead. This president is shaping America to be one of the followers, to relinquish our role as a world leader. I didn’t fight 23 years as a Navy SEAL to watch America bow to anybody.”

He continued, “It’s not just the king of Saudi Arabia. My friends from WWII that fought in the Pacific theater -- when they see the president bow to the emperor of Japan, I’ve seen veterans cry. This is about the fundamental belief in American exceptionalism, the notion that America should reign supreme. We are a country of values, and we fought hard to be exceptional, and we are.”

When asked whether it was inappropriate for former SEALs to speak out, as some on the left have alleged, Zinke answered, “If the veterans can’t speak out, who can? I think it’s a duty of every veteran and every citizen to be actively involved in our political process, especially when the president sets out to negotiate away our rights under the Constitution. There have been other veterans -- TR, Eisenhower, JFK -- they’ve been active in speaking out and shaping the policy and politics of our country. I’m going to stand for what I believe in, and I’m encouraging every veteran and every citizen to do the same. Our country is at a crossroads, and this election is certainly the most important in my lifetime.”

Townhall

Malkin: Grassroots Activists Battle Attempt To Rig GOP Convention Delegate Rules; UPDATE: Mark Levin Weighs In. Update II Crisis Averted?

Posted by: Mary Beth House | Follow Mary Beth on Twitter!

Michelle Malkin has posted an urgent call to action for all conservatives concerned with preserving the integrity of who has the power with regard to state delegates:

Drew McKissick is a longtime conservative activist and blogger who is in attendance at the Republican National Convention’s Rules Committee meetings. He and others on the ground are sounding the alarm over rules changes that he and many other attendees believe will hurt grass-roots movement conservatives. The battle is being cast by some observers as a narrow fight between Ron Paul advocates and the rest of the party. Drew says that’s not true. And many other state delegations who oppose top-down delegate choices are chiming in.

First, here’s Drew’s call to arms (my emphasis added in bold):
Fellow conservatives,

Those who are in Tampa working to maintain the influence of grassroots conservatives in the Republican Party need your help!

This past Friday, the RNC’s Convention Rules Committee voted – after several contentious votes – to change the party’s rules to allow future presidential candidates to have veto power over who can be delegates from any state – in other words, take power away from the grassroots and their ability to elect fellow conservatives as delegates.

This represents a brazen move by several Washington Beltway consultants and party insiders to diminish the power and influence of conservatives over the party.

At least 29 members of this committee are filing Minority Reports to the full convention to try and make sure that these changes are NOT adopted into the final changes the full convention will approve on Tuesday. But we need your help to spread the word. 28 members are required to issue a minority report for the convention to even consider…and you can be sure others are working behind the scenes to peel some of them off before the meeting…so we need to create pressure for others to join!

Let me stop here and say that this is NOT…REPEAT NOT a move by a bunch of disgruntled Ron Paul supporters. This is a group of long-time conservative activists, even “party regulars” and lots of Romney supporters, many who go back to the Goldwater days.

We need to generate enough PUBLIC PRESSURE from grassroots conservatives that they will back off before Tuesday meeting and withdraw their changes so that we can avoid the need for a minority report and floor fight [altogether].

Here’s what we need before Tuesday’s session of the convention:

1) We need all conservative Republican grassroots supporters to contact their state GOP and let them know that they OPPOSE the rules change that will give future presidential campaigns control over who gets to be a delegate (current RULE 15, but is being renumbered to 16)…and OPPOSE the new RULE 12 which allows the RNC to change the rules at any time between conventions.

2) We need them to contact any DELEGATES to the convention they may know and tell them they OPPOSE the rules change and want them to support a move on the floor to amend this change via the MINORITY REPORTS – and support a demand for a ROLL CALL VOTE if necessary.

3) We need them to contact the CONVENTION RULES COMMITTEE members for their state (each state has two) and tell them they want them to SIGN THE MINORITY REPORTS before Tuesday’s session at 2:00PM. You can find a copy of the list here.

