The world is aware that we are all facing economic uncertainty. Some nations are faring better than others.
Many were left scratching their heads when the worlds leaders chose to attend the 'global warming' conference in Copenhagen, Denmark last month.
Many questioned the priorities & judgement of those choosing to attend.
It had only been a few weeks since we had all learned how the scientists touting global warming, had been lying in their analysis and manipulating their climate models and outcomes to support their agenda.
Would the world have been better served if these leaders had come together to discuss the global economy and job creation?
They certainly accomplished nothing meaningful in Copenhagen.
I am not arguing the merits for or against global warming. I believe the world may indeed be getting warmer, but question the validity of mankind being the culprit.
The earth has warmed & cooled several times over millions of years with and without mankind being here to influence this phenomenon.
With that said, I want to discuss the judgement & priorities of our elected leaders.
This conference was held to discuss global warming, and more specifically, CO2 emissions.
The US. Congressional Leadership felt the urge to attend this conference despite having nothing to add to the dialogue.
Nancy Pelosi's judgement & priorities allowed her to arrive at the decision, that despite the US economy shedding jobs, and the US being broke; she would attend the conference.
She did not go alone.
Pelosi took over 100 people with her on the taxpayers dime. Only 20 of these people were actual members of Congress. The rest were the delegations family, friends, and servants/staff.
In Copenhagen, the American taxpayers were given the honor of paying for these people to stay at the 5-star Marriott Hotel. We also provided them with handsome per diems to cover the cost of meals & alcohol for the 21 Congress persons, their families & friends.
Being a conference focused on CO2 emissions, did Pelosi set an example by "ride-sharing"?
No. These folks needed three aircraft at $10,000 per hour just for fuel...........each. That doesn't include the military & security personnel needed for such a trip.
Judgement & priorities come into question.
It gets better.
Former Democratic presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry, the preeminent DC prima dona, could not share a plane with Nancy & company.
Taxpayers are footing the bill for John Kerry to fly on a large government-owned executive jet.............................alone!!
Again, judgement & priorities come into question.
CNNs, Jack Cafferty reported on this story and took great lengths to expose this scam against American taxpayers.
Cafferty went on to opine:
"Pelosi refused to answer any questions about costs for this or where they all stayed, even though she was the one who decided who went. Her office says only that it will -- quote -- "comply with disclosure requirements" -- unquote. CBS puts the cost of military jet flying time at about $170,000, plus the cost of dozens of commercial flights, hundreds of hotel stays, many of them at the five-star Marriott, and tens of thousands in meals and other entertainment expense.
It's a disgrace.
The national unemployment rate is 10 percent. Employers cut more jobs than expected just last month. We got the numbers on Friday. People are suffering in this country.
California, Pelosi's home state, is faced with a $20 billion budget deficit. Governor Schwarzenegger's budget plan will force 200,000 children off low-cost medical insurance, will end home care for more than 300,000 sick and elderly citizens, and will cut income assistance to hundreds of thousands more.
This nation is hurting, but Nancy Pelosi can use three military jets for a December trip to Copenhagen, and then refuse to answer any questions about it." - Jack Cafferty, CNN (Jan 12)
I do not believe it is too much to ask that our leaders be able to walk the walk, as well as, talk the talk.
Again, with their judgement & priorities frighteningly out of sync with voters, are they really the right people for the job?
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Democrats & Racial Hypocrisy
There are some Republicans who hold racist viewpoints.
There are some Democrats who hold these very same racist views.
I am free of such a burden. I am fortunate to be young enough to have been raised more in an era where a man is judged by his actions & deeds.
My only reason for bringing up racial feelings is what I believe to be a glaring double-standard on the subject.
Several years ago, then-GOP Senate-Majority Leader, Trent Lott was forced to give up his leadership post after commenting at Strom Thurmond's birthday celebration that things might have been different if the old segregationist had won the presidency in '48.
