Wednesday, October 31, 2012

How do you kill 11 million people?

Well it seems the theme of the day is Nazi Germany...

While looking for the Hitler Youth video I used in the last post, I stumbled upon this video by Hilmer Von Campe. He was a member of the Hitler Youth and fought for Germany in WWII. It's a long video and could probably be cut in half, but it's an important message about how our government today is closer to Nazism than the Founding Fathers and how 90% of Germans didn't believe in the Nazi ideology but fought for it anyway because they believed the lies they were told. He also says the same kind of ignorance and apathy exists in America today. His message is a warning.



Then 5 minutes ago I see this video at We The People



It's shorter and more poignant...but what blew me away is how eerily similar the messages are. Actually I guess they're more than similar, they're the same. Ever have something keep popping up from different places?? Makes you think you're supposed to pay attention. Well apparently this is what I'm supposed to pay attention to today. And it is a message I fully agree with.

How do you kill 11 million people? By subduing 80 million into inaction.
How many will be killed if 300 million are subdued in America?


"We must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most...and that is the indifference of good men!"

Welcome to 1939 Germany

Well last night I saw a terrible sight. Some channel was showing different political ads being used for the presidential race this year. This was among them:



This ad was produced by The Future Children Project. Their description of the video on YouTube says:

"Re-electing President Obama is a momentous decision that will require every single voter.

What would the children of the future say if we let them down this November?"

Conveniently, commenting on their video is turned off. Guess they knew it wasn't going to go over so well. Luckily someone else uploaded it and allows comments. They are overwhelmingly negative. My favorite one says, "I remember the last time a political leader used children like this. His name was Adolf."

And this does bear a striking resemblance to the "Hitler Youth" of Nazi Germany. Those children were indoctrinated with anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi views at a young age...counted on to become the "future Aryan supermen" of the new German Empire. One aim of the movement was to instill the motivation necessary to enable them to "fight faithfully for the Third Reich."
I remember during a TV special about the rise of Nazi Germany a part dedicated to the Hitler Youth. These kids would go to a summer camp where they were indoctrinated with Nazi viewpoints and then would be encouraged to "lead" their families into joining the Nazi ideology as well. I'll never forget one story where, after returning from a summer camp, two once well behaved young boys began to fight against their parents because "they were the future" and were told not to let anyone, even their parents, stop them from supporting Hitler. One even pulled a knife on his mother when she expressed anti-Hitler views!

While this video is just an ad...and those children were just singing what they were told and weren't forced in any way to believe it...it is an eerie and chilling throwback to a time in history that we should never, ever repeat. And while it may have gone no further than singing a song (this time), indoctrinating children with a certain point of view, especially concerning politics, is always the calling card of evil.


Notice any similarities??

Star Wars sold to Disney, more movies planned!


Big news yesterday for all Star Wars fans (and who isn't really??) as George Lucas sold his company, Lucasfilm Ltd., and the rights to 'Star Wars' to Disney. Yes, Disney. The Walt Disney Company announced that it was buying Lucasfilm from Lucas for $4.05 billion dollars. The real shocker, however, is that Disney has decided to make more original Star Wars movies, starting with "Episode 7" scheduled to be released in 2015. "Episode 7" is set to continue the original story of Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Princess Leia beyond "Return of the Jedi," the 1983 classic that is the last movie in the Star Wars timeline. Episodes 8 and 9 are scheduled to follow in what will be a new trilogy containing the original characters. Disney also plans to release a new Star Wars movie every two to three years after that.

While I'm as diehard a Star Wars fan as any, this news causes some trepidation. Honestly, I don't quite know how to feel about it. On one hand, more Star Wars movies! On the other, what if those movies end up turning Star Wars into a mockery, similar to all those terrible 'Batman' sequels made in the mid-90's?? Also, the originals were SO groundbreaking that they revolutionized the movie industry and changed millions of lives. With new Star Wars projects, I fear the originals will be forgotten. It's already started with "The Clone Wars" TV show...when the question is, "Who's the best bounty hunter?", the answer is Boba Fett...not some dude from "The Clone Wars!" I fear a future where some snot-nosed kid indignantly tells me he's never heard of Han Solo when I bring up my favorite character...then proceeds to tell me the best Star Wars character is some new thing who wouldn't even be worthy to shine Han's boots! That'll be a dark day indeed.

On the bright side, at least when they make the new ones George Lucas won't have anything to do with it, besides some slight consulting. After the horrid choices he made for the prequels (Jar Jar Binks) and the latest Indiana Jones sequel...I think we can all be glad that someone else will be making the Star Wars decisions from now on!

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Obama: "Election has nothing to do" with deaths of Americans in Libya

Friday was a bad day for Barack Obama. First, the news comes out that CIA operators were told to "stand down" when they wanted to go to the consulate in Benghazi to try and help the Ambassador and other Americans there...then in an interview with an NBC affiliate in Denver, the president, when asked about those reports, responded by saying:

"The election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened."

Um...excuse me, Mr. President?? The election has nothing to do with a terrorist attack that took the lives of 4 Americans, your inability or unwillingness to send in rescuers who might've been able to save them, your lies about the attack which lasted for weeks (which you yourself have now confirmed), and your subsequent coverup/dodging of the issue as more reports come out?? What DOES the election have to do with, Big Bird and birth control?

I'm increasingly distraught that ANYONE in America continues to support this man. Some people would support him no matter what...he could strangle a puppy while kicking a baby in the head on national television and there would still be some morons gushing about how great he is! What worries me is that it seems like that number is astronomically high. Either that or an astronomically high number of people just don't pay attention to anything he says or does. Which is why my Facebook page has been drowned recently with articles and stories of his atrocities. But how can this election even be close? I'm beginning to believe an article I read a while ago that said Obama is trying to lose the election; that he hates the responsibility and is passive aggressively trying to derail his re-election by speaking and acting stupidly. That, at least, is a good explanation of how he can be so flippant about important issues. The sad thing is that it isn't dissuading people like it should. If Romney doesn't win this election big...I will lose heart about the state of America and it's future. Because either there are way too many idiots here, or there are way too many people so self-absorbed that nothing that doesn't affect them matters to them. Either way it's bad for America.

But back to this "Libya thing"...because it DOES matter to millions of Americans. Among them are Charles Woods, the father of one of the ex-Navy SEAL's, Tyrone Woods. He is beginning to speak out against the president and his response to this attack. Mr. Woods also has been talking about his meeting with President Obama and Hillary Clinton when his son's body was flown into Andrews Air Force Base. His description of the meeting is disturbing, to say the least. He says President Obama didn't look him in the eyes and merely mumbled some words about being sorry which, to Mr. Woods, sounded insincere and forced. He says Clinton's apology also sounded hollow and forced and that...and this is shocking...she told him that they would find the man who made the anti-Islam film and HAVE HIM ARRESTED! There's almost too much there to properly analyze. First, it was a misguided response. How about getting the terrorists who actually did the killing!? Second, saying you're going to have an American citizen arrested for making a movie is INSANE and against everything America stands for! And the fact that he was, in fact, arrested is disturbingly scary. He was arrested on charges of probation violation, so I had no ground to complain on because he may have very well violated his probation. However, NOW knowing that Hillary said this before he was arrested either means A) they (meaning the federal government) had already begun researching this man to know that he was on probation or B) they had planned to arrest him ILLEGALLY based simply off his making this film.

I'd say someone needs to look more closely at who that man is, what he had done to get on probation in the first place, and who decided he had violated his probation. Because pledging to arrest a man ONLY based on the knowledge that he produced a movie is unconstitutional and illegal. I doubt that we'll get an answer to these things as he's almost become an afterthought. He's also still in jail. How long will he stay there for a "probation violation?" We need to keep an eye on that.