4) Finally, we would like them to help us spread the word that this is an insider power grab by a bunch of DC Beltway types who want consultants to be able to pick who the delegates are from their respective states in the future – AS WELL AS FUTURE PLATFORM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. Post a link to this page on Facebook and Twitter…spread the word on the media…COMPLAIN. Let everyone know this is wrong, and that it is ANTI-GRASSROOTS!

Click here for more details and additional updates.
Michelle also posted a list of the State Republican Party phone numbers:

Please locate the phone number of your State Republican Party Headquarters below, call them immediately, and tell them to oppose Romney’s new rules that strip grassroots activists of the ability to participate in the Republican platform process:
Alabama (205) 212-5900
Alaska (907) 276-4467
Arizona (602) 957-7770
Arkansas (501) 372-7301
California (916) 448-9496
Colorado (303) 758-3333
Connecticut (860) 422-8211
Delaware (302) 668-1954
District of Columbia (202) 289-8005
Florida (850) 222-7920
Georgia (404) 257-5559
Hawaii (808) 593-8180
Idaho (208) 343-6405
Illinois (312) 201-9000
Indiana (317) 635-7561
Iowa (515) 282-8105
Kansas (785) 234-3456
Kentucky (502) 875-5130
Louisiana (225) 389-4495
Maine (207) 622-6247
Maryland (410) 263-2125
Massachusetts (617)-523-5005
Michigan (517) 487-5413
Minnesota (651) 222-0022
Mississippi (601) 948-5191
Missouri (573) 636-3146
Montana (406) 442-6469
Nebraska (402) 475-2122
New Hampshire (603) 225-9341
North Carolina (919) 828-6423
Oregon (503) 595-8881
South Dakota (605) 224-7347
Vermont (802) 223-3411
Wisconsin (608) 257-4765
Nevada (702) 258-9182
New Jersey (609) 989-7300
North Dakota (701) 255-0030
Pennsylvania (717) 234-4901
Tennessee (615) 269-4260
Virginia (804) 780-0111
Wyoming (307) 234-9166
New Mexico (505) 298-3662
Ohio (614) 228-2481
Rhode Island (401) 732-8282
Texas (512) 477-9821
Washington (425) 460-0570
New York (518) 462-2601
Oklahoma (518) 462-2601
South Carolina (803) 988-8440
Utah (803) 988-8440
West Virginia (304) 768-0493

In summary:

Step 1:  Call your State GOP Headquarters and let them know you oppose the rules change.

Step 2:  Contact any delegates you might know and urge them to act regarding the rules change.

Step 3: Contact your state’s Rules Committee members and tell them to SIGN THE MINORITY REPORTS before Tuesday’s session at 2:00PM. This is where you find the list of all the state Rules Committee Members.

Time is of the essence so do your part by following the above simple steps and share this everywhere.
Let’s make some noise, barbarians!

UPDATE:  The Great One wrote about this earlier today on Facebook:

Damn it, defeat this RINO power grab!
Conservatives of all stripes, especially Tea Party activists, this is an attempt to destroy your ability to influence the presidential and vice presidential nomination process in the Republican Party.  It is an attempt to eviscerate the input of state parties.  It is a brazen assault on the grassroots.  And it is sleazy to the core.

If I didn’t know better, I’d think Obama was behind it.  Instead, Romney’s operatives are orchestrating it.

He also discussed this issue in great detail on his radio show tonight.  CLICK HERE to listen via The Right Scoop.

UPDATE II:  According to this report, a compromise has been reached:

Republican leaders moved Monday to quell an uprising by Texans and Ron Paul supporters that threatened to steal the spotlight from GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and expose rifts in the party right as its nominating convention got under way.