Some may disagree with me on this, but his observation was correct, things would have been different.
The difference would not have been for the better, but for the worse.
How would a majority-Christian nation condone such disdain for his fellow man?
There may be some behaviors in some people we may not like, and we may chose to avoid them for that reason. We are certainly smart enough not to be sucked into avoiding someone based on the color of their skin.
Yet to hear the liberals speak; all Republicans hold such views.
The liberals will tell you that, yes some racists were Democrats, but after the Civil Rights passage, they left the Democratic fold and joined forces with the GOP.
The Democrats are quick to jump and shout if a member of the GOP makes a racially insensitive remark.
In typical knee-jerk reaction they call for the offenders resignation. Many times this reaction is justified as there is no more room in the US for a person holding such feelings to participate in the public discourse.
It is quite telling when a party points to insensitive remarks of the other party's leader making such remarks, and your own party has made a former member of the KKK the leader of your own party. I am speaking of Robert Byrd, D-WV.
The Democrats elected Byrd to lead their senate efforts after it was known he was a former Grand Wizard of the KKK.
Can you imagine the outcry if the GOP had done this?
With that said, I would like to get to the crux of my point.
I find it totally hypocritical for the Democrats to point to the GOP as a party of racists (when we know that is not true), when their own leaders get caught espousing the very same racist feelings.
There is a new book out called 'Game Changer'.
This book is bound to set Washington on its head.
The book quotes contemporary politicians making racially insensitive remarks.
Were it not for the blatant hypocrisy coming from the left on this issue, I would not bring it up.
In the book, Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid is quoted as buttressing his support of the Obama candidacy by claiming that Obama is a "light skinned" and does not have a "negro-dialect" unless he wants to.
What are we to make of such a statement?
In 2008, did Harry Reid still feel the need to justify his support for an African-American? Did he need to point out that Obama was "light skinned" and had no "negro-dialect"?
What message was Reid trying to convey?
Would Reid not have supported Obama if he was dark skinned or spoke in stereotype slang?
All weekend the liberals have taken to the television airwaves defending Reid for comments that they would have ran a member of the GOP out of town for making.
What they are ignoring in their rush to circle the wagons, is that Reid made these comments in private believing they would not go beyond their intended audience.
What is alarming about this is that they show the mindset of the Democrats chosen leader in the US Senate.
Reid really thinks this way................and the Democrats are attempting to defend him.
The book serves to reinforce a perception whose groundwork was laid during the campaign by who many believed and touted as the first African-American President, Bill Clinton.
During the campaign, Bill Clinton raised the ire of the black community for his comments about how the Obama campaign was merely a "fantasy", and dismissively pointed out that Jesse Jackson had also won the South Carolina primary when Jackson ran for the nomination.
Now the book brings up a conversation that Bill Clinton had with then-Senator, Ted Kennedy when trying to get Kennedy's endorsement for Hillary's campaign.
Bill Clinton was attempting to belittle the Obama candidacy as nonsensical.
Clinton told Kennedy, "a few years ago, this guy would have been serving us coffee", meaning that Obama was only a few short years beyond being able to merely serve coffee to the Democratic stalwarts, much less actually being worthy of serving as President.
Again in this exchange, Bill Clinton tipped his hand to his inner way of thinking.
Similar to people who have been drinking, many are less inhibited in their speech when they believe they are in a private conversation.
Kennedy was angry with this comment from Clinton.
The Massachusetts Lion of the Senate came out and endorsed Obama over Clinton's private objections.
While Harry Reid has apologized for getting caught airing his true beliefs, Clinton has not as of yet.
Before applauding Reid for his apology, put into context. It took the publishing of a book and passage of two years beofre that apology was forthcoming.
Sunlight truly is the best disinfectant.
Had either of these two men been members of the GOP, we would have experienced a weekend of GOP-bashing more intense than that given the Democrats.
Racism comes in all shapes, colors, sizes, and political parties.