This has gotten long (because there's just SO many things to discuss about it!) so I'll end it now by talking about Tyrone Woods. He was stationed at the "annex," about a mile from the consulate where Ambassador Stevens was killed. When he heard the shots and explosions happening at the consulate, he (along with other unnamed heroes) requested to go to the consulate to help their countrymen. They were denied that request at least twice. But they ignored it, and Tyrone Woods was one of a few men who made their way to the consulate, secured the area for a time while they evacuated personnel, and made their way back to the annex...where, in a mortar attack about 4 hours later, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed. Those two men should be alive today. They died about 6 hours after the assault began...more than enough time to get larger response forces there. Charles Woods said he received an email from one person who was in the consulate that night. It said that his son, Tyrone, saved his life. Tyrone Woods ignored his orders to stand down and went to that consulate...saving lives. Tragically his was lost as others made decisions antithetical to his: they chose to ignore his peril. Tyrone Woods is a real American hero. And I, for one, will never forget his story. Nor will I forget Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, and Glen Doherty. And that's why their death DOES and SHOULD matter to this election, despite the president's insistence that it doesn't.

Tyrone Woods, Real American Hero

Friday, October 26, 2012

BREAKING NEWS: CIA Operators were denied requests for help 3 times during Benghazi attack

I've been saying for weeks that this whole thing just doesn't make sense. The White House could have claimed ignorance and that might have been believable. After all, you can't question stupidity. However, they've now backed themselves into a corner by saying they DID know it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. Now we KNOW they lied about it for two weeks. Something is fishy about it. And while this report doesn't prove anything, it does throw a gallon of fuel on the fire. Something doesn't make sense. If I was an investigative reporter I'd be all over this. What we're being told just doesn't make sense, and we deserve to know why. 4 dead Americans deserve it even more.
.........................................................................................

Courtesy of Monkey in the Middle
Hat tip to Texas Fred (With a plea for everyone to cross post and spread the word.)


Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

Full Story Here:
EXCLUSIVE: CIA Operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

To ALL of my friends, family and readers, this is the REGIME that has given our nation away and has caused the deaths of Americans, not only in Benghazi, but in the USA via Fast and Furious as well.



I am asking ALL of you, PLEASE share this post via any and all social media, email, instant messenger, whatever it takes. America MUST see this story and know the truth.

This entire EVIL administration must be removed; they must be subjected to the most intense scrutiny and then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They are, ALL, either directly or indirectly, guilty of MURDER!

Here is MORE from the original story:

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

America, for the love of God, our families and this nation,please share this story with everyone you know, even hard-core libbers! They may be on the other side of the fence but they are NOT stupid, just severely misguided. Maybe THIS will open their eyes!

I love this guy!

A Common Sense Hero!


So this is the second time that I've read news about the Attorney General of Texas, Greg Abbott, and it's the second time I love what I read about him. A few weeks ago, during the hubbub about the Kountze highschool cheerleaders putting Bible verses on signs for football games, Greg Abbott backed the cheerleaders...going so far as to say that he would personally defend them in court in the event of a lawsuit. As a firm supporter of the Kountze cheerleaders, I loved his stance and offer. For a government official to support the religious rights of citizens is becoming a rare thing in this nation, and it was awesome to see.

Today, as I read about the ridiculousness of U.N.-affiliated monitors being used to watch polling places here in America, Mr. Abbott made his way into my field of consciousness once again. Greg Abbott...again, awesomely, I might add...has announced that these monitors better watch their step while in the great state of Texas! Abbott said that all monitors need to obey the laws of Texas, including staying 100 feet away from polling places. If not, Abbott says, they may be arrested. In a letter, Abbott says:

“Groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas. This State has robust election laws that were carefully crafted to protect the integrity of our election system. The Texas Election Code governs anyone who participates in Texas elections—including representatives of the OSCE.”

Much to my delight, the U.N. was not at all happy about this...even writing to Hillary Clinton to complain. Mr. Abbott doesn't seem to care about their complaints, also to my delight. He has also pointed out numerous concerns about the monitors, including the group's meeting with Project Vote, an organization with ties to the utterly corrupt (and now utterly defunct) ACORN. Project Vote has filed lawsuits in Texas challenging voter ID laws, raising concerns about the U.N.-affiliate OSCE's reason for being there.
About this concern, Greg Abbott said:

“The OSCE may be entitled to its opinions about Voter ID laws, but your opinion is legally irrelevant in the United States..."

Hahaha They just don't make 'em anywhere else like they do in Texas...and I love it!

Full (awesome) story here.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

President Obama pledges military cuts will be "in place"

I want you to believe my lies!

Well that didn't take long. Three days after President Obama said during the final debate on national television that the devastating cuts to our military "will not happen" the Des Moines Register published an "off the record" interview in which President Obama says those cuts will, in fact, take place. Here's his remarks about it:

"So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of both myself and my opponent -- at least Governor Romney claims that he wants to reduce the deficit -- but we’re going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business." [emphasis added]

Two days ago I wrote about how I didn't believe he was telling the truth when he pledged to the American people that those cuts would not happen. The president apparently didn't believe it either, because the very next day he gave that interview. For some reason, it was supposed to be off the record, and the White House wanted it to stay that way, but the Register was pestered by other media outlets to release it and so they did. I guess now we know why the White House wanted it kept secret. It proved the president directly lied to the American people during that debate. Not that we didn't already know that, but it's nice of the president to prove us right.


Breitbart.com has the full story.

Rape! Rape! Rape! (Libya?)

Big news today: Richard Mourdock, an Indiana Republican candidate for Senate, said he thinks God wants women to be raped!

Ok...he didn't actually say that. But that's how it's being reported across the country. What Mr. Mourdock actually said was that he believes every life is a gift from God, even one resulting from a rape is God's will. The story being reported, however, is one of just another Republican who hates women. I actually saw a headline earlier (though I can't remember where) that read, "Republican candidate says rape is part of God's will." I mean...seriously? Is this what passes as news nowadays. Take one white male Republican, add in a religious belief about abortion, spin, stir, and obfuscate, then serve to the public with a dash of feminism. This dude said what most true Christians believe; that life begins at conception and since all life is precious, even a life caused by a horrible thing such as rape, then that life is a precious part of God's will. And that's EXACTLY what Richard Mourdock said. Yet the way it's being reported is absolutely astounding and ridiculous.

While searching for where I saw that headline...because I always like to be accurate about what I say here...I came across another equally astounding and ridiculous headline about rape in the Huffington Post. (I believe that's where the Mourdock headline was as well, but can't find it now so I could be wrong.) As I was scouring the website I noticed the word Pennsylvania, and being a Pennsylvania resident, I took notice. This is the headline:

"Pennsylvania Bill Includes
Provision Requiring Women
To Prove They Were Raped"


That IS a shockingly terrible thing to have to make a woman prove. Then I read the first line of the article:

"A bill in the Pennsylvania House proposing the reduction of welfare benefits for low-income women contains a provision requiring a woman who became pregnant from rape to prove that she reported her assault."

Prove what? Prove that she was raped? NO! Prove that she REPORTED the rape! How can news organizations get away with so twisting things and, in this case, lying outright in the headline!? Is there no such thing as journalistic integrity anymore?? The article goes on to explain that the bill is about cutting or reducing welfare, and that mothers who became pregnant as a result of rape will not be discontinued from receiving welfare. Hence, so someone can't come out and take advantage of that by saying they were raped when they weren't, they have to have proof they reported the rape. Doesn't seem so barbaric and insensible if it's reported correctly does it?

This whole faux outrage over some people's comments about rape and abortion is outrageous. All the more outrageous is that it only seems to be directed towards Republicans! President Obama even used Mourdock's statement as another example of his phony war on women. Yet...Breitbart.com reported that a Democratic Congressman, Jerry McNerney from California, wrote a novel in which one character explains that men evolved to be able to rape women because it prevents inbreeding. Yet no one, NO ONE, is talking about that. Because he's a Democrat. Hypocrisy bothers me.

You know what else bothers me. The fact that 4 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack in Libya and the Obama Administration has been lying about it and covering things up about it...and yet the news is about rape and abortion and the phony war on women. And not just making that the top news stories, but twisting it to make it sound so much more worse than what it actually is....I mean, I know it's not news, but the media has become absolutely pathetic.



Tuesday, October 23, 2012

President Obama pledges military cuts "will not happen"

It's his way or no way.