Under a compromise reached late Monday, Romney supporters and GOP leaders agreed to back down from a proposed rule change that effectively would have allowed presidential nominees to choose what delegates represent them at national conventions.
…
Republicans who sought the rule change had tried to quash the uprising by Texas, Louisiana, Virginia and other states, for fear of a damaging, public battle erupting on the convention floor Tuesday, just before the party formally names Romney its candidate.
Ultimately, they backed down.
…
“This will allow Republicans of all stripes to come to the convention united and focused on defeating Barack Obama in November,” they said.

Under the deal, delegates who are bound to a presidential candidate that hasn’t bowed out of the race or released them to vote for another contender are barred from casting a vote for a different person. During this convention, the change effectively would mean a delegate bound to

Mitt Romney could not instead opt to throw his or her support behind Ron Paul, who has not freed his delegates.

Any vote for another candidate would be voided and the delegate would lose his or her position.

But under the compromise, states would still able to select individual delegates under their own laws and party rules. GOP leaders agreed to remove the rule change provision that would have allowed state-party-selected delegates to be disavowed.

Spokesmen for the Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee did not respond to requests for comment.

Conservatives 4 Palin

Sleeping with the Enemy in the 'War On Women'

August 26, 2012
By Clarice Feldman

It wasn't long ago that Barack Obama's supporters pointed to his successful campaign as proof of his executive ability, responding to truthful claims he had no executive experience.  As this year's flailing campaign matches his amateurish handling of the presidency, and the third Recovery Summer shows the US economy in worse shape than it was before all this recovering took place, Democratic women  are manning their enemy's ramparts while preposterously claiming it is the Republicans who  are waging a "war on women".

Governor Romney has correctly noted that 92.3% of the jobs lost under Obama were women's jobs. But in an effort to distract from the fact that their mishandling of the economy has had dire affects on the lives of women, Democrats plan to highlight at their convention Sandra Fluke to remind us that Obamacare will provide women with "free" contraceptives. You'd have to be even more innumerate than the President is to believe that a benefit worth about $9 a month -which you will in fact be paying for   through that benighted legislation-beats the opportunity to earn a living.

And best of all, the show the "War on Women" will not only feature Fluke, but as well, Caroline Kennedy and Bill Clinton. In case you are ignorant of recent history, Jack Cashill kindly has reminded us of the way the Kennedy men and Clinton treated women. Perhaps the names of women victims of Clinton and the Kennedys should be run as a chyron under the broadcasts for those with faltering recollections.
Do women need extra assistance from the government now?

I don't think so. In fact like many I think the pendulum has swung too far and needs to be righted. (See Christine Hoff Sommers Who Stole Feminism?). These days there really is a War on Men, especially White Men . My friend Jane Woodworth, who organized a tea party in Massachusetts, runs her own firm and co-hosts an weekly radio show "Fun with Dick and Jane," apologizes for tooting her own horn in this post, but I repeat it because I think it accurately reflects the experience of many women of her generation.

I really want to know more about this war on women? Is it something new? Cause I recall another iteration of it.

I started working in the 2nd grade (giving out milk and cookies to get mine free). NO one told me a boy should have the job. I worked every year after that. I worked in the cafeteria, I babysat all through high school. I don't know of any boys who had got jobs babysitting. I was even allowed to dish out ice cream to hungry customers.

I went to college, I can't remember any problem being female in getting in. I can't even remember worrying about it. I certainly was allowed to work the whole time I was at college, both at the school and in the community. No one ever told me I didn't have the correct anatomy to bag groceries or wait on tables.

Of course it all changed when I got out. I needed a job. I applied to be a claims adjuster.

Liberty Mutual had recently been told they had to let women be claims adjusters. Who knows if some guy was more qualified than I? But times were different so they put me in the front of the line. 2 years later I was asked to apply to be a Risk Manager in a growing software company. They wanted a woman because the 2 other people in the department were men. I have no idea how many resumes they got from qualified men. But I went straight to the front of the line.

I got into MBA school - which I truly sucked at. Some guy would probably have done better.