While I believe racism is a dying belief, there are obviously still remnants of bygone days.
The hypocrisy on this issue from the Democrats is so transparent and obvious, it will be a long time before the left dares to rear its ugly head on this.
Each time they do, we will have these quotes and the pictures of Bob Byrd in his KKK robes ready to trot out for all to see.
There are some Democrats who hold these very same racist views.
I am free of such a burden. I am fortunate to be young enough to have been raised more in an era where a man is judged by his actions & deeds.
My only reason for bringing up racial feelings is what I believe to be a glaring double-standard on the subject.
Several years ago, then-GOP Senate-Majority Leader, Trent Lott was forced to give up his leadership post after commenting at Strom Thurmond's birthday celebration that things might have been different if the old segregationist had won the presidency in '48.
Some may disagree with me on this, but his observation was correct, things would have been different.
The difference would not have been for the better, but for the worse.
How would a majority-Christian nation condone such disdain for his fellow man?
There may be some behaviors in some people we may not like, and we may chose to avoid them for that reason. We are certainly smart enough not to be sucked into avoiding someone based on the color of their skin.
Yet to hear the liberals speak; all Republicans hold such views.
The liberals will tell you that, yes some racists were Democrats, but after the Civil Rights passage, they left the Democratic fold and joined forces with the GOP.
The Democrats are quick to jump and shout if a member of the GOP makes a racially insensitive remark.
In typical knee-jerk reaction they call for the offenders resignation. Many times this reaction is justified as there is no more room in the US for a person holding such feelings to participate in the public discourse.
It is quite telling when a party points to insensitive remarks of the other party's leader making such remarks, and your own party has made a former member of the KKK the leader of your own party. I am speaking of Robert Byrd, D-WV.
The Democrats elected Byrd to lead their senate efforts after it was known he was a former Grand Wizard of the KKK.
Can you imagine the outcry if the GOP had done this?
With that said, I would like to get to the crux of my point.
I find it totally hypocritical for the Democrats to point to the GOP as a party of racists (when we know that is not true), when their own leaders get caught espousing the very same racist feelings.
There is a new book out called 'Game Changer'.
This book is bound to set Washington on its head.
The book quotes contemporary politicians making racially insensitive remarks.
Were it not for the blatant hypocrisy coming from the left on this issue, I would not bring it up.
In the book, Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid is quoted as buttressing his support of the Obama candidacy by claiming that Obama is a "light skinned" and does not have a "negro-dialect" unless he wants to.
What are we to make of such a statement?
In 2008, did Harry Reid still feel the need to justify his support for an African-American? Did he need to point out that Obama was "light skinned" and had no "negro-dialect"?
What message was Reid trying to convey?
Would Reid not have supported Obama if he was dark skinned or spoke in stereotype slang?
All weekend the liberals have taken to the television airwaves defending Reid for comments that they would have ran a member of the GOP out of town for making.
What they are ignoring in their rush to circle the wagons, is that Reid made these comments in private believing they would not go beyond their intended audience.
What is alarming about this is that they show the mindset of the Democrats chosen leader in the US Senate.
Reid really thinks this way................and the Democrats are attempting to defend him.
The book serves to reinforce a perception whose groundwork was laid during the campaign by who many believed and touted as the first African-American President, Bill Clinton.
During the campaign, Bill Clinton raised the ire of the black community for his comments about how the Obama campaign was merely a "fantasy", and dismissively pointed out that Jesse Jackson had also won the South Carolina primary when Jackson ran for the nomination.
Now the book brings up a conversation that Bill Clinton had with then-Senator, Ted Kennedy when trying to get Kennedy's endorsement for Hillary's campaign.
Bill Clinton was attempting to belittle the Obama candidacy as nonsensical.
Clinton told Kennedy, "a few years ago, this guy would have been serving us coffee", meaning that Obama was only a few short years beyond being able to merely serve coffee to the Democratic stalwarts, much less actually being worthy of serving as President.