Last night during the third and last (thank God!) presidential debate, President Obama made a few interesting remarks. The one that stood out to me was about the upcoming sequestration cuts to our military. The cuts, which will shrink our Army to the smallest it's been since before World War 2, our Navy to the smallest it's been since 1916, and our Air Force to the smallest it's ever been, are set to go into effect next year. However, when Mitt Romney brought this up, President Obama responded by saying that those "cuts will not happen."

That statement may have just been the most important one of the debate, although it was paid little attention. These cuts, that Obama's own defense officials have said would be "devastating" are set to go into effect because of President Obama. The cuts have already been signed into law by President Obama on August 2, 2011! This means that unless Congress passes a new law before January 2, the cuts WILL go into effect. They cannot be ignored and they cannot simply "not happen." They WILL happen.

The only way to prevent them is if Congress and Obama agree to a new budget. However, President Obama himself has said that he will veto any law that "doesn't replace sequestration with alternative deficit reduction." Simply put, Obama has said that he will veto any budget unless it includes higher taxes on the wealthy. Basically he's saying that unless you do it his way...you won't do it at all.

Reading about sequestration, I've found that the cuts are so severe because they are intended to spur Congress into passing a bill. So sequestration is really, really bad. It's supposed to cost over a million jobs as well as gutting the military. But it was designed to never actually happen. It was designed to be so bad that no one would ever let it happen. And now President Obama has threatened to let it happen unless you do what he wants. I don't know if he truly believes the Republicans in Congress will bow to his will or if was just lying about the cuts "not happening." But I do know that those are the only two options. And neither is good for America. The petulant child-President is forcing Congress to do what he wants, or he'll take all the toys away. Only in this analogy, the "toys" are the United States Military. And without a strong military, what will the U.S. become? President Obama is taking us into a dark place. And he's lying about it the whole way.



Breitbart.com has the full story here.

Special Report on Benghazi/Attack Timeline



How is it that Fox News and CNN can get this information, but no one in Washington can!?!

I especially appreciate the attack timeline. Before this I heard nothing about the attack on the second location, in which the two ex-Navy Seals were killed by mortar fire. Why aren't we hearing these things from the Administration? Where is the leadership?

Monday, October 22, 2012

Idiots shouldn't be allowed to vote



I especially love the kid who says foreign policy is the most important issue to him...and then in the next sentence says he doesn't know what Benghazi is!

I know people have said that you should have to pass an IQ test in order to vote, but I don't quite agree with that. People with a high IQ can still be ignorant about what's going on in the world. I think there should be a simple quiz you have to pass before you get to vote. The first question should be, "Who are the presidential and vice presidential candidates for both parties?" I'm sure there are quite a few people who wouldn't get past that one. Then there should be some questions relating to currant events. This year it'd be about Benghazi. So none of those morons in the video above would be allowed to vote. Seriously, if you have no idea what's going on, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

U.N. warns Americans not to vote for Romney

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights (what the hell!?) Ben Emmerson has warned Americans not to elect Mitt Romney. He said doing so would be a "democratic mandate for torture."

He was referring to Mitt Romney's refusal to rule out the use of waterboarding as an interrogation method for terrorists. The idiot also said:

"The re-introduction of torture under a Romney administration would significantly increase the threat levels to (Americans) at home and abroad. Such a policy, if adopted, would expose the American people to risks the Obama administration is not currently exposing them to."

Are. You. Serious!?! What a bloody moron! I'm tired of these idiots saying that if we do anything to upset the terrorists, that it will "increase" the threat levels. That somehow, as long as we don't upset the terrorists (not even Muslims in general...the terrorists!) that they will give up their Jihad and suddenly decide that Israel and America are A-Ok! That level of stupidity absolutely boggles my mind! How can anyone be so stupid!? ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS WANT EVERYONE TO BECOME MUSLIM OR DIE! THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND! THERE IS NO 'LIVE AND LET LIVE' WITH THESE PEOPLE!

Yet some morons want us to believe that they are only mad at us because we make them and as long as we don't do anything to upset them, the threat of Islamic Extremism will disappear off the face of the earth. It's lunacy. But what do you expect from this dude.


That's Ben Emmerson. I don't know about you, but I'm not taking advice from anyone wearing a powdered wig. And the U.N. is a joke. If they say to not vote for Romney, it's pretty much a sign that you should!

Oh, and btw, there's this:

"U.S. intelligence services were able to pinpoint Osama bin Laden’s location and carry out the successful mission to kill him in May 2011 based on information yielded during waterboarding of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and information from Al Qaeda operative Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004."

So waterboarding works. Anything that gains information that can save lives is ok with me. Let the waterboarding commence. If Islamic extremists wanna act like animals, then they forfeit their human rights. Period.


Breitbart.com has the full story.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Obama campaign breaks law, changes slogan to "Cheat to Win!"

Last week I read about a report that the Obama campaign might possibly be accepting foreign donations via their website...which is illegal. Well now there's proof. Chris Walker, a British citizen, told the New York Post that he was able to make donations to President Obama's re-election campaign. Twice.

Mr. Walker twice was able to donate $5 to the Obama campaign through it's website...while attempts to do the same through Mitt Romney's campaign website were rejected. Walker, who lives outside of London, said he used his actual street address in England (the one on his credit card) but listed Arkansas as the state and the ZIP code for Schenectady, NY: 12345. (Like THAT'S not obvious!) When trying to do the same for Mitt Romney's campaign, Mr. Walker said that his payment was rejected on the grounds that the address he entered didn't match the one on his credit card.

It is illegal to knowingly accept money or donations from foreign citizens. Now the Obama campaign will state that they didn't knowingly accept it and if they knew, they would never have done it. But what happened after Mr. Walker donated the $10 seems to indicate that they knew EXACTLY what they were doing.

After Mr. Walker donated that money, he says that he received multiple emails daily asking for more donations. (Not surprising.) What IS shocking is that Mr. Walker says the emails asked for him to make an additional donation of $188. Why is that important? Because all donations over $200 must be reported to the FEC. $188 + his original $10 would equal $198! JUST shy of the $200 threshold at which campaigns need to identity donors to the FEC!!! I'm no rocket scientist...but that's no coincidence! That gives the impression that the campaign knew EXACTLY where the donation came from...and how to get away with it. Those numbers equal slime to me.

In September alone, the Obama campaign took in more than $2 million from donors who provided no ZIP code or incomplete ZIP codes. By comparison, the Romney campaign took in less than $5,000 from donors who didn't provide a complete ZIP code.
To all extensive purposes, it looks like the Obama campaign is knowingly and deliberately breaking the law! Guess they're just emulating their candidate. Wish I could say this will be investigated further...but I doubt it will, especially so close to the election. In lieu of that, I guess we'll just have to spread the word that Obama's campaign slogan has been changed from "Forward" to "Cheat to Win."


The New York Post has the full story here.

Friday, October 19, 2012

Four dead Americans is "not optimal?"



What a complete jackhole. I really have trouble even putting into words how disgusted this makes me. Whatever shred of respect I've had for President Obama has just gone out the window with those comments.

And some people are saying that he didn't mean the deaths of the Americans was "not optimal" but that he meant the response was not optimal. I don't think that makes these comments much better. Maybe by a little...but saying the response to 4 dead Americans was "not optimal" is still an understatement of epic proportions. It's like saying the Holocaust was bad for the Jews. You would think the president of the United States would be more emotional about 4 dead Americans than just cooly stating it was "not optimal." I expect him to be. And not only that line was offensive. To say that sometimes "something screws up and we're gonna fix it" about a terrorist attack that killed 4 Americans is a completely disgraceful comment. A terrorist attack that kills Americans is not "a screw up." It's a tragic failure. And to describe it as anything less is extremely offensive.

And that's why Barack Hussein Obama should be voted out. The president of the United States should take serious issues more serious...and if Barack Obama won't do that, he doesn't deserve to be president. He doesn't even deserve to be called an American.

How important is Virtue in the stability of a Republic? Part II

(Ok, here's the rest of the post on the importance of virtue in the stability of a republic. Sorry it's in two parts...I didn't get a chance to finish it yesterday, plus it's kinda long!)