And then I applied to law school. The fact that I was both older (by then) and a woman, guaranteed my acceptance. I couldn't hold a candle to either the men or women who were there straight out of college. They had to have much better credentials just to get accepted. I only had to be female and old. I was apparently the face of past discrimination, and clearly deserved to go to the front of the line over and over again.

I was able to get a job in a law firm during my first year - I'm pretty sure that was based on my resume, which I'm pretty sure was helped by the facts I stated above. That firm hired me out of law school and 2 years later I started my own firm. I had an awful lot of clients who wanted a female litigator because they were harder to come by. That woman thing was such a disadvantage.

So someone tell me more about this war. Cause I don't get it.

And I apologize in advance for posting my resume.

I went to college and law school a few years before Jane and my experience was less beneficent by a long shot, but the tide has certainly turned, as another friend, JMH  observes:

Women's options really were a lot more limited, both professionally and socially, when I was growing up, and women had to break through a lot of constraints before the idea of a glass ceiling even kicked in. There have always been women who managed to chart their own courses, but the original women's movement, with all its warts, was truly a paradigm shifting force for the rest of us. They turned into their own worst enemies, alas, after they won the war and didn't put down their weapons.

In  things like college admissions, graduation rates, professional hires, women are simply an advantaged class these days and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

In addition to sharing the podium in Charlotte with one of the worst misogynists of our age and the family representative of a string of them, the Democratic women who agitate under the banner of Code Pink who regularly tart themselves up to look like vaginas plan to send pictures of their vaginas to Republican convention goers.  I bet that will really appeal to women voters. (One wonders how Code Pink would be treated by the Palestinians whose cause they propagandize for. Why not dress like vaginas and parade through the streets of Gaza and let us know how it went?)

Undoubtedly to provide some contrast, the media which will surely broadcast all the ninnies yapping at the Democratic convention  and give Code Pink lots of play have made it clear that they will not cover Anne Romney's address to the Republican convention. Better to let the audience think all the women are on the left side of the fence I suppose.

Why have the Democrats with no viable plans to advance as a campaign plank, chosen, in Rush Limbaugh's words, to make their convention about "death and taxes"?

The Democrats are actually going to turn their convention into a celebration of abortion.
They think that they're on to something so powerful and so big here. They think the "social issues" are death for the Republicans and they think that this is a godsend. It's gonna be woman after woman after woman, and it's gonna be, "Abortion, abortion, abortion! Contraception, contraception, contraception!" It is gonna be the Democrat Party's 30-year-old playbook every night at their convention. So this, as far as I'm concerned -- if they follow through with this -- will officially make them the party of death and taxes.

They hope to capitalize on the unfortunate choice of words of    Todd Akin, a candidate for Senate from Missouri who played into their hands by justifying his belief that even rape doesn't justify abortion, adding that such acts rarely end in pregnancy anyhow.

It's true that he may have hurt his chances in HIS election with his clumsy iteration-though it's a bit early to say because his opponent Claire McCaskill  is not well liked and the issue is still being overplayed. But as Rich Lowry observes, even if the Akin stumble  costs the Republicans a sure Senate pickup the hope of a Republican Senate is far from lost.

Are American women so daft that they'll trade their economic futures and that of their children for a man so desperate to win and so devoid of respect for human life that he repeatedly voted to permit a form of infanticide?

Obama has offered deceptive explanations of his own pro-abortion legislative work, while simultaneously accusing his pro-life opponents of being dishonest. More important, Obama's record as a state senator was not merely pro-choice, but radically pro-abortion. His voting record indicates that he does not believe infants deserve protection even once they have emerged from the womb if they are deemed to be below the age of viability, and he did in fact, three times, vote to keep a form of infanticide legal.

This jockeying for unearned special privileges including the right to kill born alive children reminds me of a Shel Silverstein poem in his wonderful book "Light in the Attic."  It's about a girl named Pamela Purse who always demanded special privileges because of her sex. It didn't end well for her either:

When we went off on our jungle trip.

Pamela Purse said her thirst was worse

And guzzled our water, every sip.