Again in this exchange, Bill Clinton tipped his hand to his inner way of thinking.
Similar to people who have been drinking, many are less inhibited in their speech when they believe they are in a private conversation.
Kennedy was angry with this comment from Clinton.
The Massachusetts Lion of the Senate came out and endorsed Obama over Clinton's private objections.
While Harry Reid has apologized for getting caught airing his true beliefs, Clinton has not as of yet.
Before applauding Reid for his apology, put into context. It took the publishing of a book and passage of two years beofre that apology was forthcoming.
Sunlight truly is the best disinfectant.
Had either of these two men been members of the GOP, we would have experienced a weekend of GOP-bashing more intense than that given the Democrats.
Racism comes in all shapes, colors, sizes, and political parties.
While I believe racism is a dying belief, there are obviously still remnants of bygone days.
The hypocrisy on this issue from the Democrats is so transparent and obvious, it will be a long time before the left dares to rear its ugly head on this.
Each time they do, we will have these quotes and the pictures of Bob Byrd in his KKK robes ready to trot out for all to see.
Friday, January 8, 2010
85,000 MORE JOBS LOST; Obama's priorities & Judgement called into question
Leading up to the release of the December unemployment numbers the administration said they expected to lose 8,000 jobs, despite retailers adding Christmas help.
The US usually experiences an uptick in employment during the busy holiday season.
Obama actually lost 10 X their estimate for a loss of 85,000 jobs.
Unemployment did remain at 10%, a full 2% higher than Obama promised after receiving his “stimulus”.
The reason the unemployment percent did not go up was because more people lost their benefits during December and are no longer included in the unemployment figures. Those no longer being counted are still just as unemployed, but now have no income.
How can this White House be so wrong on so many issues affecting American voters such as jobs and national security?
Why did Obama sit back & watch unemployment rise for nearly a year before holding a “jobs summit” in December?
Instead of focusing on jobs & national security, Obama chose to address health care & global warming.
Folks, we had a terrorist shoot our military recruiters in Little Rock, Arkansas, another terrorist went on a shooting spree at Fort Hood, Texas, and yet another attempted to blow up a planeload of people flying into Detroit on Christmas Day.
The liberals claim Obama is a “certified intellectual”. I am not sure of their criteria for such a dubious claim, but they may want to revise their standards. For those who have no job or rely on the administration to protect them as they fly; they may have a different evaluation of his intellectual prowess.
Many are justified in questioning Obama’s judgement & priorities.
How does a president come to the conclusion that the country needs him to address health care & global warming, while he sits back and ignores unemployment & national security?
I heard the liberals state that Obama was following Bush’s national security policies and therefore it was Bush’s fault.
Excuse me, but if this guy is so smart, and Bush was believed to be so dumb, why didn’t he review the Bush policies and update them when he came into office?
If you think you are a “certified intellectual”, why would you follow the same policies of someone you think is not as smart as you?
Obama is simply not as smart as advertised.
Folks, to put it another way: ‘the Emperor has no clothes’!!
The US usually experiences an uptick in employment during the busy holiday season.
Obama actually lost 10 X their estimate for a loss of 85,000 jobs.
Unemployment did remain at 10%, a full 2% higher than Obama promised after receiving his “stimulus”.
The reason the unemployment percent did not go up was because more people lost their benefits during December and are no longer included in the unemployment figures. Those no longer being counted are still just as unemployed, but now have no income.
How can this White House be so wrong on so many issues affecting American voters such as jobs and national security?
Why did Obama sit back & watch unemployment rise for nearly a year before holding a “jobs summit” in December?
Instead of focusing on jobs & national security, Obama chose to address health care & global warming.
Folks, we had a terrorist shoot our military recruiters in Little Rock, Arkansas, another terrorist went on a shooting spree at Fort Hood, Texas, and yet another attempted to blow up a planeload of people flying into Detroit on Christmas Day.