And so the Founders of this great nation (some may say it's the greatest nation ever, myself included) believed firmly in the idea of public virtue. This idea was taken a step further in the ideology of Republicanism. Republicanism (having nothing to do with the currant Republican Party except the name) was borne of the idea that corruption in government had a root in personal corruption. The greatest threat to liberty in America was depicted as corruption...not just in England but at home as well. The corruption of the British government was viewed as being associated with the corruption of the aristocracy. The colonists associated that with luxury and ostentation. In the minds of the Founders, luxury and greed led to more luxury and more greed which resulted in corruption. Therefore most colonists were committed to republican values, which required people to put civic duty ahead of their personal desires. People had a duty to be prepared to fight for not only their rights and liberties, but had to be willing to put aside all personal luxury and comfort in order to fight for their countrymen and countrywomen as well. This idea so permeated the culture that for women, "republican motherhood" became the ideal, exemplified by Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis Warren; the first duty of the republican woman was to instill republican values in her children and to avoid luxury and ostentation.

With Republicanism the main ideology of the Founders, personal virtue became just as big an issue as public virtue. In fact, it was John Adams who said in a letter to Mercy Warren that "public virtue cannot exist without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics." The Founders had recognized that in republics of old, when the virtue of the people was lost, the republic crumbled. Drawing from history and intellectuals such as Montesquieu and Rousseau, the earliest Americans concluded that in a republic the balance of power experiences periodic, unstable shifts, but stability can be recovered. The loss of public virtue, however, occurs slowly and is not recoverable.

In the eyes of our Founders, this idea of virtue was supreme. Samuel Adams even went so far as to say: "We may look up to armies for our defense, but virtue is our best security. It is not possible that any state should long remain free, where virtue is not supremely honored." Yet the Founders realized that the past republics, with an emphasis on public virtue alone, still crumbled into tyranny. They were determined to not allow the mistakes of the past republics be repeated in the new American Republic. And so, private virtue was raised to the same level as importance as public virtue. John Adams put it this way:

"The form of government, which you admire, when its principles are pure is admirable, indeed, it is a production of every thing which is great and excellent among men. But its principles are as easily destroyed, as Human Nature is corrupted. Such a government is only to be supported by pure religion or austere morals...

Our dear Americans perhaps have as much of it as any other nation now existing, and New England perhaps has more than the rest of America. But I have seen all along my life such selfishness and littleness even in New England, that I sometimes tremble to think that, although we are engaged in the best cause that ever employed the human heart, yet the prospect of success is doubtful, not for want of power or wisdom, but of virtue.

The Spirit of Commerce, Madam, which even insinuates itself into families, and influences holy Matrimony, and thereby corrupts the morals of families as well as destroys their happiness, it is much to be feared as incompatible with that purity of heart and greatness of soul which is necessary for a happy Republic."

In these statements, John Adams brings up the concerns the Founders had over the success of the nation. Interestingly, he says that "such a government is only to be supported by pure religion or austere morals." Dr. Seaver also mentions the role that religion played in the success of the American Republic by saying, "religion, and anglo-protestantism in particular (of concept not people), focused on doctrine and the individual over collective ritual which reinforced public virtue." The religious predilections of the earliest Americans led to a belief in the importance of private morals and virtue. Virtue wasn't just seen as a value for political leaders alone, but for everyone as encouraged by Christianity. Morals and values had a deeper, personal importance to the majority of Americans due to their religious beliefs. And to those without religious beliefs, John Adams says that "austere morals" are still necessary. So the Founders believed that a sincere personal morality was deeply important to each citizen of a republic.

Samuel Adams echoed that sentiment when he wrote:
"Since private and public vices, are in reality, though not always apparently, so nearly connected, of how much importance, how necessary it is, that the utmost pains be taken by the public to have the principles of virtue early inculcated in the minds even of children, and the moral sense kept alive, and that the wise institutions of our ancestors for these great purposes be encouraged by the government...

Therefore "wise and able politicians will guard against other vices," and be attentive to promote every virtue. He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life, is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his Country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his Country, who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections. Before [Dr. Benjamin Church, Jr.] was detected of holding a criminal correspondence with the enemies of his country, his infidelity to his wife had been notorious."

The idea of the connection between public virtue and private virtue was so strong that the Adams cousins (as well as many of the Founders) believed that someone's personal life was a good indication of their public life. How different is that idea today! In today's society, we choose to believe that someone's personal life is no one else's business and that as long as no one gets hurt, personal choices have no impact on public affairs. In the Founder's minds, infidelity to one's wife was a cause for concern; in today's society infidelity (even by the president of the United States) is dismissed as unimportant to public success.

The Founders sincere belief in private virtue being a measure for public good had a tremendous impact on how the new American country was set up. Realizing that private virtue may be easily corrupted, a system of government was established to limit power to any one person or group of people. As described by Bernard Bailyn in his 1992 book, "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution":

"Yes, people were innately evil and self-seeking, and yes, no one could be trusted with unconfined power. That was true in America as anywhere else. But under the Constitution's checks and balances power would be far from unconfined, and for such a self-limiting system there would be virtue enough for success."

And so the Founders decision to separate powers was based upon their belief that while certain men may lose their virtue, the government as a whole would continue to operate under an umbrella of virtue. They were not so naive to think that all people would remain virtuous...but their hope was that enough people would retain virtue enough to sustain the republic. They knew that Human Nature could corrupt private virtue, but they also believed that as long as the majority of individuals in the republic remained virtuous, the government would run successfully.

They eschewed personal avarice and luxury. They understood that in the capitalist system, the desire for more power and greed could enter the heart of men and women. They believed that in order to avoid the mistakes of past republics and to ensure liberty, that a degree of personal virtue and morality was necessary to keep the republic free from corruption. They understood that Human Nature leads a person more towards a life of comfort and apathy...and the idea of Republicanism attempted to thwart that slide away from concern of the public good towards concern solely for private good. The Founders understood that, even in their day when patriotism and asceticism were considered equal, the hearts of men and women were easily drawn towards comfort and luxury...and while comfort and luxury are not evil in themselves, they do tend to lead to greed and apathy. John Adams stated it this way to Mercy Warren:

"But, Madam, there is one Difficulty which I know not how to get over.

Virtue and Simplicity of Manners are indispensably necessary in a Republic among all orders and degrees of men. But there is so much rascallity, so much venality and corruption, so much Avarice and Ambition, such a rage for profit and commerce among all ranks and degrees of men even in America, that I sometimes doubt whether there is public Virtue enough to support a Republic. There are two Vices most detestably predominant in every part of America that I have yet seen which are as incompatible with the Spirit of a Commonwealth, as Light is with Darkness; I mean Servility and Flattery. A genuine Republican can no more fawn and cringe than he can domineer. Shew me the American who cannot do all. I know two or three, I think, and very few more. However, it is the part of a great politician to make the Character of his People, to extinguish among them the follies and Vices that he sees, and to create in them the Virtues and Abilities which he sees wanting. I wish I was sure that America has one such Politician but I fear she has not."

The greatest fear of the Founders was not war or poverty. It was not about money or power. The greatest fear of the Founders was that in this great republic, the virtue of the people would be overwhelmed by greed and corruption. Thomas Jefferson said, "Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character (virtue) is the path of destruction."

The Founders did all that they could to protect the republic from corruption by separating powers and instituting checks and balances. But they knew that in order for the republic to succeed, the citizens of that republic would need to retain a certain degree of virtue; of moral clarity and austere values. They knew that if the virtue of the people was lost, the republic would fall...just as all republics in the past had fallen. The lesson that they tried to instill in the American people, the one thing that they wanted all Americans to know, was that the strength of the nation depended on the private virtue of its citizens. This lesson has been buried in today's America...and private virtue has been replaced with personal gain and material abundance. The public good has become second to people's personal comfort, and the welfare of others is given a back seat to our own desires and luxuries. What is the greatest problem in America today? There would be many different answers if that question was asked of Americans today. But virtue, the main concern of our Founders, might not even make the list. What is the greatest problem in America today? If the Americans of 1776 were asked that about America 2012, I'm sure that the loss of virtue, both private and public, would be at the top of their list. I wouldn't disagree. And without Virtue, no republic has lasted. Can America?

"For no people will tamely surrender their liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the contrary, when people are universally ignorant, and debauched in their manners, they will sink under their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders."

How important is Virtue in the stability of a Republic? Part I

For no people will tamely surrender their liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the contrary, when people are universally ignorant, and debauched in their manners, they will sink under their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders. - Samuel Adams

This quote from one of our Founding Fathers (not from a beer distributor!) spurned my investigation into the importance of virtue in the success or failure of a society...namely a society built on a democratic republic, like ours. What part does personal virtue play? What does virtue even mean? In the past few hours I've attempted to find answers to these questions by pouring over articles and historical writings. Of particular help was an article featured on the website Intellectual Takeout, posted with permission from the National Association of Scholars, entitled Public Virtue and a Stable Republic (taken from his article Virtus from the Ancient Republics to the Postmodern) by Dr. George Seaver. Also of much help was The Founders' Constitution, a wonderful collection of historical documents.

The prevailing idea throughout is summed up by Dr. Seaver who says "that a republic, such as America, is only as good as the virtue of it's people. In other words, public virtue is arguably the glue that holds this republic together."

An amazing revelation since it's not really something you learn in school! But the idea of virtue was apparently a very big influence on the Founders of our nation...and, therefore, over the nation itself. The Republic of the United States was founded on the basis of ancient republics, such as the Athenian (Greece) Republic and the Roman Republic. These ancient governmental systems were used as an example from which to shape our own republic in America. The Founders, of course, wanted to take the best of these republics to help form our own. And one of the main principles of these republics was the importance of virtue.

The Romans termed this concept Virtus; encompassing the moral excellence necessary for political stability and achievement in a republic. The concept was considered so important it was eventually viewed as a god! Like the Romans, the Athenians before them considered virtue to be a necessary part of a successful republic. It garnered such importance that Socrates was condemned to death for "corrupting the youth" with anti-virtuous ideas! (In actuality he was teaching the correct view of virtue in which virtue is something that one is taught and not something that can be bought, which was the view being propagated at that time, which actually led to the decline of virtue. This loss of virtue is seen as a major reason for the fall of the Athenian Republic.)

But what exactly is meant by "public virtue?" Well one of the first Roman consuls, Manius Valerius, summed it up like this in 506 B.C.:

"Lest the people themselves, when vested with so great a power, should grow wanton, and, seduced by the worst of demagogues, become dangerous to the best of citizens, (for the multitude generally give birth to tyranny) some person of consummate prudence...will...excite the citizens to virtue, and appoint such magistrates as he thinks will govern with the greatest prudence: and having effected these things within the space of six months, he will again become a private man, without receiving any other reward for these actions, than that of being honored for having performed them."

Basically a virtuous man was one who would ride in during times of trouble, take control of the republic, steer it back in the right direction, and then just as suddenly ride out again with no fanfare or desire to keep or increase his power. John Adams described it this way:

"There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superiour to all private passions. Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private pleasures, passions and interests, nay, their private friendships and dearest connections, when they stand in competition with the Rights of Society."

One of the most well known examples of Virtus was Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus. In 458 B.C., Rome was in the midst of war, and it wasn't going well. Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians is a phrase that could adequately describe the situation. (That's probably a "culturally insensitive" phrase nowadays...sorry! For the record, I love Native Americans!) Well Cincinnatus was called in and appointed "interim dictator," formally termed "Master of the People" (Magister Populi). He reluctantly left his field half ploughed, took control of the Republic, raised an army, and won the war in a mere 15 days! After the victory, he returned his power back to the Senate, went home, and picked up his plough right where he left it to finish his field. He was called to be "interim dictator" again when he was 80, and once again, did the job quickly and quietly and then humbly went back home after it was finished. He was so revered for his example of public virtue that The Society of Cincinnatus was formed in 1783 to honor the ideals of a military officer's role in the new American Republic. It's first president was none other than George Washington, who modeled Cincinnatus' virtue in his staunch refusal of titles, a permanent presidency, or even a third term. You probably also realized by this point that the city of Cincinnati was named for him as well!

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Did President Obama really say it was "an act of terror" on September 12th?

Last night's presidential debate had one very interesting moment that will surely be discussed a lot in the coming days. Once the terrorist attacks in Libya were brought up (which took far too long and lasted far too short for my liking) President Obama said something that made Mitt Romney do a double-take. He said that the day after the attack, while making a speech in the Rose Garden, that he called the attack "an act of terror." Mitt Romney seized on that and tried to get him to repeat it (which for some unknown reason he would not do) but it was moderator Candy Crowley who spoke up to say that those indeed were his words. (How she managed to get the transcript only a few seconds after he said it is unknown to me.) President Obama seized on the moment and asked Candy to repeat that, which she did...to applause from the pro-Obama portion of the crowd.

This has caused countless people to go back and re-read or re-watch the president's speech from that day. I'll include it here so everyone can watch it for themselves. While no one really remembers the president saying anything about the attack being terrorism, he does indeed say the words "acts of terror." It happens toward the end of his speech. After making some remarks about how September 11th was already a painful day, the president said this:

"As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No ACTS OF TERROR will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."


Now it is all but impossible to tell from the context of the speech whether the words "acts of terror" were meant about the Beghazi attack directly or whether they were simply meant as some generic message about any terrorist attacks. There will be arguments supporting both. And since there's no actual way of knowing, both arguments will be deemed as "correct."
(In a move of political genius, Obama may have used the term ambiguously on purpose, so that he could later choose to acknowledge it as one way or the other to fit whichever narrative he wanted. I wouldn't put it past him.)

However, whether President Obama meant it one way or the other or both doesn't really matter one bit at this point. The president can spin the story whichever way he wants to now. What he can't do is erase the past month.

He can't ignore that on September 13th...two days after the attack, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said this during a press briefing:

Q. "At Benghazi? What happened at Benghazi --"

MR. CARNEY: "We certainly don't know. We don't know otherwise. We have NO INFORMATION TO SUGGEST THAT IT WAS A PREPLANNED ATTACK. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, IT IS NOT A REACTION TO THE 9/11 ANNIVERSARY THAT WE KNOW OF, or to U.S. policy."

A few questions later Mr. Carney reiterated this:

MR. CARNEY: "I think there has been news reports on this, Jake, even in the press, which some of it has been speculative. What I’m telling you is this is under investigation. The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. WE DO NOT, AT THIS MOMENT, HAVE INFORMATION TO SUGGEST OR TO TELL YOU THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT ANY OF THIS UNREST WAS PREPLANNED. "

Now while Mr. Carney insists that the event is still under investigation, he leaves no doubt that, as far as the White House is concerned (i.e. President Obama) on September the 13th...that TWO DAYS after the attack there was NO EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION to suggest the attack was pre-planned!
THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR THE DAY BEFORE!

He also cannot ignore that 3 days later, on September 16th, FIVE days after the attack, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, went on all 5 of the Sunday morning talk shows where she basically repeated this line:

RICE: "Our current best assessment, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AT PRESENT, is that, in fact, what this began as, IT WAS A SPONTANEOUS — NOT A PREMEDITATED — RESPONSE to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but THAT'S THE BEST INFORMATION WE HAVE AT PRESENT."


While Susan Rice also insists that the event is still under investigation, she also makes it clear that the "best information they have at present" indicates that "IT WAS A SPONTANEOUS - NOT A PREMEDITATED - RESPONSE...IN REACTION TO THIS VERY OFFENSIVE VIDEO..."
THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR 4 DAYS EARLIER!

He cannot ignore that 4 days after that, on September 20th, while being interviewed by Univision, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF said, when asked directly if it was a terrorist attack:

“Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

5 days after that, while asked if it was a terrorist attack on The View, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF said:

“We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

And on that same day, during a speech to the United Nations, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF made NO mention of the words "terrorism," "terrorist act," or "act of terror." The closest he came to discussing the attack was this:

"That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan."