And when we got grabbed by that wild savage band,

Who tied us together and made us all stand

In a long line in front of the King of the land-

A cannibal known as Fry-'Em-Up Dan,

Who sat on his throne in a bib so grand

With a lick of his lips and a fork in his hand,

As he tried to decide who'd be first in the pan-

From back of the line, in that shrill voice of hers,

Pamela Purse yelled, "Ladies first."

American Thinker

Army Report Buried Islamic Motivations For Afghan Murders of US Troops

August 26, 2012
Andrew G. Bostom

On May 12, 2011 a US Army "Red Team" issued an unclassified report which purported to explain the burgeoning rash of murderous attacks (which have since escalated even further, still) by Afghan National Army (ANA) members on US and other NATO troops.

Although the report is dominated by apologetic, cultural relativist drivel which attempts, in vain, to explain away these acts of murder committed against the US and NATO troops by their by ANA "allies," it also includes a crudely buried, sub rosa truthful narrative.

This latter discussion is all that matters, and bears full, clear exposure -- particularly in light of the morally dubious excuse for the most recent spate of such killings of US troops. Specifically,  General Allen in a pronouncement for which he should be forced to resign, maintained that Ramadan fasting, combined with operational tempo during the summer heat, were the drivers of these most recent killings of his own troops by Muslim ANA soldiers.

What General Allen willfully ignores was laid out, albeit clumsily camouflaged, using plain language, fifteen months ago in the "Red Team" report.

Based upon extensive interviews, US and NATO troops, as the report notes, were both disgusted with, and highly (and justifiably) suspicious of, the Islamically-sanctioned practices and behaviors of their Afghan military allies, and Afghan civilians.

[p. 3] U.S. Soldiers' views of ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces], particularly of the ANA, were...extremely negative. They reported pervasive illicit drug use, massive thievery, personal instability, dishonesty, no integrity, incompetence, unsafe weapons handling, corrupt officers, no real NCO [non-commissioned officer] corps, covert alliances/informal treaties with insurgents, high AWOL rates, bad morale, laziness, repulsive hygiene, and the torture of dogs. Perceptions of civilians were also negative stemming from their insurgent sympathies and cruelty towards women and children.

[Specific elaborations on Afghan Muslim treatment of dogs, women, and children; pp. 44-45] Many US soldiers were appalled by the rampant torture of dogs and puppies they witnessed while being based with ANSF units. Many ANSF members are prone to inflicting abuse onto stray dogs they bring to the base for "entertainment" purposes. Other ANSF members, while not condoning the torture, fail to see any importance in such behaviors given the standing of dogs in Islam. Dogs are seen as vermin and many ANSF members find it inexplicable that anyone could be concerned about such "trivial matters," and deeply resent any interference...This animal abuse is a substantial psychological stressor for many US soldiers and has been the cause of many serious social altercations with ANSF members...US soldiers reported that they had observed many cases of child abuse and neglect that infuriated them and alienated them from the civilian populace. They made it very clear that they wanted nothing to do with people who treat children so cruelly. Although not reported by the US soldiers who participated in this study. There have been numerous accounts of Canadian troops in Kandahar complaining about the rampant sexual abuse of children they have witnessed ANSF personnel commit, including the cultural practice of bacha bazi [link - ed], as well as the raping and sodomizing of little boys...Similarly, US soldiers...mentioned the poor treatment and virtual slavery of Women in Afghan society, and how they found such practices repugnant. They found it unpalatable to befriend other men who had such primitive beliefs; the cultural gulf was too wide. They were repulsed by the abuse and neglect they observed in how children are treated in Afghan society. US soldiers largely reported that they did not care for Afghan civilians due to these factors as well as their suspected sympathies for the insurgents.

But the most salient point -- blatantly ignored throughout the feckless conduct of our mission in Afghanistan, till now, and exemplified, glaringly, by General Allen's remarks -- was inserted (as item 40), non-sequitur, amongst 58 other comparatively trivial recommendations.