The liberals claim Obama is a “certified intellectual”. I am not sure of their criteria for such a dubious claim, but they may want to revise their standards. For those who have no job or rely on the administration to protect them as they fly; they may have a different evaluation of his intellectual prowess.
Many are justified in questioning Obama’s judgement & priorities.
How does a president come to the conclusion that the country needs him to address health care & global warming, while he sits back and ignores unemployment & national security?
I heard the liberals state that Obama was following Bush’s national security policies and therefore it was Bush’s fault.
Excuse me, but if this guy is so smart, and Bush was believed to be so dumb, why didn’t he review the Bush policies and update them when he came into office?
If you think you are a “certified intellectual”, why would you follow the same policies of someone you think is not as smart as you?
Obama is simply not as smart as advertised.
Folks, to put it another way: ‘the Emperor has no clothes’!!
Monday, December 28, 2009
The High Cost of Political Correctness & Naivety
It has been a short period of time since a homegrown terrorist made repeated threats against the US and was ignored by our government.
He killed 13 unarmed Americans waiting to ship out to Afghanistan and wounded 30+ others.
He sent up enough red flags before going on his jihadi rampage to alert those interested in fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities of protecting our homeland and citizens from harm.
How did Nadal's plan go uninterrupted.
He spoke of his convictions and thoughts on the subject. He made no secret of his feelings.
Regardless of the 800# Gorilla in the room, the liberals still refuse to call Ft. Hood massacre a terrorist act.
Why?
Political correctness.
Our current President & administration is so naively concerned with not hurting the radical Muslims feelings that they allow these things as result of their naive commitment to political correctness.
Early in the administration the White House adopted the policy of not referring to terrorists as terrorists. Such a term was deemed 'mean spirited'.
No longer would there be mention of a War on Terror.
The Obama administration has taken the position that these terrorists just need a hug.
They are too politically correct to acknowledge that the radicals plans call for the murder or conversion of all who fail to embrace Islam. These radicals believe they are acting on divine inspiration from Allah.
The administration naively believes they can negotiate a "peace for our time" with these nut cases. Similar to Chamberlain's naive assessment of Nazi Germany.
In doing so, they ignore the inconvenient fact these radicals are not interested in 'negotiating'. Nobody is going to negotiate with them when they believe they are acting on the commands of Allah. How do we negotiate with that?
How do we negotiate with someone willing to be a suicide bomber against innocent peoples?
These folks openly call for Islam to dominate the world. They do not intend to stop short of their stated goal.
They are poised to become the majority population of Europe by 2050. Why? Because Europeans have capitulated to these extremists views and taken the approach of political correctness.
They ignore the radicalization of their youth that is taking place on their own soil. This is similar to the ignoring of training camps these radicals are operating here in the US and elsewhere around the world.
Radical Muslims have even won the "right" to have a Sharia Law court system that operates parallel to the English courts.
One set of laws for the Muslims in England and another for all other religious & nonreligious groups there.
That my friends is cowardice.
Three days ago a young Nigerian man attempted to celebrate Christmas by blowing himself and 200+ people out of the sky while his flight approached Detroit Airport.
Britain had this young man on their "no-fly" list and revoked his passport.
His own father warned US officials about him two months ago. Explained Clarke, "The kind of person, who's being radicalized increasingly in the U.S. and in Europe, are people who are sons of the middle class, the upper middle class, sons of well educated families, people who have radicalized at long distance over the Internet."
Did the administration put him on a 'no-fly' list?
No.
DHS Secretary, Janet Napolitano said he acted alone.
This is contrary to what we are learning about him.
According to this young wannabe terrorist, there will be more bombers coming behind him.
Britain is reporting that as many as 25 more young radical men are in Yemen training to bring down airliners. They all have the same al Qaeda ties as him, same Imams as him, same sentiments as him, but alas..............he acted alone.
