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.

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

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.

Climate Change profiteers

In the below post, I stated it was Climate Change supporters & proponents who were attempting to sell us snake oil in the form of Cap & Trade.

They ignore the millions of years that the earth has gone through natural cooling & warming cycles.

They will not speak to the rise in temperatures ending in 98-99. Since that time the temps have plateaued.

They will not speak to the fact that the US will be at a competitive disadvantage with India & China who will not be bound to this bill’s emission limits or the associated cost. Both countries refuse to participate.

Some Democrats, such as Commerce Secretary, Locke have said that Americans should be willing to pay for China’s emissions. What a stupid concept!

Not only would we send them more of our jobs, we would also subsidize their emissions? It is all about the money.

Like so many things that occur in our country that doesn’t seem to make sense, a person usually only has to follow the money to find the rationale behind otherwise indefensible self-defeating policies.

I found an article that gives an example of this, in of all places, the bird cage liner of choice, the NY Times.

The article tells how a big time climate change prophet, Al Gore, has positioned himself to make several million dollars off of the one deal highlighted in the article.

I will give the highlights, and those wanting to read the full article can read the provided link.

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Al Gore thought he had spotted a winner last year when a small California firm sought financing for an energy-saving technology from the venture capital firm where Mr. Gore is a partner.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. It came to Mr. Gore’s firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capital providers, looking for $75 million to expand its partnerships with utilities seeking to install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses.

Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and John Doerr, another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate advisers.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

Silver Spring Networks is a foot soldier in the global green energy revolution Mr. Gore hopes to lead. Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

This is but one glaring example of how people claiming to be for the little guy are preparing to stick it to the little guy that they purport to support.

They are quick to dismiss anyone voicing doubts about their claims.

They do so, not out of concern for mankind, but for their personal concern for their own wallet.

Cap & Trade's impact on American families

As soon as the health care debate ends, which yesterday Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid estimated to be $2 Trillion, instead of the $829 Billion advertised just this past Monday, we will turn our focus to the draconian Cap & Trade debate.

I wanted to take the time and read over the Congressional Budget Offices' summary of the Cap & Trade legislation to see what the impact will be on my family and friends.

I believe it will put the US at a severe competetive disadvantage on the world stage.

Many argue that the claims of "global warming" are dubious at best, considering that the claim ignores the earth's natural cooling and heating cycles that span millions of years.

Long before the first smoke stack belched or the first car took to the road, the earth warmed & cooled.

China & India have both flatly rejected calls for them to participate which means implementing such a law in the US will have a detrimental affect on US households expenses and jobs.

While these two countries refuse to take part in this scam, Obama's Commerce Secretary, Gary Locke recently called for US consumers to pay for our own emissions, and theirs.

That caveat is not included in the CBO report, but wiould only add to our rise in costs and unemployment beyond that which is currently included in their summary.


Here is a summary from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), that addresses both of these issues.

Estimated Costs per Household

The GHG cap-and-trade program established under H.R. 2454 would impose
costs on U.S. households and provide some financial benefits, as well as the
benefits associated with any changes in the climate that would be avoided as a
result of the legislation. (This analysis addresses only those financial benefits.)

The costs would be incurred through higher prices for the goods and services that
households consumed, and the incidence of those costs would be determined
primarily by households’ consumption patterns. In the aggregate, most of those
costs would be offset by income or other benefits provided to households as a
result of the distribution of the value of the emission allowances.


The legislation would influence how much of that value was conveyed to various households by specifying how to allocate the allowances. For example, H.R. 2454 would direct some of that value to low-income households by specifying that 15 percent of the allowance value be used to provide energy rebates and tax credits for such households.


Gross Compliance Costs

Gross compliance costs would consist of the cost of emission allowances, the cost
of both domestic and international offset credits, and the resource costs incurred
in order to reduce the use of fossil fuels:


The cost of the allowances. The cost of acquiring allowances would become a
cost of doing business. In most cases, the firms required to hold the
allowances would not bear that cost; rather, they would pass it onto their
customers in the form of higher prices.


■ The cost of both domestic and international offset credits. Like the cost for
allowances, the cost of acquiring offset credits would be passed on by firms to
their customers in the form of higher prices.


■ The resource costs associated with reducing emissions. The resource costs
would include the value of the additional resources (including nonmonetized
resources, such as time) required to reduce emissions—for example, by
generating electricity from natural gas rather than from coal, by making
improvements in energy efficiency, or by changing behavior to save energy
(by carpooling, for example).


According to CBO’s estimates, the gross cost of complying with the GHG capand-
trade program delineated in H.R. 2454 would be about $110 billion in 2020
(measured in terms of 2010 levels of consumption and income), or about $890
per household (see Table 1). Of that gross cost, 96 percent would be the cost of
acquiring allowances or offset credits. The reminder would be the resource costs
associated with reducing emissions.