President Obama does not directly say that the video was the cause of the attacks...but he also does NOT say they were an "act of terror" either. As a matter of fact, he makes it sound more like the attacks were caused by the video than not, as he goes on a diatribe about free speech and how it must be protected even though it may insult, and in how he declares that "no speech justifies mindless violence...no words excuse the killing of innocents.
ALL OF THESE RESPONSES SEEM TO DIRECTLY CONTRADICT THE STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR ON SEPTEMBER 12TH!

The question that begged to be answered about all of this rhetoric was this: was the death of four Americans and the resulting campaign of misinformation caused by incompetence or was it deliberate deception?

Up until now, the president and his entire administration could play the game of ignorance. They could blame the falsely made statements on the "fog of war" as Hillary Clinton did. They could say that they made statements based on "incomplete information." They could say that the exact details were "unknown" and that the investigation was "ongoing." They could insist that all of the information given to them at that time pointed to an "unplanned" attack. They could get away with simply saying that they made those statements based on the information they had at that time and then the information changed.

But not anymore. Now that President Obama said last night that he called it an "act of terror" on the VERY NEXT DAY, thus implying that he understood it was a terrorist attack as early as September 12th...it takes incompetence right off the table. It takes confusion and "evolving information" right off the table. IF President Obama believed it was an "act of terror" on September the 12th...then WHY did White House Press Secretary Jay Carney say there was no information to support that!? WHY did Ambassador Rice say the same 5 days later!? If the president of the United States believed it was an "act of terror" the day after it happened, then WHY did it take OVER TWO WEEKS for the Administration to finally admit it!? IF the president believed it was an act of terror, then the story about there being NO information or evidence supporting a terrorist act as the cause and focusing all attention on the movie instead was NOT simply confusion due to the "fog of war." IF the president believed it was an act of terror, then removing all rhetoric about terrorism and placing the blame on a "spontaneous protest" was a downright lie! If the White House Press Secretary isn't speaking with and for President Obama, then there is incompetence on a massive level going on in that administration. And if he is...then WHY did he say something that the president himself didn't believe? WHY DID HE LIE? WHY DID THEY ALL LIE??

So which is it, Mr. President? Did you truly believe and understand it to be an act of terror on September 12th as you said last night? Because if so...you've got a lot of explaining to do on who made the decision to lie about it for two weeks, and why that decision was made. You've just painted yourself into a pretty sticky corner, and I'm not sure even you can get out of it.

It will be a very interesting next few days and weeks as the election approaches, and as President Obama tries to answer the questions he himself raised by stating that claim last night. It will be interesting to see if he sticks with it now or if he tries to change the story again. The questions remain either way...but I think he just made it a lot harder on himself. Yes, should be interesting indeed.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

I can no longer take Muslims seriously


As of now, I can no longer take Islam as a serious religion. Muslims have taken this "cultural sensitivity" thing WAY too far. Now they are upset about the cross on Swiss airplanes. A new Swiss Air ad translated as "The Cross is an asset" (or something like that) has insulted Muslims who are claiming that it's a direct attack on Islam. These Muslims are claiming that the ad touts a clear message of Christian superiority.

First off....even if it was intended as a Christian message that still doesn't mean Muslims have a right to protest it. Christians (as well as Buddhists, Hindus, atheists and any other religious or non-religious groups) tolerate Muslims adherence and propagation of their religion along with every other belief, religious or otherwise, in the world. People all around the world allow Muslims to live out their beliefs freely...and even when such beliefs include disgusting acts such as female genitalia mutilations. Because a part of respecting others beliefs is tolerating those beliefs even if you don't agree with them yourself. If Muslims can't get that...if they can't follow the same path of tolerance to others' cultures and religions, then they cannot be taken seriously. If you can't live and let die, then you can't be allowed to sit at the world table. Intolerance of every other religion and culture is NOT the acceptable way to live and act. Everyone else in the world gets this; Muslims need to be treated no differently. Live your life and let others live theirs or shut up about your own!

Second off....SERIOUSLY!?!? It's the freakin' Swiss flag for pete's sake!! The Swiss flag has a cross on it. The Swiss airline is the national airline of Switzerland. The Swiss airline WILL have the Swiss flag on it. If you can't handle that, how can I take anything you say or do seriously? What next? Ban the Swiss flag? The Swedish flag? How bout the Israeli flag? Why don't we just remove any and all symbols that aren't related to Islam?? Because that's where it's headed...that seems to be what the Muslims want and the only thing they'll be happy with. It's time to stop pandering to people based on their "feelings." Every other person in the world is taught that "sticks and stones will break your bones but words can never hurt you." Muslims are taught to break bones with sticks and stones when words hurt them. And until they can learn to "get over it" when they become insulted, just like everyone else in the world, then I can no longer view Islam as a serious religion. If you can't act like an adult, then don't expect me to treat you as one.


Full story here.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Hillary Clinton accepts responsibility in Libya attack

Hillary Clinton finally came out from the rock under which she's been hiding to accept "responsibility" for the terrorist attack that took the lives of four Americans in Libya over a month ago. During a trip to Peru, Clinton gave her first interview in over two weeks in which she claims that as Secretary of State, she is responsible for the over 60,000 Americans around the world and the "buck stops with her" concerning the Benghazi attack.

She also said that conflicting reports about the attack were to be blamed on the "fog of war." "Remember, this was an attack that went on for hours," Clinton said in an interview with Fox News during a trip to Peru. "There had to be a lot of sorting out. Everyone said, here's what we know, subject to change."

Her admission of responsibility seems to be an attempt to deflect blame from President Barack Obama at a time when many are wondering who is to blame and just who, exactly, is in charge of the Executive Branch of our government. During the Vice Presidential debate last week, Joe Biden said that neither him nor President Obama knew anything about security concerns at the Benghazi consulate. The narrative being spun in the Administration is that Barack Obama has no culpability in the attacks. Clearly there is an attempt to shield Barack Obama from any blame so close to the election. The only problem with that is that he IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! You can't get all the credit and take none of the blame...which is exactly what Barack Hussein Obama seems to want. It's absolutely preposterous that the president of the United States would not be kept in the loop about an attack that killed 4 Americans, including our own ambassador. Now it is being reported that intelligence officials suspected terrorism almost immediately, and if that is true (which it certainly seems like it would be), why would the president not be told about it?? How could it be possible that the man at the top of the food chain wouldn't be kept in the loop about a possible terrorist attack??? Even if the complete details were "foggy," the deaths of four Americans would seem to be serious enough to warrant more attention from the president. Although he did fly to Las Vegas for a fundraiser the day that it happened, so I guess he wasn't too interested.

Concerning security requests, it's absolutely believable that the president was not privy to those, and that DOES fall right into Secretary Clinton's lap. Concerning security she herself admits in the interview that, "We knew there were security breaches and problems throughout Libya. That's something that came about as the aftermath of the revolution to topple Qaddafi, with so many militias formed, so many weapons loose....It was taken into account by security professionals as they made their assessments."

Well their assessments were wrong. And people need to answer for it. There is more than enough blame to go around. It's impossible to believe that President Obama bears no responsibility for the way this incident was handled. I've said from the start that this is either a case of gross incompetence or flat out nefariousness. Either way, President Obama needs to answer for his actions...or lack thereof. He simply cannot be allowed to push this all off onto others and claim ignorance, because that points to incompetence and ineptitude. As president, he bears some responsibility for this mess...and he needs to be held accountable for it. And as for Hillary Clinton...well she needs to be fired or resign. You cannot simply apologize for this and have it be forgotten. If you're going to invite the full responsibility for this, then you need to accept the full depth of punishment as well. And the punishment for four dead Americans needs to be nothing short of someone's job. I don't expect it to be Obama's (but it SHOULD cost him his in November) but I do expect it to be Hillary's. It should be. And you can forget about her bid for president in 2016 now as well. People's lives were lost...and her political life should end because of it. Especially if she is going to accept blame in order to shield Obama.




Full story here.

Breaking News: White House contemplates covert military operations in Libya...then makes it not so covert by leaking it

On the eve on the second presidential debate, the Associated Press is running a story that the U.S. is "considering" covert military operations against those involved in the deadly terror attack in Libya on September 11th. The article attributes the story to four anonymous officials within the Administration...including one "former" official and also an outside analyst.

Now there are a few issues with this "news."

The first is the timing. It's been over a month since the attacks occurred. Since that time, the Obama Administration has repeated the now known falsehood that it was not, in fact, an orchestrated terrorist attack and instead was all a result of a protest. For two weeks afterward, that was the story repeated by numerous officials, including President Obama himself. The reason for that was, I believe, an opportunistic response to instill the idea set forth in UN Resolution 16/18 which criminalizes all speech that denigrates a religion if that speech incites violence. (Basically if anything insults a religion and causes others to react violently, the thing said or done will be punished for inciting the violence. This resolution was helped pushed through the United Nations by our very own President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.) It only makes sense then, that they believe in such a law and would like to see one put in place in America. Of course, people won't give up their free speech easily so you have to prove to them that it's the right thing to do. This was the perfect opportunity to try it out. By insisting the violence was caused by a movie, the idea that we shouldn't do or say anything insulting to Islam could be propigated. This is why I believe they continued to stick to the story about the protest for so long after everyone else knew it was terrorism.
The other problem with the timing of this announcement is that it takes place one day before a presidential debate in which the question of Libya will inevitably come up. It doesn't answer all of the questions the president needs to answer about the attack, but it does give him an answer to the question about our response.

And that brings up the other problem about this announcement. 22 days before a presidential election this story is "leaked." Now that it's been leaked, the president has no need to keep it a secret. He may well say that he cannot respond about classified or covert missions...however, since it's no longer covert he could talk about it all he likes. It doesn't really matter whether he brings it up for political gain or not. It's already out there and so he can simply sit back and watch his media cronies spread the story. He may look better if he says that he can't talk about it on the grounds that it's covert...because it's not covert anymore and he knows people will hear about it anyway. Anyway you slice it, the timing of these "leaks" seems oddly suspicious.

Which brings me to the 3rd problem. Any such "covert" military action against terrorists doesn't work very well IF THE TERRORISTS ALREADY KNOW ABOUT IT! Covert action leaked becomes overt action...and overt action is decidedly more risky to the military forces engaging in such actions. Now, of course, there's no way these leaks can be traced back to the president himself. But there is no question that these leaks help the president politically. And it is also not the first time leaks have come from the White House. Earlier this year a group of retired special operations soldiers made a video criticizing President Obama and his Administration for leaks concerning the details of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and other "covert" military activity. I think I'll add that video at the end of this post.

There is no question that leaks can cost lives. And there is no doubt that many leaks have been good for Obama politically, including these leaks. So the question being raised is this: are these leaks intentionally made by the White House in an attempt to make Obama look better? There may be no way to get that answer, or no one brave enough to try, but the timing of these leaks raises enough suspicion to make me wonder.

Full story here.

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally


Next Saturday at sites all across this country, hundreds of thousands of people will gather to stand up against the HHS Mandate of Obamacare. This mandate will force businesses to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing pills despite an opposition to such things. Not only is this mandate a larger part of what many feel is an unconstitutional Health Care law that forces citizens to buy a good or face a penelty...the mandate itself will force people to make a choice between their conscience and the law.

There are already 33 lawsuits that have been filed against the federal government by businesses and organizations on the grounds that this mandate violates the First Amendment right to religious liberty. Numerous religious organizations oppose this mandate because they oppose being forced to provide employees with medical coverage for things they believe to be wrong. Whatever your feelings on abortion and sterilization and contraceptives, the matter of most concern is whether the government has the right to force you to do something that you feel is wrong. The First Amendment protects religious liberty...but now this HHS Mandate is forcing people to violate their religious beliefs or be penelized. How is that liberty?

It is true that there is a "religious exemption" for religious institutions. However, the exemption dictates what is or is not considered a religious institution...and the qualifications are so stringent that even Jesus and His apostles wouldn't be given the exemption. Basically to get the exemption, your organization must ONLY provide services to people of your faith. That means that hundreds of universities, hospitals, and social services run by religious groups DO NOT qualify for the exemption. The government has made the claim that such employers will not have to pay to provide any services they disapprove of. They claim that employees can get those services from their insurance company and not their employers. But it's the employers who have to pay the insurance companies that will provide those services...so it's still the employer's money that will be providing the services.

For the federal government to run roughshod over religious organizations beliefs in an attempt to provide free health care is a direct and unmitigated attack on religious liberty. Millions of people all across this country feel the same. Some of us will gather at the third Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally next Saturday to stand in solidarity against this assault.

The first two Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rallies were held on March 23 and June 8. Over 300 rallies were held in cities and towns across the country, with attendance topping 125,000.The third will be held on October 20th at noon and is expected to garner an even bigger number of attendees as the word of these rallies grows. Over 130 cities in 42 states will be holding rallies to stand up for religious freedom and against our government's continued intrusion into our private lives. No one should be forced to do something that violates their conscience. In a land where we allow people to refuse to face the flag during the National Anthem and we've removed the Pledge of Allegiance from schools because people have complained, does the federal government have the right to force us to do something we don't agree with? I say no. And I'll be voicing that belief next week at my local Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally. Check the website for locations of a rally near you and join in the fight against the government's intrusion into our personal and private lives!
Find a Rally near you!

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Al-quada is not just an organization, it's an idea

As the Obama Administration continues to tout the death of Osama bin Laden as their major foreign policy victory and a sign that the victory over al-quada is almost complete, terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists are on the rise throughout the world. Al-quada is seemingly growing, in both numbers and scope of attacks. The attacks in Libya, continued attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq, and today even in Yemen are telling a different story than what the president is saying on the campaign trail. As mentioned in the last post, it's one of the reasons why I believe the false story of the Libya attacks being a protest about an anti-Islam movie were spread by the Administration for so long. It just doesn't fit their narrative.

This post was originally intended to be apart of the last one, but the amount of attacks was too long to add to that one. The first attack I wanted to talk about is one that's been spread around for the last few days...the shooting of a 14 year old girl in Pakistan by Taliban forces. If you haven't heard, 14 year old Malala Yousufzai survived surgery to remove a bullet from her head and neck after Taliban fighters came onto her school bus and shot her (along with two other girls who just happened to be nearby; happily all survived). Why? Because she had dared to speak out against the Taliban's real war on women, forcing girls to stay out of school. Malala had dared to speak out in an effort to alert the world to the barbaric and insane treatment of women and girls by the Taliban who have taken control of certain parts of Pakistan. The Pakistani government has recently begun to fight back against such Taliban control for the first time in 11 years, since they've taken control of certain mountainous regions of Pakistan after they were pushed out of Afghanistan by U.S. forces. Pakistan has effectively allowed the Taliban to take and keep control of these regions, fearing to even send their army in because of the strong support by the tribes living in the area. Now that Pakistan has begun sending troops into these areas, the people who had been living under Taliban control are speaking out. Malala is one such person. She is opposed to the war on women enforced by the Taliban and other such Islamic extremists. She spoke out against it. She lobbied for girls to be allowed to go to school. And so she was marked as an infidel and shot by Taliban thugs. She was described as "too secular" and that if she survived this attack they will attack her again. This attack will hopefully wake Pakistan up to how dangerous the Taliban and such ilk are...although in a country where an official offered money for the death of a guy in America who made that anti-Islamic film that may be too much to hope for.
Full story on Malala's attack here.

The secularism of Islamic countries is in a battle with Islamic extremism. With many Arab countries becoming free from dictators, Islamic extremists are seizing the opportunity to push their own agendas and are using the opportunity to grow their numbers. Egypt has already been taken over by The Muslim Brotherhood, a known affiliate of hardline Islamofascists. Security forces in Libya have confirmed that al-quada is growing. The same is said in Iraq. Islamic extremists may not all go by the name al-quada, but they all work towards the same goal. By whatever name, Islamic terrorists are NOT dying off and going away. We were told for years that these groups do not work like other terrorist organizations: you can't cut the head off the snake and watch the group shrivel! Now, we're being told that because Osama bin Laden is dead that al-quada is almost dead and that the world is a safer place. We're being told that the Taliban are becoming more moderate. Malala Yousufzai would disagree.

Al-quada is not dead because al-quada is not just one organization...it is an idea carried by MANY organizations and people throughout the entire world! That Islam must become the worldwide religion, that sharia law must be instituted worldwide, and that all opposed to it must die. Like Malala. You can mince words and call it by different names...but you can't erase the facts that Islamic extremism is growing.
Just today in Yemen, a top security official was killed in an apparent assassination by al-quada. Qassem Aqlani, who worked at the U.S. embassy in Yemen, was killed in a drive by shooting incident that has become a trademark of al-quada in the recent months. (A friend of mine actually had a friend of his, who was working as a Christian missionary in Yemen, killed in the same way not too long ago.) Al-quada has been increasing in strength in Yemen and has begun such attacks in response to joint U.S./Yemen military action against them. So even modern Middle Eastern countries that we count as allies are seeing an increase in terrorist activity attributed to none other than al-quada.

Just a few days ago, the news came out that a man was crucified...that's right, CRUCIFIED...by al-quada in Yemen because he was labeled as a spy working with the United States. We rarely hear of these events. We are being led to believe that because bin Laden is dead that Islamic terrorism is following close behind. We're being led to believe that al-quada and other such groups are all but obliterated by a president running for re-election. His campaign of victory and security is nothing but a campaign of misinformation. And if we fall for it, our children will pay the price. Bin Laden may be dead and GM may be alive...but Islamic extremism/terrorism is very much alive and far more well than we are being led to believe.



Full story on security official's assassinationhere and crucifixion of alleged spyhere.

Al-Quada on it's heels? The facts would disagree.

My day yesterday was consumed with the Congressional Hearing about the Libya attacks. Hopefully the first of many such hearings because it really only raised more questions than answers. The representatives from the State Department stonewalled many of the questions under grounds that they either didn't have access to such information or that they weren't allowed to talk about things that are classified. A classified hearing is apparently in the works. From what I saw of the hearing, someone needs to be fired...maybe Hillary Clinton. And the big question remaining is who decided to publicize the idea that it was all about a protest gone wrong instead of a concerted terrorist attack, and why did they do that? That question is really the most important one and it needs answers. Until then, all we have is speculation.

One of those speculations is that the Obama Administration did not want to admit it was a terrorist attack because President Obama's main campaign push is that under his watch Osama bin Laden has been killed and terrorism has been all but destroyed. That's what he's touting as his number one foreign policy achievement...and the attack in Benghazi burst that bubble. Lara Logan's reporting has also destroyed that fantasy. Logan is a fantastic reporter working for CBS who has gone to dangerous places in an attempt to get the real stories. She was sexually assaulted and beaten by a crowd of angry Muslim men in Tahrir Square in Egypt while she was covering the so called "Arab Spring." Her courage and resolve goes beyond words. And Sunday, she put into words her account of al-quada, the Taliban, the war in Afghanistan, and Islamic terrorism in a report aired on 60 Minutes. She also spoke about her findings at a dinner the other day. She minced no words, she spoke honestly and clearly, she expressed dismay at the narrative being spun by the politicians in Washington, and she opened up a can of worms that people, up to and including President Obama, have been trying to keep a lid on. Basically, she said al-quada is not dead, the Taliban are not kinder, and Islamic extremists will not let us live in peace even if we choose to let them live in peace. She explained that we are in a war...and that war is not going to end anytime soon, despite what politicians say or what we decide to do about it. She explained that the attack on Libya is an example of the strength and resolve of Islamic terrorists and that ignoring it or painting it as anything other will not only embolden our enemies, it will cause more attacks, more deaths, and more danger not only to our brave men and women in the military but to every American citizen (and every Western civilization) around the world, including here in America. Bin Laden may be dead, but Islamic extremism is not, terrorism is not, and the war on terror is not. If we choose to ignore this or pretend it doesn't exist or believe the lies told to us by politicians seeking re-election....then we are only inviting death and destruction, not only overseas in foreign countries, but right here in the safety of our own homes in our own land and even to our very own way of life. We cannot choose to fight this war, it is upon us whether we want it or not. And unless we fight it with as much intelligence and resolve as our enemies, then we will lose our children's future of freedom and prosperity. We all need to heed Lara Logan's warning, because it's born out of nothing but the truth.


Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Hugo Chavez "wins" re-election, White House congratulates him for being a good dictator

Tanks fill the streets of Venezuela as news of Chavez fraud spreads.

Despite exit polls showing that Venezuelan dictator/president Hugo Chavez lost the presidential election Sunday, the Venezuelan electoral council declared Chavez the victor. The announcement has many in Venezuela declaring election fraud. The numbers seem to back them up, as all the exit polls showed Chavez lost to challenger Henriques Capriles by a slim margin. And Chavez himself seemed to show his hand when he sent tanks and troops armed with AK-47's into the streets before the final results were announced. Now why would troops and tanks be needed if Chavez lost?? They wouldn't. They would only be needed if the president knew that he would be declared the winner no matter what the polls said, and that protests to an illegal election would take place. It was clearly a pre-emptive move designed to squash any thought of protests BEFORE the illegal results were declared. This looks like a pretty clear case of election fraud and a dictatorial leader staying in power illegally.

And what did the Obama Administration do about this clear case of fraud and tyranny? They congratulated Chavez and the Venezuelan people "on the high level of participation, as well as on what was a relatively peaceful election process." That quote came from White House spokesman Jay Carney. (An apt name since the Obama Administration looks more like a two-bit carnival freak show than a competent band of leaders at times)

I remember watching a special on Vladimir Putin shortly before he "won" his re-election bid. At one point it mentioned what happened in the country of Georgia in 2003. There were apparent fraudulent results in the parliamentary elections that year (helped by Putin) and the resulting protests led to the ouster of their president at the time, since he was complicit in the fraud. The United States strongly condemned the illegal election fraud, made strong statements urging new elections, and even sent Secretary of State James Baker there to push those free elections. The result was an ouster of a corrupt president, a new election un-tainted by fraud, and a freer Georgia hailed as a better place by it's citizens.

Today, when a corrupt dictator "wins" a clearly fraudulent election, keeping his own people down with tanks and soldiers in the street, the president of the United States congratulates him and moves on like nothing happened. Great foreign policy, Barack.

But of course Barack Hussein Obama doesn't think Hugo Chavez is such a bad dude. Remember this quote he made in July: "But overall my sense is that what Mr. Chávez has done over the last several years has not had a serious national security impact on us. We have to be vigilant. My main concern when it comes to Venezuela is having the Venezuelan people have a voice in their affairs, and that you end up ultimately having fair and free elections, which we don't always see."

Wait. What was that? What's your main concern? That the Venezuelan people have a voice and ultimately have fair and free elections? Um...should we chalk that up as another lie or would you like to take that back? Perhaps the altitude screwed up your thought process again. Maybe you should've said your main concern was getting yourself re-elected, because that's all it seems like you really care about.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, had this to say about the president's comments and Hugo Chavez: “This is a stunning and shocking comment by the President. It is disturbing to see him downplaying the threat posed to U.S. interests by a regime that openly wishes us ill. Hugo Chavez has provided safe haven to drug kingpins, encouraged regional terrorist organizations that threaten our allies like Colombia, has strengthened military ties with Iran and helped it evade sanctions, and has allowed a Hezbollah presence within his country's borders. And he is seeking to lead – together with the Castros – a destabilizing, anti-democratic, and anti-American ‘Bolivarian Revolution’ across Latin America. President Obama's remarks continue a pattern of weakness in his foreign policy, one that has emboldened adversaries and diminished U.S. influence in every region of the world. As president, I will speak clearly and resolutely on the challenges we face so that both our allies and our adversaries will know where we stand.”

Looks like Romney is gonna crush Obama on the foreign policy debate just as easily as he did on the economic debate.