Folks did you hear the prime time speech that our President gave in addressing this act of terror? The one where he gave as much effort as he did during his myriad of health care speeches?
Of course not. It is difficult to keep the teleprompter upright when placed in the warm sands of Hawaii's beaches.
Friends, I for one choose life, and the embrace of freedom over foolish state sponsored political correctness.
Things to consider in the elections of 2010 & 2012.
He killed 13 unarmed Americans waiting to ship out to Afghanistan and wounded 30+ others.
He sent up enough red flags before going on his jihadi rampage to alert those interested in fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities of protecting our homeland and citizens from harm.
How did Nadal's plan go uninterrupted.
He spoke of his convictions and thoughts on the subject. He made no secret of his feelings.
Regardless of the 800# Gorilla in the room, the liberals still refuse to call Ft. Hood massacre a terrorist act.
Why?
Political correctness.
Our current President & administration is so naively concerned with not hurting the radical Muslims feelings that they allow these things as result of their naive commitment to political correctness.
Early in the administration the White House adopted the policy of not referring to terrorists as terrorists. Such a term was deemed 'mean spirited'.
No longer would there be mention of a War on Terror.
The Obama administration has taken the position that these terrorists just need a hug.
They are too politically correct to acknowledge that the radicals plans call for the murder or conversion of all who fail to embrace Islam. These radicals believe they are acting on divine inspiration from Allah.
The administration naively believes they can negotiate a "peace for our time" with these nut cases. Similar to Chamberlain's naive assessment of Nazi Germany.
In doing so, they ignore the inconvenient fact these radicals are not interested in 'negotiating'. Nobody is going to negotiate with them when they believe they are acting on the commands of Allah. How do we negotiate with that?
How do we negotiate with someone willing to be a suicide bomber against innocent peoples?
These folks openly call for Islam to dominate the world. They do not intend to stop short of their stated goal.
They are poised to become the majority population of Europe by 2050. Why? Because Europeans have capitulated to these extremists views and taken the approach of political correctness.
They ignore the radicalization of their youth that is taking place on their own soil. This is similar to the ignoring of training camps these radicals are operating here in the US and elsewhere around the world.
Radical Muslims have even won the "right" to have a Sharia Law court system that operates parallel to the English courts.
One set of laws for the Muslims in England and another for all other religious & nonreligious groups there.
That my friends is cowardice.
Three days ago a young Nigerian man attempted to celebrate Christmas by blowing himself and 200+ people out of the sky while his flight approached Detroit Airport.
Britain had this young man on their "no-fly" list and revoked his passport.
His own father warned US officials about him two months ago. Explained Clarke, "The kind of person, who's being radicalized increasingly in the U.S. and in Europe, are people who are sons of the middle class, the upper middle class, sons of well educated families, people who have radicalized at long distance over the Internet."
Did the administration put him on a 'no-fly' list?
No.
DHS Secretary, Janet Napolitano said he acted alone.
This is contrary to what we are learning about him.
According to this young wannabe terrorist, there will be more bombers coming behind him.
Britain is reporting that as many as 25 more young radical men are in Yemen training to bring down airliners. They all have the same al Qaeda ties as him, same Imams as him, same sentiments as him, but alas..............he acted alone.
Folks did you hear the prime time speech that our President gave in addressing this act of terror? The one where he gave as much effort as he did during his myriad of health care speeches?
Of course not. It is difficult to keep the teleprompter upright when placed in the warm sands of Hawaii's beaches.
Friends, I for one choose life, and the embrace of freedom over foolish state sponsored political correctness.
Things to consider in the elections of 2010 & 2012.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Terrorism by any other name...a follow up
I wish I were amazed by Obama & Holder deciding to bring the terrorists into our civilian courts as if they robbed a 7-11. Obama naively believes terrorist should receive the same constitutional rights as any real American citizen.
Keep in mind that during our Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea & Viet Nam, we did ot allow enemy combatants into our civilian courts where they would be given a platform to spew their anti-American rhetoric, or risk them getting off on a technicality.
Unfortunately, I am not amazed. This incompetence has been evidenced for the past 11 months.
The administration has asked Congress to not launch an investigation at this time of the Fort Hood terrorist attack.
Some in this administration are loathe to go after terrorists or even acknowledge what the rest of the world already knows. Radicals will never be "negotiated" with.
The only thing they want from the west is to see the west destroyed.
Why? We are nonMuslim infidels. No amount of talking will change that fact or their hearts & minds.
Yet the administration treats these wackos as if all they need is a hug!!
We all have read about the numerous "red flags" the Fort Hood terrorist sent up that went ignored.
I am attaching a link that shows the sideshow this extremist gave in lieu of the expected presentation on medicine & treatment.
After watching the sideshow, I ask:
1. If you were in the audience anticipating a medical presentation and instead were shown this garbage, what would your reaction have been?
2. I am curious if you believe this is the sideshow of a terrorist, or of a medical doctor about medicine & treatment?
3. Do you believe this act was terrorism?
4. Do you support bringing terrorists into civilian court?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/gallery/2009/11/10/GA2009111000920.html
Keep in mind that during our Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea & Viet Nam, we did ot allow enemy combatants into our civilian courts where they would be given a platform to spew their anti-American rhetoric, or risk them getting off on a technicality.
Unfortunately, I am not amazed. This incompetence has been evidenced for the past 11 months.
The administration has asked Congress to not launch an investigation at this time of the Fort Hood terrorist attack.
Some in this administration are loathe to go after terrorists or even acknowledge what the rest of the world already knows. Radicals will never be "negotiated" with.
The only thing they want from the west is to see the west destroyed.
Why? We are nonMuslim infidels. No amount of talking will change that fact or their hearts & minds.
Yet the administration treats these wackos as if all they need is a hug!!
We all have read about the numerous "red flags" the Fort Hood terrorist sent up that went ignored.
I am attaching a link that shows the sideshow this extremist gave in lieu of the expected presentation on medicine & treatment.
After watching the sideshow, I ask:
1. If you were in the audience anticipating a medical presentation and instead were shown this garbage, what would your reaction have been?
2. I am curious if you believe this is the sideshow of a terrorist, or of a medical doctor about medicine & treatment?
3. Do you believe this act was terrorism?
4. Do you support bringing terrorists into civilian court?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/gallery/2009/11/10/GA2009111000920.html
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Terrorism by any other name
I have been quiet since the attack last week at Fort Hood, TX. While I find our President to be naive and glaringly inexperienced on matters of Foreign Policy, I fully anticipated his denouncing this tragedy as the terrorist attack that it clearly was.
Our brave men and women in the armed services explained through the media why there is a reluctance on their part to report troubling and suspicious behavior. If they report this type of behavior it may lead to the reporting service member being labeled a racist. They may also find themselves on the wrong end of an EEOC violation.
After a presentation where medical team members were presenting on new medicines and treatments, the members reported Hasan for his presentation. He did not present on medicine & treatment. He reported how it was acceptable for Muslims to kill the infidels. Cut off their heads and pour hot oil down their necks.
Hasan also expressed concern for the US foreign policy, and felt Muslims were the target of two wars.Superiors at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, DC also expressed concern for Hasans bizarre behavior. All to no avail.
The authorities knew of his contacts with members of al Qaeda well in advance. Prior to shipping out, Hasan stood up in the Fort Hood Processing Center, yells at the top of his lungs "God is great", and opens fire upon his unarmed fellow soldiers.
This was not the act of a crazy person. This was the act of a Jihadist carrying out a terrorist attack on American soil.
America's liberal media and supporters have gone to great pains to downplay the act of terrorism, and tried to play it off as someone mentally ill. Terrorism by any other name is still terrorism. I believe the terrorist mindset is very limited within the Muslim community and does not represent the the beliefs of that community. It is a fringe element.
There are radicals within all religions, but not many fly planes into buildings or target innocents.
America's political left and their blind pursuit of political correctness led to this attack. This same liberal mindset clouds their ability to see what is staring them straight in their face.
The Muslim organization CAIR was an unnamed co-conspirator by the FBI in a case last year regarding raising funds for the Hamas terrorist organization. No charges filed.
An undercover investigation over the past year alleges this organizations intent to take over the US and impose Sharia Law in the US. They have already succeeded in getting Sharia Law implemented in Britain to be used in cases involving Muslims.
Can you imagine the US having dual court systems? One for Muslims and one for the rest of us.
This morning the liberals mindset became more obvious, and shown for the naive nature that it is. They announced that the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheik Muhammad, will be tried in US criminal court.
They have equated an organization that declared war on the US, with a group of thugs that robbed a convenience store! Liberals appear more concerned with the "feelings" of those who subscribe to this ideology than they are to the safety of American citizens.
I will repeat that these extremists represent a minuscule fraction of Islam. With that said, I believe we need to take off the leftish rose-tinted glasses and react when faced with overwhelming evidence and leave the political correctness behind.
Folks, if you see something that does not sound or look right report it! In the meantime, we can hope this administration wakes up to reality before anyone else gets hurt.
Our brave men and women in the armed services explained through the media why there is a reluctance on their part to report troubling and suspicious behavior. If they report this type of behavior it may lead to the reporting service member being labeled a racist. They may also find themselves on the wrong end of an EEOC violation.
After a presentation where medical team members were presenting on new medicines and treatments, the members reported Hasan for his presentation. He did not present on medicine & treatment. He reported how it was acceptable for Muslims to kill the infidels. Cut off their heads and pour hot oil down their necks.
Hasan also expressed concern for the US foreign policy, and felt Muslims were the target of two wars.Superiors at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, DC also expressed concern for Hasans bizarre behavior. All to no avail.
The authorities knew of his contacts with members of al Qaeda well in advance. Prior to shipping out, Hasan stood up in the Fort Hood Processing Center, yells at the top of his lungs "God is great", and opens fire upon his unarmed fellow soldiers.
This was not the act of a crazy person. This was the act of a Jihadist carrying out a terrorist attack on American soil.
America's liberal media and supporters have gone to great pains to downplay the act of terrorism, and tried to play it off as someone mentally ill. Terrorism by any other name is still terrorism. I believe the terrorist mindset is very limited within the Muslim community and does not represent the the beliefs of that community. It is a fringe element.
There are radicals within all religions, but not many fly planes into buildings or target innocents.
America's political left and their blind pursuit of political correctness led to this attack. This same liberal mindset clouds their ability to see what is staring them straight in their face.
The Muslim organization CAIR was an unnamed co-conspirator by the FBI in a case last year regarding raising funds for the Hamas terrorist organization. No charges filed.
An undercover investigation over the past year alleges this organizations intent to take over the US and impose Sharia Law in the US. They have already succeeded in getting Sharia Law implemented in Britain to be used in cases involving Muslims.
Can you imagine the US having dual court systems? One for Muslims and one for the rest of us.
This morning the liberals mindset became more obvious, and shown for the naive nature that it is. They announced that the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheik Muhammad, will be tried in US criminal court.
They have equated an organization that declared war on the US, with a group of thugs that robbed a convenience store! Liberals appear more concerned with the "feelings" of those who subscribe to this ideology than they are to the safety of American citizens.
I will repeat that these extremists represent a minuscule fraction of Islam. With that said, I believe we need to take off the leftish rose-tinted glasses and react when faced with overwhelming evidence and leave the political correctness behind.
Folks, if you see something that does not sound or look right report it! In the meantime, we can hope this administration wakes up to reality before anyone else gets hurt.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