[p. 50] Better educate US soldiers in the central tenets of Islam as interpreted and practiced in Afghanistan. Ensure that this instruction is not a sanitized, politically correct training package, but rather includes an objective and comprehensive assessment of the totalitarian nature of the extreme theology practiced among Afghans.

As the Pentagon's only serious and honest (and of course now former) expert on Islamic Law, Major Stephen Coughlin observed in 2007:

If the Enemy in the War on Terror (WOT) states that he fights jihad in furtherance of Islamic causes that includes the imposition of Shari'a law and the re-establishment of the Caliphate; And Islamic law on jihad exists and is available in English; Then Professionals with WOT responsibilities have an affirmative, personal, professional duty to know the enemy that includes ALL the knowable facts associated with the law of jihad.

And Coughlin, a well-trained lawyer, further argued that such understanding by our military leaders is obligatory if they are to uphold their essential commission:

This is the Professional Standard.

The Red Team report's acknowledgement, no matter how grudging, of the essential role of Islamic totalitarianism in the ANA's murderous actions against US and NATO troops, suggests our military leadership's current dereliction of duty is even more egregious at present than when Major Coughlin shared his observations in 2007.

American Thinker

Story the Media Won't Tell: Obama Is Losing

by John Nolte 25 Aug 2012

 

Actions speak louder than polls…

 

 

It's 8:21 on a Saturday morning and according to this photo snapped by Sharon Broadie, this is the size of the crowd that showed up in Powell, Ohio, (just outside of Columbus) to see Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan:

Here's a look at the line to get in, and another look at the crowd from another source. And a real jaw-dropper.

Meanwhile, President FailureTeleprompter is relegated to rationalizing his lack of turnout into a "deliberate" desire for smaller, more intimate crowds. Yeah, that sounds like the Mr. Greek Column we've all come to know and grow tired of.

Meanwhile, the media refuses to report on the size of either side's crowds.

Meanwhile, across the country, the documentary film "2016" has just opened wide on over 1,000 screens and in the heart of Hollywood's biggest season hit #3 at the box office.

Meanwhile, though their Media Palace Guards assure us this is not the case, the Obama campaign's increasingly desperate and shrill campaign is acting more and more like a campaign so far behind and so in fear of losing, they feel they have nothing to lose. From "felon" to "chains" to "Mitt killed my wife" to one bald-faced lie after another, President Obama has forsaken the dignity of the office and -- should he win a second term --  all hope of bringing the country together after the kind of scorched-earth campaign only the terrified wage.

Meanwhile, the media is behaving in a manner no less shrill and desperate than their Presidential Master. When the unemployment rate increases, the media tells us that's a good thing. When the economy shrinks from 4.1 to 1.5%, the media still call it "the recovery." When an idiot in Missouri says something stupid about rape and abortion, the media launches into a week-long narrative accusing Republicans of being soft on rape.

Meanwhile, Obama supports infanticide. Romney opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest and when the mother's life is at risk. Yesterday CNN released a poll showing 62% of the American people agree with Romney and only 32% with Obama.

This morning the media was still painting Romney-Ryan as the out-of-touch extremists on this issue.

Meanwhile, yesterday, Mitt Romney made a birth certificate quip and within thirty-minutes those few words received more media attention (and phony outrage) than the record number of American casualties currently mounting in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, as the clock runs down and campaign days grow more and more precious, three days ago, the Obama campaign felt it was a good use of the Vice President to send him to the supposedly safe state of Minnesota.

Meanwhile, yesterday, Mitt Romney was in the true blue state of Michigan.

Something is happening in this country -- something both the Obama campaign and its media cronies know is happening but won't acknowledge.

What's happening is on the ground and not yet quantifiable in polling that doesn’t yet have its sea legs. But it's out there and it's real and before the media and President Obama are forced to acknowledge it, they're spending every bit of their dignity and credibility and integrity to kill it.

Red State's Erick Erickson senses it too.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC