"You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick." -Gov. Sarah Palin-


"The media are not above the daily test of any free institution." -Barry M. Goldwater-

"America's first interest must be to punish our enemies, then, if possible, please our friends." -Zell Miller-

"One single object...[will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." -President Thomas Jefferson-

"Don't get stuck on stupid!" -Lt. Gen. Russel Honore-

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." -Isaiah 5:20-



Petition For The FairTax




GOP Bloggers Blog Directory & Search engine Blog Sweet Blog Directory

Directory of Politics Blogs My Zimbio

Righty Blogs Of Virginia

Coalition For A Conservative Majority






A REASON TO TRY available from Barnes & Noble
A REASON TO TRY available from Borders
A REASON TO TRY available from Books-A-Million
A REASON TO TRY available from SeekBooks New Zealand
A REASON TO TRY available from SeekBooks Australia
A REASON TO TRY available from Chapters.indigo.ca Canada's Online Bookstore
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon.com
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon UK
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon Canada

Thursday, April 30, 2009

The First 100 Days: What Did You Do To Celebrate It?

Me? I was working my butt off at my job. Why? Because in addition to taking care of my wife and 4-month-old son, Obama and the other socialists in Washington have decreed that I also have to work to take care of various Peggy the Moochers out there who think that a life is owed to them and they can just sit back and sponge off of the tax dollars that come from hard working people like me.

But, it is important to look at how the leftists celbrated it and how they twisted the truth for Obama's benifit. Those twists are nothing more than insults to the intelligence of those of us who do our own research and try to verify our information before putting it out there.

Let's look at some of Obama's 100 Days quotes that don't pass the smell test:

We began by passing a recovery act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs and provided a tax cut to 95 percent of all working families.


Well, the unemployement figures show that more jobs are being lost than saved or created. I guess Obama believes that this is somehow a good thing.

As for that tax quote, it has long since been established that 43% of Americans effectively have a tax bill of $0 after their deductions and credits are factored in. That is, they either recoup their entire tax bill or get more money back than they paid in. So, how can you offer a tax break to someone who effectively doesn't even pay taxes?

On bipartisanship:

And if that is how bipartisanship is defined, a situation in which basically, wherever there are philosophical differences, I have to simply go along with ideas that have been rejected by the American people in a historic election, you know, we're probably not going to make progress.

If, on the other hand, the definition is that we're open to each other's ideas, there are going to be differences, the majority will probably be determinative when it comes to resolving just hard, core differences that we can't resolve, but there is a whole host of other areas where we can work together, then I think we can make progress.


In that first sentence, Obama is basically saying that it is his way or the highway. But his way is a hell of a lot more radical than he let onto during the campaign.

As for that second paragraph, well, perhaps Obama should have spent a few minutes explaining how locking the Republicans out of various meetings and discussions on the Porkulus/Spendulus package amounted to "bipartisanship."

On the economy:

I didn't anticipate the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.


I don't know if Obama is aware of this or not, but we have not reached that point yet. The economic crisis that resulted from Jimmy Carter's disastrous presidency was worse than what we are experiencing now. If the current crisis does reach the proportions of the Great Depression, it will be because of Obama's socialist policies, not because of the previous eight years.

On the Auto industry:

I don't think that we should micromanage ...


Unless you want to push out the CEO of GM, then micomanaging is just fine in his opinion.

And of course, Obama tried to re-write history with some of his comments. Take for example the following:

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "We don't torture," when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.

And then the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.


If Obama actually believes this, then he has been drinking the kool-aid of some historical revisionist who outright changed the facts. The British most definitely did use torture techniques, even to the point of drugging prisoners, in order to get information out of Nazi captives during World War II. Why Obama would make such a glaringly false statement, I don't know.

Every single question thrown at Obama was a soft-ball and seemed a part of a love-fest that the media was having at the time. No one asked a serious question or any of the hard questions that the American people want answered.

For example, here is a question that should have been asked: "Mr. President, if the Democrats hold that a $1 trillion deficit is irresponsible, then shouldn't the Democrats consider your budget plan to quadruple the deficit as being five times as irresponsible?"

But then, a media that is so deep in the tank for a socialist president would never have the courage nor the integrity to ask such pertinent questions.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

With Specter Defection, Dems Will Only Have Themselves To Blame For Any Negative Impacts Of Their Socialist Agenda

Arlen Specter left the GOP for the socialist Dems yesterday. I say, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out." Specter has kicked the GOP in the teeth too many times for this to be anything other than a good happening.

But, let's look at a few things Specter needs to iron out. Donors gave him $5.8 million to represent them as a Republican. If Specter really did leave on "principles," then he should be principled enough to make sure that every last cent of those donations is returned to those whom he stabbed in the back.

We also need to look at why he did what he did. Far from being an attack of principles, it was a move of political self-preservation.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele had this to say:

"Let's be honest-Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.

"Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."


Specter is so far behind his GOP opponent in Pennsylvania that there was almost no way he was going to win the GOP primary. That was the motivation for the switch. He felt he could win the Dem primary rather than go through the fight of the GOP primary. His defection had nothing to do with principle. He sacrificed principle in the interest of self-promotion.

Specter is going to have a lot of explaining to do if he reverses position on things like card-check which he claims he opposes. If he suddenly comes out in favor of it, there should be a complete investigation into exactly what he was promised by Obama, Biden and others in the Dem leadership for his act of betrayal.

But the main thing this means now is that the Dems will no longer have anyone else to blame when their policies drive our economy to ruin and America's security becomes non-existant. The only question that remians now is whether or not the Dems will have the integrity to admit when their policies fail that they were wrong.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Janeane Garofalo: Air-Headed Race Baiting From An Air-Head

Note the following photographs:





And then read what Jeaneane Garofalo had to say:

"Let's be very honest about what this is about," actress/comedian Janeane Garofalo said on Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show. "It's not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks."


Fisrt, she should read a good history book to learn what the Boston Tea Party was about. (Hint: It was about taxes.)

But, I'm sure the couple in the following photograph would have a few things to say in response to her unfounded and irresponsible claim of racism:



Democrats Terrified Of Scientific Debate Over Global Warming Issues

Well, so much for "diversity" and trying to bring multiple points of view to the issues. And so much for any post-partisanship the Dems claimed would be their hallmark after the 2006 and 2008 elections. It is all straight-line partisanship now.

It all went out the window when the Dems chose ideology over science and refused to allowed an Anthroprogenic Global Warming (AGW) skeptic to testify before Congress concurrent with Al Gore. The UK's Lord Christopher Monckton had been invited to testify before Congress at the same time as former VP Al Gore, but when the Dems learned that Lord Monckton was an AGW skeptic and was prepared to offer evidence that Al Gore and other Global Warming alramists were wrong in their analysis of climate change, they refused to allow him to testify.

What are the Dems afraid of? That a true scientific debate would make Al Gore look like a fool? If they are so convinced that Al Gore is right, wouldn't they welcome such a public debate to further prove it? Why hide from such a forum?

From Climate Depot:

Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance.


Why would Al Gore be afraid of going head-to-head with anybody? Maybe because he has been found to be mistaken about a great many things:

35 Inconvenient Truths; The Errors In Al Gore's Movie
Christopher Monckton
October 18, 2007

For example: Al Gore's hysterical claim after Hurricane Katrina that global warming would make subsequent hurricane seasons even worse. The truth is that each hurricane season since 2005 has been much less intense.

Or another example: Gore hysterically claims that severe tornadoes are becoming more frequent. But, information gathered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) since 1950 shows a downward trend of severe tornadoes, not upward and Gore claims:



Apparently, the Dems don't have the stomach to actually look through all the evidence and only want to allow such information that would further their own political agenda rather than actually provide good, complete information to the people. And they also don't have the stomach to see Al Gore ripped to pieces for pushing junk science instead of real science.

It is embarrassing that the Dems refused to allow this debate. It clearly shows exactly how scared they are that the truth about climate change will actually come out and expose AGW as a huge hoax.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Refuse To Allow Skeptic To Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing
Marc Morano
Climate Depot
April 23, 2009

Taliban To Gain Control Of A Nuclear-Armed Pakistan?

I remember the libs stamping their feet and screaming that the election of Barack Obama would make the world a safer, better place. Well, someone forgot to tell that to the Taliban in Pakistan.

The Taliban is threatening to topple the Pakistani government. From the Daily Mail:

Extremists are now just 60 miles from the capital Islamabad, sparking fears that they are are poised to wrest control of the country, which has nuclear capability.

This morning a Taliban spokesman said that fighters would withdraw from Buner later today.

'Our leader has ordered that Taliban should immediately be called back from Buner,' spokesman Muslim Khan said.

Khan belongs to a faction led by Taliban commander Fazlullah, whose stronghold is in the neighbouring Swat valley where the government has caved in to demands for the imposition of Islamic law.

The announcement came hours after the capital Islamabad came under threat from Taliban fighters.

It is feared that the state is one the brink of collapse as Taliban fighters get closer to the nuclear powers of the country.

As violence broke out in the north-west corner of the country, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Pakistan posed a 'mortal threat' to the world.

'I think the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and the extremists,' she added.

And White House spokesman Robert Gibbs echoed her concerns. He said last night: 'The news over the past several days is very disturbing.'



(Trucks burning after Taliban militants attacked a NATO staging area.)

Keep a close eye on this one, folks. Just as the Somali pirate problem was the first question on Obama's test, this is now the second question. And given Pakistan's claim to possess nuclear weapons, this becomes even more interesting.

How will Obama respond to a terrorist regime governing a nuclear-armed Pakistan? That will most certainly qualify as a defining moment for the United States.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

You Have One Last Chance To Retreat - Or Face The Consequences, Pakistan Leader Tells Taliban Militants
Liz Hazleton
Daily Mail UK
April 24, 2009


Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Maryland National Guard Issues Warning About TEA Party Protestors

The Obama administration has come forward and said that they do not want Islamic terrorists to be called "terrorists" and that we should listen and learn in an effort to better understand them.

But this same administration regards all those who disagree with it's policies as "potential terrorists." The administration has yet to distance itself from a DHS report that regarded all Veterans as potential right-wing extremists.

What's wrong with this picture?

Why does Obama have such harsh words for peaceful, freedom loving Americans and then sits down and politiely listens to thugs and tyrants like Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez as they insult and demean the United States of America?

One year ago, I could not even imagine that our own government would turn on us like this. Today, it infuriates me that this has become reality.

Read the following excerpt from David Noss at Southern Maryland Online:

A document issued by the Maryland National Guard on April 9 warns full-time Guard personnel to be aware of threats from local citizens protesting income taxes during grass roots events known as TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Parties -- one of which was held on Solomons Island March 22. The Guard document, "Planned TEA Party Protests (FPCON Advisory 09-004)," was believed to have first been revealed by a blog called The Jawa Report. A call today to Col. Kohler, Md. National Guard Public Affairs in Baltimore, confirmed the authenticity of the document. The document was officially classified as UNCLASSIFIED/FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U/FOUO).

...

The Guard document follows closely on the heels of a Dept. of Homeland Security document, released on April 7 that profiles American citizens who are concerned about gun rights and the "current economic and political climate" as potential rightwing extremists and domestic terrorists. The document is titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" and was recently profiled in a Washington Times article.

Yet another Homeland Security document from the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), leaked to the press in March, profiles vocal supporters of Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin as potential domestic terrorists. The so-called MIAC document also cautions police to be aware of citizens carrying a copy of the U.S. Constitution, labeling the document as "political paraphernalia."


The Constitution is "politcal paraphernalia?" who the hell came up with that analysis? Josef Stalin?

So, what were the orders from the government to the Maryland National Guard regarding the TEA Parties held on April 15?

Read on:

HEADQUARTERS, MARYLAND ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
13620 Meuse Argonne Circle
Camp Fretterd Military Reservation
Reisterstown, Maryland 21136

JFHQ-MDARNG-G3 9 April 2009

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Planned TEA Party Protests (FPCON Advisory 09-004)

1. (U) This Maryland Army National Guard (MDARNG) Force Protection advisory is in response to a nationwide planned protest activities scheduled for April 15, 2009. Although there is no known direct threat to MDNG facilities and MDNG members, they may become a target of opportunity during plan protest activities throughout Maryland.

2. (U) FORCE PROTECTION CONDITIONS.

a. (U) USNORTHCOM FPCON baseline for the continental United States, Alaska, and Canada remains unchanged at ALPHA.

b. (U) MDARNG is not recommending a FPCON baseline change at this time.

3. (U//FOUO) SITUATION: Numerous entities have formed recently to express displeasure/anger over recent federal/state government actions: more taxes, increased spending, higher deficits, a surge of borrowing to pay for it all, bailout of the financial institutions, and etc. This movement can be identified by different variations of "TEA Party" or "Tea Party." Past "TEA Party" events have been peaceful. There was a "Tea party" event at Solomons, Maryland, on March 22, 2009. "TEA" stands for "Taxed Enough Already."

4. (U) KNOWN LOCATIONS AND EVENTS: According various websites and open source information, planned protest locations and time on April 15 in Maryland are:

*Annapolis, 12:00 pm - 2:00 pm, Campbell Park (Dock/Boardwalk), Annapolis Harbor

*Baltimore, 3:00 pm - 5:00 pm, The Inner Harbor

*Bel Air, 12:00 pm, Bel Air Courthouse Plaza on Main Street

*Cecil County, 4:00 pm - 6:00 pm, Elkton Christian Academy, 144 Appleton Road

*Frederick, 3:00 pm, City Hall then march to Winchester Hall

*Cumberland, 12:00 pm, Baltimore and Mechanic Streets

*Havre de Grace, 4:00 pm - 6:00 pm, Tydings Park Gazebo

*Salisbury, 4:30 pm - 6:30 pm, Downtown Salisbury

*Westminster, 6:30 pm, Legends Cafe off of Route 140 in Westminster

*Washington DC, 12:00pm-2:00pm, US Treasury Department - National Stage; 11:00am-3:00pm Lafayette Park - Grassroots Stage (not MD)

5. (U) FORCE PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS:

a. (U) Full-time personnel (i.e. armories) and recruiters need to be aware their surroundings. Contact local law enforcement when feel threaten by protesters or protesters trespass into MDNG property.

b. (U//FOUO) Commanders at all levels should establish relationship with local police in order to understand the local threats. Keep family members informed. Talk to other service personnel to share information. Practice OPSEC. Don't provide personal information to anyone you don't know. Avoid high risk areas.

c. (U//FOUO) Commanders are encouraged to update alert rosters and review emergency evacuation plans/rally points. Ensure all facilities have emergency phone lists posted (i.e. FBI, FIRE, POLICE, HOSPITALS, EMS, ETC...). Be aware of and avoid local protests. Report all potential protest activities to your next higher headquarters.

d. (U//FOUO) Continue implementation of RAM and a review of policies and procedures, especially in regards to cooperation or assistance with local emergency responders.

5. POC is Antiterrorism Program Coordinator, -[redacted- at (410) 702-[redacted] or by e-mail [redacted]@us.army.mil [Redacted LTC author's name]

DISTRIBUTION:
ATOs
MSCs CDRs


In case you just simply skimmed through the whole thing (I admit that military memos are a long a boring read) I'd like to point your attention to Paragraph #5 which states: "POC is Antiterrorism Program Coordinator."

Barack Obama is bending over backward to kiss the rear-ends of jack-booted thugs like Chavez, Ortega and Castro and is trying to grant real terrorists Constitutional rights that could get them released from prison, but he refers to Americans who are exercising their First Amendment rights of freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly as possible terrorists?

Given that all of the demonstrations were peaceful and without incident, you can see how out-of-touch Barack Obama and the leftist controlled government is with reality on this one.

You can access the original news story and the Maryland National Guard Memos on-line here:

Md. Guard Issues Warning To Staff About Local TEA Party Protestors
David Noss
Southern Maryland Online
April 15, 2009

The Dunce And The Devil

Monday, April 20, 2009

Missouri House Approves State Fair Tax Constitutional Amendment

I've been a proponent of the FairTax for a few years now. My faith in the FairTax has never waivered nor will it anytime soon. Although many on the left (and a few on the right) have worked to discredit the idea of the FairTax over the past few years, the movement is gaining momentum.

The lastest victory come from Missouri where the House of Representatives voted to approve of a state Constitutional Amendment that would give Missouri a state-level FairTax.

From Fair Tax Nation:

In a development of potential national significance, the Missouri House of Representatives, on April 16, 2009, sent a proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution, HJR36, to the state Senate that, if enacted, would bring a state-level Fair Tax to Missouri.

The sponsor of the bill, Edgar G. Emery (R-Missouri District 126, Lamar), advised me yesterday he thinks the bill has a reasonable chance of passage in the state Senate. There is no definite time table yet there - the resolution has had its first reading. However the passage of the proposal in the state House has enhanced the profile of the bill in the state Senate.

If the state Senate approves, the measure will be submitted to the voters of the State in November 2010 without need for consideration by the Governor.

If approved by the voters, the measure would take effect on January 1, 2012, and Missouri would become the first laboratory in the United States - and perhaps the world - to test the macro-economic benefits of the Fair Tax.

New Jersey FairTax State Co-Director, engineer and business owner, Norm Simms, has stated frequently that his decisions on where to site production are sensitive to tax climate. If the state FairTax passes, businesses would be expected to seriously consider locating - or relocating - to Missouri.

Credit for the success of this bill goes to the Missouri FairTax volunteeers.


You can access Missouri HJR36 on-line here:

Missouri HJR36

There have been many efforts at tax reform over the past twenty years, but all of them failed to produce the desired results. Here are three end-goals that any tax reform plan must have in order to be viable:

1) The plan must remove from the IRS any power to intrude on the private lives of American citizens.
2) The plan must remove from the K Street lobbyists any power to influence Congressional votes.
3) The plan must not allow hidden taxes to be passed along to the consumer at any time.

There is only one tax reform plan that addresses all three of these end-goals:

THE FAIR TAX



Americans For Fair Taxation




Friday, April 17, 2009

Some Quick Thoughts On The Tax Day Tea Parties

I've been looking at the news and comparing the ways each network covered the Tax Day Tea Parties. Of course, left-leaning news outlets said every possible negative thing they could have said about the demonstrations, even things that were not true. It is those untrue items I wish to discuss here.

Item #1: The claim that Fox News orchestrated the 800 or so Tea Party events around the nation for a ratings boost.

The truth: Fox News simply covered the events, they did not orchestrate them. They presented the story in a fair, objective manner and were about the only network to do so. ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN all parroted the same lines over and over as if they were reading some talking points that someone handed to them.



Item #2: The claim that Rush Limbaugh orchestrated the 800 or so Tea Party events arouind the nation.

The truth: Rush may be the most popular talk radio host in the world right now, but I do not remember him ever putting forth one single idea or plan one little detail of any of those demonstrations. In fact, I don't even recall his name being mentioned at any of the 800 events.



Item #3: The claim that the rich orchestrated these Tea Parties in an effort to justify their own greed.

The truth: Well, I don't remember seeing very many rich people on the television or Internet news coverage of the Tea Parties. In fact, I saw mainstream Joe and Jane Average Americans. I saw parents with children. I saw small business owners. If there were any rich people in those crowds, they blended in quite nicely.



So, why am I bringing all of this up? Because these Tea Parties are not the end. There will be more demonstrations against the excesses of the current leftist-controlled federal government as time goes on. As Congress passes more "intolerable acts" and Barack Obama signs them into law, people will become more and more angry and demand that the government finally listen to them.

Now, far from trying to correct the above misconceptions, I actually want to see Old Media and groups like ACORN and MoveOn.org coninue to spread those lies. Why? Because it is a major advantage for our side if they do so.

As long as Old Media is assigning responsibility to the wrong crowd, the people who really did organize and mobilize these Tea Parties will be free to continue their planning and organizing unhindered and unfettered by distractions. They will be free to plan and organize new Freedom demonstrations for the coming 4th of July. Further, the more that the left attacks Fox, Rush and others, the more that the organizers and planners will know how big of an impact they really made.

So, to all the hate-mongers over on the left, please, continue shouting that Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Neal Boortz put these things together. The more you convince yourselves of that, the more you will leave the real planners and organizers alone to plan and organize more. It is the best thing you can do for our side.

84rules

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Tea Party Messages Resonate Loudly Among Average Citizens (Photos Included)

Thomas Jefferson once said, "When people fear the government, that's tyranny. When government fears the people, that's liberty."

The U.S. Government should take the time to understand what Jefferson said and to relate it to yesterday's Tea Parties.

Those tea parties were not the elite coming together nor was it the rich coming out in an effort to keep their money. It was Joe and Jane Average American sending a message to D.C. That message is: "We're fed up with your wasteful mismanagement of our money and your selling off of our children's future."

Look at the pictures below. They are randomly selected from the 800 or so tea parties that took place yesterday. You will not see fear of the government in these people's eyes. You will see anger; an anger that can only be placated on the day when politicians in D.C. do the right thing. It does not look like that day will come under Barack Obama or with a Democrat-controlled congress. But that day will come soon.

Contrary to what the libs are saying about these events, they were not organized by Fox News nor were they put together by Rush Limbaugh. These were not Republican operatives. These were common men and women coming together for a higher purpose. They were not called to come, they came of their own volition. This is more than just a grass-roots movement. What we saw yesterday was the beginning of the Second American Revolution.

There were no riots. Police officers who were sent to maintain the peace saw nothing but peace.

The pictures:

















It won't stop here. People are angry at what the socialists in Congress and the White House are trying to do. The people will win in the end.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

A Letter From The American Legion To Homeland Security

David K. Rehbein, National Commander of the American Legion is firing back at DHS for the slander against America's Military Veterans:

Secretary Janet Napolitano
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

April 13, 2009

Dear Secretary Napolitano,

On behalf of the 2.6 million-member American Legion, I am stating my concern about your April 7 report, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence and Recruitment.”

First, I want to assure you that The American Legion has long shared your concern about white supremacist and anti-government groups. In 1923, when the Ku Klux Klan still yielded unspeakable influence in this country, The American Legion passed Resolution 407. It resolved, in part, “…we consider any individual, group of individuals or organizations, which creates, or fosters racial, religious or class strife among our people, or which takes into their own hands the enforcement of law, determination of guilt, or infliction of punishment, to be un-American, a menace to our liberties, and destructive to our fundamental law…”

The best that I can say about your recent report is that it is incomplete. The report states, without any statistical evidence, “The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation’s uniform during wartime. To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical “disgruntled military veteran” is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam.

Your report states that “Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages.” Secretary Napolitano, this is more than a perception to those who have lost their job. Would you categorize union members as “Right Wing extremists”?

In spite of this incomplete, and, I fear, politically-biased report, The American Legion and the Department of Homeland Security share many common and crucial interests, such as the Citizen Corps and disaster preparedness. Since you are a graduate of New Mexico Girls State, I trust that you are very familiar with The American Legion. I would be happy to meet with you at a time of mutual convenience to discuss issues such as border security and the war on terrorism. I think it is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are.

Sincerely,

David K. Rehbein
National Commander
The American Legion


Love the reference to Osama Bin Laden as a reality check.

Who Pays Taxes And How Much?

Here is an interesting article that comes, not from Fox News or Town Hall or NewsMax, but from CNN. Thus, no one can claim that the following is coming from any right-leaning website:

The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office.

Narrowing in further: The top 1% of households, which made 19% of pre-tax income, paid 39% of all individual income taxes.

The trend is similar if you count income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes (such as capital gains) combined. The top fifth of households paid 69% of all federal taxes. The top 1% paid 28%.


And for those of you who have been screaming and stamping your feet claiming Obama would provide tax relief to 90% of taxpayers:

A Tax Foundation survey found 56% of Americans think the amount of federal income tax they pay is too high. Those most likely to feel that way, according to the survey, include those making between $35,000 and $50,000.

But once the various tax breaks to which they're entitled are counted, the burdens of low- and middle-income tax filers as a group has been fairly low.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that for 2009, 43% of tax units (most of which are lower income households that may or may not file a return) will have no income tax liability or will have a negative income tax liability, meaning the government will actually pay them.


Let me repeat the italicized line for emphasis:

43% of tax units will have no income tax liability or will have a negative income tax liability, meaning the government will actually pay them.

Remember, this is CNN coming out with this information, not any bastion of Conservatism or a Conservative think-tank.

So, how can Obama provide tax relief to 90% of taxpayers when only 57% actually pay anything in taxes?

You can read the complete article on-line here:

Who Pays Taxes And How Much?
Jeanne Sahadi
CNN
April 15, 2009


Even the IRS Can See The Double Standard On Enforcement Of The Tax Code

Fiscal responsibility is one reason why we should be supporting all of the Tea Parites being held today. But personal responsibility isn't very far down the list of reasons to do so.

Tom Hamburger and Ralph Vartabedian of the Chicago Tribune have this to say:

The Treasury secretary, who oversees the IRS, didn't pay all his taxes. Neither did five other top nominees for the Obama administration, or their spouses.

Now, as Wednesday's tax deadline looms, some Americans are wondering why they should comply with the arcane requirements of the Internal Revenue Service when top administration officials failed to do the same. Even some IRS employees are upset at what they see as a double standard.

...

"Our members are upset and angry," said Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, referring to concern bubbling up within the IRS over unusually strict rules that can cost agents their jobs if they make a mistake.

In some cases, IRS employees have lost jobs for simply filing a late return or failing to report a few hundred dollars of interest income.


And yet, people like Timothy Geithner got rubberstamped right through the Senate. Do you believe you would get such gentle treatment if you failed to pay your taxes the way Geithner failed to do so?

Probably not:

Robert Schriebman, a California tax lawyer who has testified before Congress, said his clients are seething over the tough treatment they get from the IRS, while some in the president's Cabinet apparently were able to duck paying their taxes.

"Politically powerful people are less likely to get bothered by the IRS," Schriebman said. "It is more than a question of fairness. Not only is the IRS looking away from confronting influential people, the IRS is getting a lot tougher and nastier toward the little guy."


Which is one of several reasons why we need to scrap the current tax code and replace it with the Fair Tax as well as getting rid of the IRS altogether.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

IRS Workers See Double Standard On Tax Errors
Tom Hamburger and Ralph Vartabedian
Tribune Newspapers
April 15, 2009

Department Of Homeland Security Paints Targets On Veterans' Backs

In what is obviously a pro-Democrat partisan move, the Department of Homeland Security released a report stating that U.S. Military Veterans are likely to become extremists working for right-wing groups. No mention was made of people like Bill Ayers being extremists for left-wing groups though.

This whole thing is a huge slap in the face to our Veterans. There was absolutely no evidence, data or other factual information in the report to back up any claims. Clearly, this report was authored by some Democrat political appointee to DHS who has a goal of seeing our Veternas relegated to the status of third-class citizen.

From Fox News:


"The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when right-wing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.," it continues.

The report also suggests that returning veterans are attractive recruits for right-wing groups looking for "combat skills and experience" so as to boost their "violent capabilities." It adds that new restrictions on gun ownership and the difficulty of veterans to reintegrate into their communities "could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

...


DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban said the April 7 assessment is one in an ongoing series published by DHS "to facilitate a greater understanding of radicalization in the United States."

"DHS has no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but right-wing extremists may be gaining new recruitments by playing on their fears about several emerging issues," Kuban said.

But some critics have said the DHS is equating conservative views to right-wing terrorism, but a DHS official countered that earlier this year, the department issued a mirror intelligence assessment of left-wing extremist groups.

FOX News has obtained a copy of the assessment, dated Jan. 26 and titled "Left-wing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyberattacks Over the Coming Decade." It concentrates largely on the technical savvy of left-wing extremists and not bloodshed.


So, some politically appointed Democrat at DHS wants to discredit the honor of our Military Veterans by painting them as some sort of violent crowd while at the same time saying the left-wing extremists are nothing more than computer geeks?

Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, anyone? And what about those Islamic terrorists training camps around the United States? Are they not worth mentioning either?

I am a veteran of the United States Marine Corps and proud of it. If anyone, especially leftist-socialist Democrats, wants to take issue with that, they may do so personally by leaving comments on this blog. But to hide behind a blatantly biased report and then claim that leftists would do nothing more than hack a website is, in a word, chutzpuh.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Homeland Security Warns Of Rise In Right-Wing Extremism
Mike Levine
Fox News
April 14, 2009

Monday, April 13, 2009

Fred C. Iklé: Kill The Pirates

Short, sweet and to the point. The title says it all. Kill the pirates. That is the best way to stop them. It worked down in the Carribean 300 years ago and it will work again today.

Writing for the Washington Post, Fred C. Iklé (a distinguished scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and author of Annihilation From Within and Every War Must End) makes clear that anything other than meeting this threat head-on will be counterproductive.

From his column:

It is naive to assume that the millions paid annually in ransom to pirates merely enables them to purchase villas and fancy automobiles. Somalia is a country without government, where anarchy is being exploited by terrorist organizations. Although the threat that pirates pose to commercial ships is increasingly known, little is being done to combat it. And we must consider the bigger picture: Terrorists are far more brutal than pirates and can easily force pirates -- petty thieves in comparison -- to share their ransom money.


Who among you believes that paying $1 million in ransom money will actually end piracy? You would have to be incredibly gullible to believe so. The pirates will think about it this way: if taking a ship is worth $1 million in ransoms, then taking a ship twice as big should be worth $2 million in ransoms.

Paying the ransom only encourages the pirates to attempt more hijackings in order to get more money.

Mr. Iklé goes on:

So why do we keep rewarding Somali pirates? How is this march of folly possible?

Start by blaming the timorous lawyers who advise the governments attempting to cope with the pirates such as those who had been engaged in a standoff with U.S. hostage negotiators in recent days. These lawyers misinterpret the Law of the Sea Treaty and the Geneva Conventions and fail to apply the powerful international laws that exist against piracy. The right of self-defense -- a principle of international law -- justifies killing pirates as they try to board a ship.


So, what should we have been doing all along? We should have been putting armed personnel aboard those ships. A pirate would think twice about going out on such a venture if he knew that the last three times someone from his group went out to attack a vessel that armed crewmen killed the attackers. There is not much profit in death.

More:

Nonetheless, entire crews are unarmed on the ships that sail through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Shipowners pretend that they cannot trust their crews with weapons, but the facts don't add up. For one thing, in the United States most adults except felons are allowed to have guns, and the laws of many other nations also permit such ownership. Even if owners don't want everyone aboard their ships to be carrying weapons, don't they trust the senior members of their crews? Why couldn't they at least arm the captain and place two experienced and reliable police officers on board?

When these pitifully unarmed crews watch pirates climb aboard their vessels, they can do little to fight back. And while the United States and many other naval powers keep warships in the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean -- deployments that cost millions of dollars -- these ships cannot keep pirates from boarding commercial ships that have unarmed crews.

The international right of self-defense would also justify an inspection and quarantine regime off the coast of Somalia to seize and destroy all vessels that are found to be engaged in piracy. These inspections could reduce the likelihood that any government will find itself engaged in a hostage situation such as the one that played out in recent days. Furthermore, the U.N. Security Council should prohibit all ransom payments. If the crew of an attacked ship were held hostage, the Security Council could authorize a military blockade of Somalia until the hostages were released.

Cowardice will not defeat terrorism, nor will it stop the Somali pirates. If anything, continuing to meet the pirates' demands only acts as an incentive for more piracy.


Absolutely.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Kill The Pirates
Fred C. Iklé
Washington Post
April 13, 2009

What Do You Call Three Dead Somali Pirates?

A fairly decent start.

My hat is off to the Obama administration for taking such decisive action against the Somali pirates holding Captain Richard Phillips hostage in a life boat out on the Indian Ocean.

In a courageous rescue, Navy SEALs killed three pirates during the successful mission.

From the Associated Press:

In a daring high-seas rescue, U.S. Navy SEAL snipers killed three Somali pirates and freed the American sea captain who had offered himself as a hostage to save his crew.


Although many news outlets are hailing this as a great victory for Obama and claiming that he has passed his first international test, the pirates are promising revenge:

The operation was a victory for the world's most powerful military but angry pirates vowed Monday to retaliate.

Those threats raised fears for the safety of some 230 foreign sailors still held hostage in more than a dozen ships anchored off the coast of lawless Somalia.

"From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages)," Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told the Associated Press from one of Somalia's piracy hubs, Eyl. "(U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy."


It appears that a new front has opened in the Global struggle against terrorism and we Americans are once again being brought to center stage.

Now, unlike my liberal counterparts who want to blame President Bush for everything the terrorists did over the past eight years, I will not blame Barack Obama for whatever the pirates and other terrorists do in response to this rescue. The blame falls solely and squarely on the pirates and terrorists themselves, just as it did during the Bush years.

This was not the first test of the Obama administration. It was the first question of the first test. Many more questions will come up and you can bet that the pirates and terrorists will be the ones writing them.

One Somali pirate noted:

"Every country will be treated the way it treats us. In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying," Abdullahi Lami, one of the pirates holding a Greek ship anchored in the Somali town of Gaan, told The Associated Press on Monday. "We will retaliate (for) the killings of our men."


I applaud the Obama administration for taking this action, but I am still waiting to see how this will play out in the coming months. Obama will have a hard time trying to reconcile his policy of "listening and learning" against the hard-line policy of taking swift action to protect American lives and interests. Reality is always different from academic exercise.

As for those countries who will want to blame the U.S. for whatever happens to their own sailors in the pirates' custody, those sailors wouldn't be their if those countries had taken steps to protect/rescue those sailors in the first place.

We shall have to wait and see which policy wins out, and whether or not such policy has the desired effects.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Captain Freed After Snipers Kill Somali Pirates
Associated Press via MSNBC
April 13, 2009

Friday, April 10, 2009

Eloi! Eloi! Lama sabachthani!

The truly faithful will understand exactly what the title of this post means.

Obama, Illegals, Amnesty And The Twelve Million Voter Bloc

Last year, I posted the following item about Obama's plans to legalize at least 12 million illegal aliens:

Barack Obama Would Grant Citizenship To Twelve Million Illegals
84rules
October 22, 2008

I was not alone in sounding the alarm as many other bloggers and New Media journalists also put forth their ideas on the matter. Our warnings went largely unnoticed if not completely ignored. Some even claimed that we were being paranoid.

Well, Julia Preston of the New York Times has confirmed what we warned people about last October. From her article:

Mr. Obama will frame the new effort — likely to rouse passions on all sides of the highly divisive issue — as “policy reform that controls immigration and makes it an orderly system,” said the official, Cecilia Muñoz, deputy assistant to the president and director of intergovernmental affairs in the White House.

Mr. Obama plans to speak publicly about the issue in May, administration officials said, and over the summer he will convene working groups, including lawmakers from both parties and a range of immigration groups, to begin discussing possible legislation for as early as this fall.

...

He said then that comprehensive immigration legislation, including a plan to make legal status possible for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, would be a priority in his first year in office. Latino voters turned out strongly for Mr. Obama in the election.


Those of us who were called "paranoid" are now the wise prescient sages. We saw this coming and no one listened.

You can access this complete article on-line here:

Obama To Push Immigration Bill As One Priority
Julia Preston
New York Times
April 8, 2009

Obama will try to make the claim that this legislation is for the "economic good" of the United States or that it is the "humane" thing to do with 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants. But those would be lies. The only reason for doing this that makes any sense at all is that Obama wants to ensure Democrat/Socialist power by creating a new voting bloc of 12 to 20 million voters. Granting amnesty to the illegals currently in the United States is the way he and his cronies in Congress are going to do it.

The move cannot be economic since it would ultimately hurt the American worker who is already struggling under a tough economy. Jobs that could have been taken by legitimate Americans will now be permanently in the hands of those who broke the law by coming here illegally. Further, it would let employers who illegally hired these workers off the hook thereby ensuring that those jobs for those who came here illegally.

For some odd reason, the unions will support this legislation. They see the opportunity to increase their memberships. But this will backfire on them as union members who are legitimate Americans begin to realize that these former illegals were placed at the head of the line in front of them for job openings. In other words, the current rank-and-file will see that jobs that would have gone to them will instead go to new union members who do not have as much seniority. That will not go over well with the union membership.

And what about the immigrants and hopeful immigrants who are trying to come to the United States legally? How do we explain to them that they are not as important as those who broke the law and came to the United States the wrong way? That is a very bad message to send out to the world. It will only encourage more illegal immigration and then new pushes for more amnesty after that.

As for the humane aspect, how humane is it to saddle the legitimate American taxpayer with higher bills for more welfare recipients? The illegals who will be granted amnesty under this proposal will become eligible for welfare benefits even before the government begins to collect taxes from them. That will mean a higher tax bill for legitimate Americans.

The only reason for this proposal that makes sense is that Obama and the socialist Democrats know that their policies will cause them to lose power in 2010 and 2012. Thus, they need to find millions of new voters to buy votes from and fast. Their answer is amnesty for illegals.

That will mean the end to fair elections here in the United States. Tom Hoffman of the American Thinker explains why and the historical evidence supporting this claim:

Remember when "B1 Bob" Dornan lost his House seat to a woman named Sanchez? The election was stolen by Hermandad Nacional Mexicana a group that made a concerted effort to register illegal aliens. Since then, the art of rigging the vote has been refined and perfected by the likes of ACORN and other community activist organizations.

The modus operandi is clear. First, there must be a team of lawyers to challenge any efforts to determine voter eligibility. What we end up with here in California is "motor voter" registration. This means DMV workers urge anyone getting a driver's license to go ahead and register to vote. Lawyers and Democratic state legislators have made it illegal to require documentation regarding immigration status; it's the honor system. If an illegal feels uncomfortable lying to a bureaucrat at the DMV, he or she can apply by mail and receive an absentee ballot. This way they need not even have to show up at the polling place; just mail it in.

It's just too easy to cheat. Of course, at the polling place there is no need to prove who you claim to be; honor system again. Sign in and vote with no questions asked. The lawyers and legislators paved the way for the "undocumented worker" to vote like a native born citizen by doing away with need to document anything, let alone citizenship. All that is necessary is a mailing address; and, no kidding, the same culprits are busy doing away with that so the "homeless" can now register.


The evidence behind the stealing of Dornan's seat is documented here:

The Sour Lesson Of Bob Dornan's Defeat
Sound Politics
December 29, 2004

We need to really stand together nad make our voices heard that we Americans are opposed to granting amnesty to illegals under any circumstances.

The Dems make the ridiculous claim that machinery needs to be put in place to allow illegals to become legal. That machinery already exists. The illegals simply need to go back to their countries of origin and apply for entry into the United States in the correct, legal way.

Anything other than that would be tantamount to giving away our national sovereignty.

You can access Hoffman's complete column on-line here:

The End Of Fair Elections
Tom Hoffman
The American Thinker
April 9, 2009

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Two More Obama Insults To Our Collective Intelligence

One thing Obama is good at is insulting the collective intelligence of the entire United States of America. For example, he tells us that this will be the most morally upright administration in history, but then nominates an entire slew of cabinet members who "forgot" to pay their taxes. He promises transparency in his administration, but then goes behind closed doors and locks Republican lawmakers out of the legislative process. He signs into law a stimulus package that includes protection of bonuses for companies like AIG and then turns around and says that the bonuses are wrong.

I could go on and on with the missteps this guy has made before his first 100 days in office are done, but I'd like to move on to two more.

First, the White House claims that Obama did not bow to the Saudi King Abdullah. Interesting claim considering the video clearly shows Obama bowing to the Saudi ruling anti-semite.

Ben Smith of the Politico has this:

The White House is denying that the president bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London, a scene that drew criticism on the right and praise from some Arab outlets.

"It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah," said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.


And why is this an insult to our intelligence? Because Obama is also taller than Queen Elizabeth but no such bow seemed to be necessary in that meeting.

You can access that complete story and video on-line here:

White House: No Bow To Saudi
Ben Smith
The Politico
April 8, 2009

Obama also insulted our collective intelligence by by refusing to give any comment whatsoever on the Somali pirate hostage situation in which an American is being held against his will.

When asked by a reporter for comment, Obama refused and instead wanted to stick to some sort of script.

From Reuters:

April 9 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama declined to answer reporters' questions on Thursday on a hostage crisis off the coast of Somalia, where a U.S. ship captain is being held captive by pirates.

Obama was asked to comment on the situation several times by reporters at a White House event on refinancing for homeowners. Obama, however, stuck closely to the script and replied that he wanted to remain focused on housing.


Is the situation just not that important to him? Couldn't he have said something reassuring to the family of the hostage? No. He couldn't bring himself to be that good of a leader.

Maybe the person running the teleprompter could have put something up about it so that Obama would at least have had a script to read.

You can access the article on-line here:

Obama Declines Comment On US Hostage Crisis Off Somalia
Jeff Mason, Sandra Maler
Reuters
April 9, 2009


Looking Deeper Into The Pirate Attack On MAERSK ALABAMA

In my post from yesterday, I wondered whether or not the Somali pirate attack on the U.S.-flagged MAERSK ALABAMA may have been a result of the pirates being emboldened by Obama's various shows of weakness during his European tour.

Other are thinking exactly what I was thinking. An editorial from Investor's Business Daily notes some interesting circumstances that we must not be dismissive of and what the consequences of any action by the Obama administration would be.

From the article:

At 7:30 a.m., 280 miles off the Somali coast, a gang of pirates attacked the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama carrying 17,000 tons of U.S. humanitarian aid to Kenya. It was the sixth ship hit since Saturday, but the first U.S.-flagged vessel hit since 1804.

...

It poses an important test for the new Obama administration, still not 100 days in power, and it's critical the response be decisive.

First, it's likely the pirates knew it was an American ship, given the planning and firepower it takes to hit one 280 miles off the coast. If that's so, then the attack had a political aspect, and the pirates wanted to show the U.S. as weak.

Two, the pirates aren't the only bad actors in that region. Terrorists will watch the U.S. response closely and adjust their calculations accordingly. Unlike the foreign affairs jaunts Obama has participated in, involving only talk, this incident will be judged by the concreteness of the response.


I know that somewhere along the line Obama said that he "had no patience" for those who blow up bombs for political ends, but those are simply words. I highly doubt that if Obama comes out and says that he "has no patience" with Somali pirates that the pirates will suddenly release their hostages and free all of the ships they captured.

Words do not deter criminals and terrorists. Effectively forceful responses do. Say what you want about President Bush, but you have to acknowledge the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. If the terrorists still hated us afterward, what stopped them from mounting anymore attacks? The effective use of force by the Bush administration, that's what.

Obama's response is one we must watch carefully. And here is why:

Precedent is worth noting.

In 1993, with Bill Clinton's presidency just beginning, Somali hoodlums also attacked and murdered American troops delivering aid to the indigent. They dragged the troops' bodies through the streets and crowds cheered. Instead of making the barbarians pay, Clinton ordered American troops out.

This alerted the region's terrorists that Americans were easy to push around. One of these terrorists was Osama bin Laden.

According to the 9/11 commission report, a bin Laden fatwa in 1996 praised the Somali attack because the U.S. "left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you."

The report goes on to say that bin Laden was behind the attacks on the American helicopters. Lawrence Wright, in "The Looming Tower," noted that whether he was or not, he thought it important to claim credit.


Despite the fact that this pirate attack is ultimately a failure, it is a failure because of the fortitude and resourcefulness of the crew, not because of anything the Obama administration did. As of this writing, they still haven't done anything in response. Pirates and terrorists around the world are not looking at the crew of MAERSK ALABAMA as a measure of risk for future attacks; they are looking at how the U.S. government will respond as their measure of risk.

IBD is right. This is the first real test of the resolve and mettle of the Obama administration. If Obama fails this test, it will be a major repeat of the first major international mistake of the Clinton administration.

And we all know exactly where that mistake led to.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Somali Pirates Lay Out Another Test
Investor's Business Daily
April 8, 2009

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Somali Pirates Hijack American Ship; Update: Crew Retakes Ship

UPDATE II:

It appears as though the Captain of the MAERSK ALABAMA was taken hostage by the pirates when the crew retook control of the ship.

From MSNBC:

The American crew of a hijacked U.S.-flagged ship retook control of the vessel from Somali pirates Wednesday but the captain was still being held hostage, according to Pentagon officials and a member of the crew.

The crewman told The Associated Press that the 20-member crew had managed to seize one pirate and then successfully negotiate their own release.

The man, who picked up the ship’s satellite phone but did not identify himself, told the AP in a brief conversation that the crew had retaken control of the ship and the pirates were in a lifeboat. But the man also said the pirates were holding the ship’s captain hostage.


The crew overpowered one of the pirates and used him as a negotiating chip for their own release. The other three pirates took the captain hostage in retaliation and fled in a lifeboat. There were negotiations to do an exchange, but although the crew held up their end and released the pirate, the other three pirates reneged on the agreement and are still holding the captain.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Pentagon: U.S. Crew Retakes Ship From Pirates
NBC News
April 8, 2009




UPDATE:

The Associated Press is now reporting that the crew of the ship has retaken control and has one of the pirates in custody.

"The crew is back in control of the ship," a U.S. official said at midday, speaking on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to speak on the record. "It's reported that one pirate is on board under crew control—the other three were trying to flee," the official said. The status of the other pirates was unknown, the official said, but they were reported to "be in the water."

The crew apparently contacted the private shipping that it works for. That company, Maersk, scheduled a noon news conference in Norfolk, Va, defense officials said.

Another U.S. official, citing a readout from an interagency conference call, said: "Multiple reliable sources are now reporting that the Maersk Alabama is now under control of the U.S. crew. The crew reportedly has one pirate in custody. The status of others is unclear, they are believed to be in the water."


I hope those other three pirates can stay afloat long enough for a few sharks to swim by. Maybe someone could send another boat out there to chum the water.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Officials: US Vessel Now Back In Hands Of Crew
Pauline Jelinek
Associated Press via Breitbart
April 8, 2009

Now we really need to see Obama's response. Will he apologize for the "arrogance" of the crew's retaking the vessel from the pirates? Will he offer reparations to any of the pirates' families if the pirates die? Will he offer up the crew as war criminals for counter-attacking and retaking their own vessel?

These questions may seem silly, but given Obama's conduct during his European tour, they are legitimate.




This from the Associated Press:

Somali pirates on Wednesday hijacked a U.S.-flagged cargo ship with 20 American crew members onboard, according to the shipping company.

The 17,000-ton Maersk Alabama was carrying emergency relief to Mombasa, Kenya at the time it was hijacked, said Peter Beck-Bang, spokesman for the Copenhagen-based container shipping group A.P. Moller-Maersk.

In a statement, the company later confirmed that the U.S.-flagged vessel has 20 U.S. nationals onboard.




Now, the question is whether Obama will send bailout money to Maersk to pay the ransom or will he try to secure the release of the ship by apologizing for the "arrogance" of the American crewman?

I'm wondering whether or not Obama's various shows of weakness during his European tour (bowing to a despot, calling America "arrogant," praising Islam for a betterment that never happened, etc.) may have had something to do with emboldening the pirates to attack a U.S.-flagged vessel.

We should all be watching this and how Obama handles it. Attacking an American ship on the high seas is not something that our government should take lightly.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Somali Pirates Hijack Ship; 20 Americans Aboard
Katherine Houreld
Associated Press via TownHall.com
April 8, 2009

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Chuck Norris: Barack Obama And The "J" Word

When I was growing up in the 1970's and going to elementary school in Prince George's County, Maryland, I very much enjoyed studying the history of the American Revolution. It was always a very big deal for us and we used to have "festivals" celebrating the founding of the United States and celebrating the ideas that the Founders wrote about.

That doesn't seem to happen much anymore. Somewhere along the line, our educational system began to "forget" about where we came from. And, if you don't know where you came from, you cannot get to where you're going.

How many of us still believe as the Founders did? I mean, really believe. How many of us even know what the Founders believed?

That number is getting smaller and smaller even thought our population is getting bigger and bigger.

John Adams once said, "Our constitution is only fit for a moral and religious people. It is wholly unsuited to the governance of any other kind."

Perhaps that quote merely sounded like Christian bravado over the years, but today, we may be witnessing the true meaning of those words.

The Constitution was originally written so that people of all faiths could come to the New World and worship according their own conscious. But the deeper meaning is that they were free from having any particular religion forced upon them by the state. John Adams envisioned such a nation growing in North America.

What neither he nor any other Founder envisioned was that atheistic movements would spring up and threaten to drown out the faithful from the public scene. The reason that Adams said that our Constitution was "wholly unsuited to the governance of any other kind" was because the Constitution contained no controls over those who would reject morality and decency in favor of hedonism and self-indulgence.

For example, the Consitution contains no reference to the crime of murder. Why? Because the Founders knew that the good and moral people of the several states would enforce a "murder is a crime" civic code. That one is simple to explain.

But, the Constitution also contains language that guarantees certain liberties like free speech. Does that mean that you are free to go over to your neighbor's house and begin yelling obscenities at your neighbor's children because they are praying where you can see them? Again, the Founders would never have considered this to be a problem and were certain that local communities were filled with people who would find such a prospect horrifying. But, now you can see the grey area where, over the past hundred years or so, the non-faithful have been working in and exploiting legal loopholes.

This is, I believe, precisely why John Adams said what he said. It wasn't meant as a compliment to the faithful, it was meant as a warning of what could happen if the faithful ever lost their public voice.

Chuck Norris, writing for Town Hall notes a few things:

Under Article VI, Section 3 of the new Constitution, denominational tests for public office were prohibited, but the idea that Judeo-Christian ideas and practices must be kept separate from government would have struck our Founders as ridiculous because the very basis for the Founders' ideas were rights that were endowed upon all of us by our Creator.


It was everywhere in public life back in the late 1700's. Even Benjamin Rush advocated diversity long before it became a left-wing political buzzword:

"Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament."


Well, maybe not so much Mohammed, but clearly, Rush saw the dangers of allowing atheism to overshadow faith.

More:

[S]igners of the Constitution included Abraham Baldwin, a minister. Others had studied religion but never were ordained. And again, most signers of the Constitution were also Protestants. Two, Charles Carroll and Thomas Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics.