As noted, firms would generally pass the cost of reducing their emissions—or of
acquiring offset credits or emission allowances—on to their customers, and their
customers’ customers. (Indeed, assuming that higher costs are passed into prices
is customary in distributional analyses.) Households and governments would bear
those costs through their consumption of goods and services. Because households
account for the bulk of spending, they would bear most of the costs.


Transitional Costs
The measure of costs described above reflects the costs that would occur once the
economy had adjusted to the change in the relative prices of goods and services. It
does not include the costs that some current investors and workers in sectors of
the economy that produce energy and energy-intensive goods and services would
incur as the economy moved away from the use of fossil fuels.


To be sure, increased production of energy from non-fossil-fuel sources (such as wind or solar) and a shift to more energy-efficient production processes would create jobs and profit opportunities as well.


However, those jobs might be in different regions of the country or require different skills than the jobs being lost, and the profit opportunities might arise from different types of capital; their availability would
mute but not eliminate the costs of the transition.


Thus, investors would see the value of some stocks decline, and workers would face higher risk of unemployment as jobs in some sectors were eliminated. Stock losses would tend to be widely dispersed among investors because shareholders typically diversify their portfolios.


In contrast, the costs of unemployment would probably be
concentrated among relatively few households and, by extension, their
communities. The magnitude of those transitional costs would depend on the pace
of emission reductions, with more rapid reductions leading to larger costs.


Although large segments of the U.S. economy either do not face
significant foreign competition (for example, the electricity and transportation
sectors) or involve trade with countries that have a cap-and-trade program (the
European Union, for example), some important manufacturing industries, such as
steel, face competition from countries that do not face the costs of such a system.


Some regions and industries would experience substantially higher rates of unemployment and job turnover as the program became increasingly stringent. That transition could be particularly difficult for
individuals employed in those industries (such as the coal industry) or living in
those regions (such as Appalachia). However, any aggregate change in
unemployment would be small compared with the normal rate of job turnover in
the economy.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090620/cbowaxmanmarkey.pdf

Are Americans willing to send more of our dwindling job market overseas while facing such an permanent increase in across-the-board prices here at home?

I do support the US developing alternative energy sources, but we do not have to throw the baby out with the bath water to achieve that result.

America's dangerously naive Foreign Policy

Our troops continue to be killed in Afghanistan as Obama dithers on whether to send his generals their requested 40,000 troops or come up with any sort of policy. To show our military that he knows their needs better than they do, he is quietly sending 13,000 more troops. He can not decide on what the final number should be.

The president continues to insist on meeting with Iran without preconditions. Despite the IAEA's warnings that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons. During the campaign last year Hillary Clinton cautioned against such a stupid move. During the campaign, Obama, himself said a nuclear Iran was not acceptable.

This weekend, N. Korea continued to thumb their nose at Obama as they launched a volley of missiles in a show of defiance.

Chavez has announced a deal to buy Russian missiles to be staioned to our south. When the Soviets tried to put missiles in Cuba, JFK stood them down.

Not Obama. He smiles and apologises.

Hillary is returning from Russia empty-handed, having achieved nothing on her foray to Russia. Obama sent her to meet with Russia's president, and was met with a "nyet" when she brought up sanctions against Iran.

This despite Obama's gesture of abandoning our European allies missile defense shield.

How does our naive president respond to this slap down?

He grants the Russians access to our nuclear sites, knowing that Russia is looking to develop their next generation of nuclear weapons.

Tentative Inspection Program Would Allow Russia to Visit U.S. Nuclear Sites
The plan, which Fox News has learned was agreed to in principle during negotiations, would constitute the most intrusive weapons inspection program the U.S. has ever accepted.
Russia and the United States have tentatively agreed to a weapons inspection program that would allow Russians to visit nuclear sites in America to count missiles and warheads.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=asbOYPkD.ZH0

What did Obama get in return for compromising our security? Nothing!

Obama not satisfied whith the speed to which he can let our former & current adversaries access to our miltary, has also invited the Chinese into the Pentagon. He forgot how many military secrets the Chinese stole when Clinton allowed them acccess to Los Alamos, NM, nuclear facilities. So he is doomed to repeat the same naive history.

What is he getting from the Chinese for compromising our national defense? Nothing.

China's second-ranking military officer will travel to Washington later this month on a week-long visit designed to promote trust and avoid "misunderstandings," the Pentagon said Wednesday.
General Xu Caihou, vice chairman of the People's Liberation Army central military commission, will hold high-level meetings from October 24-31 and visit military commands and bases across the United States, press secretary Geoff Morrell told a news conference.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.b2e1961b55d6773018513c4bd51816bb.581&show_article=1

I hope the US can survive a reckless presidency until he gets booted to the curb in 2012.