...

Like George Washington, I don't believe we can maintain morality and civility apart from a religious foundation: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. … Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."


One of the problems we are facing here in modern times is that groups like the ACLU have twisted the First Amendment around so that "Freedom of religion" now means to them "Freedom from religion." They like to point to the part of the First Amendment that says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but seem to conveniently forget the rest of that line which statess, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Founders envisioned people having the right to worship in public, something that atheists claim is "offensive." In other words, the ACLU and their anti-religious allies are seeking to force us all to act like atheists.

So, why hasn't our new president shown any regard for any religion except Islam? Chuck Norris isn't afraid to ask the following question:

Is Obama afraid of the word "Jesus"?


The Founders weren't. And we shouldn't be either. Feel free to express your religious convictions anywhere you please. If the ACLU tries to stop you, remind them of the part of the First Amendment that states "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Is Obama Afraid Of The J-Word?
Chuck Norris
TownHall.com
April 7, 2009

Monday, April 6, 2009

Obama Makes Ridiculous Claim That Islam Has Shaped The World 'For The Better'

Just what rock has Barack Obama been hiding under for the past 50 years? Where did he learn about Islam such that he would be so blind to the reality of a very hateful and intolerant religion?

According to Associated Press, Obama said the following to the Turks:

"America's relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaida," he said. "We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect."


"Mutual respect?" Since when has the Islamic world ever shown respect for America?

Since when have the loud speakers at Mecca ever said one, single respectful thing about the United States? The Muslim world has no respect for us at all and Obama is not going to change that by trying to "make nice" with people who have no intention of making nice in return.

They have shown nothing but disrespect and disdain for us. They celebrated when 19 of their brethren killed 3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001.

More:

"We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country," Obama said.


"For the better?" Who in their right mind would ever say such a thing?

Is it "for the better" that women are treated like property and have massive restrictions placed on them? Is it "for the better" that the practitioners of Islam are completely intolerant towards other religions? Is it "for the better" that Muslim children are taught to hate non-Muslims from the day they are born?

Is it "for the better" that few, if any, Islamics have made any attempt at speaking out against those who support the following suras:

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." (Sura 5, verse 51).

"And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah DESTROY them; how they are turned away!" (Sura 9, verse 30).

"And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah's guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper." (Sura 2, verse 120).

"And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers." (Sura 2, verse 191).

"Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming." (Sura 3, verse 28).

"And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open ENEMY." (Sura 4, verse 101).

"O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)." (Sura 9, verse 123).

"Surely We have prepared for the unbelievers chains and shackles and a burning fire." (Sura 76, verse 4).

"O you who believe! if you obey a party from among those who have been given the Book (The Jews and Christians), they will turn you back as unbelievers after you have believed." (Sura 3, verse 100).


What does the Koran say about women? Will Obama go on record as saying that these things that Islamics teach their children about how women are to be regarded under Islamic law are "for the better?"

Here are some more excerpts from the Koran:

"Men are superior to women because Allah has made so. Therefore good women are obedient, and (as to) those (women) on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." (Sura 4, verse 34).

"And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them, four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them." (Sura 4, verse 15).

"O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time then call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other." (Sura 2, verse 282).

"Your wives are a tilth (sexual toy) for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers." (Sura 2, verse 223).

"O you who believe! do not go near prayer until you have washed yourselves; and if you have touched women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving." (Sura 4, verse 43).

"They ask you for a decision of the law. Say: Allah gives you a decision concerning the person who has neither parents nor offspring; if a man dies (and) he has no son and he has a sister, she shall have half of what he leaves, and he shall be her heir she has no son; but if there be two (sisters), they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves; and if there are brethren, men and women, then the male shall have the like of the portion of two females; Allah makes clear to you, lest you err; and Allah knows all things." (Sura 4, verse 176).


But, according to Obama, all this abusive misteatment of women is "for the better," right?

I know that some of you moral relativists out there are going to say that similar verses appear in Judeo-Christian religious texts. That is correct, but few, if any Jews or Christians are actively trying to apply those writings to the real word the way the majority of Muslims seem to be doing.

The big difference between Islam and Judeo-Christianity is that Jews and Christians have been enlightened over the years by actively seeking knowledge outside of the church. Muslims seem to be stuck in the 7th Century.

As a case in point, Iran recently passed a law making it a capital crime to be anything other than Muslim in Iran.

Was there any outrage at all from the Muslim community over this? No. I don't remember hearing one little peep out of any of them.

You can access the complete news story on-line here:

Obama Tells Turkey: U.S. ‘Not At War With Islam’
Associated Press via MSNBC
April 7, 2009

Obama Humiliates America ... Twice

Back when I was in grade school, I used to really hate teachers who would purposely humiliate the entire class for some reason. You know, those teachers who would become frustrated for their own shortcomings and turn to the class and say something like: "Not a single one of you is smart enough to learn this lesson!"

I also hated it when I was in the Marine Corps and some senior Staff NCO would yell out some idiotic insult to an entire platoon or company, an insult which served no purpose except to devalue the leadership skills of that Staff NCO.

Thus, I was doubly disappointed when Barack Obama insulted and humiliated America twice (so far) on his European trip.

First, he showed inferiority and submissiveness to an anti-Semitic ruler whose government helps to fund terrorism in the world. He did something that no American President should ever do: bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia:

Obama Shows Weakness And Submissiveness To The Saudis
YouTube
April 2, 2009

A little side story here. When the photos of this event emerged, the libs became unhinged about it and began to float stories that the photos had been altered in some way. Well, the above video proves that it really did happen and Obama humiliated America in the process.

But, that wasn't enough for the president who can't talk straight without a teleprompter in front of him. He had to go even further and insult all of America while he was visiting France. He made comments that were supposed to placate the Europeans and make them feel justified in their irrational hatred of America.

Here is Obama's quote from a column by Mark Whittington of the Associated Content:

"In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive"


How can anyone possibly respect a leader who turns around and insults his own countrymen like that? I can't. I can't respect Obama anymore than I could respect an incompetent school teacher or a Staff NCO who knows nothing about good leadership.

The problems in this world did not start with America. We ended up getting involved with them because our national safety depended on it.

Whittington explains:

President Obama seems so very anxious to "mend fences" with the Europeans that he seems to be in need of a history lesson, as indeed does his student audience.

One should remind Mr. Obama and the Europeans how American has "shown arrogance" by saving Europe from itself innumerable times in the 20th Century. World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and the wars in the Balkans were largely resolved by American blood, treasure, and leadership. One can be "dismissive, even derisive" toward Europeans because they pretty much caused those conflicts and then dithered, for the most part, until those arrogant Americans had to step in to clean up their mess.

Much of the problems of the Third World, including the rise of Islamo Fascism, can be laid at the doorstep of European colonial practices, including the chaotic and often bloody process of decolonialization that took place starting with the end of World War II. Africa is a butcher shop and the Middle East is a cockpit of terror and war, not because of American "arrogance", but European stupidity when it ran those two places.


Mr. Obama should go back to school and learn the lessons of history. We are not an arrogant people. We just don't like it when outsiders try to tell us that we cannot defend ourselves or do what is necessary to keep our people safe.

The arrogance is on the part of those who try to tell us that we should stop doing so.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Barack Obama And American "Arrogance"
Mark Whittington
Associated Content
April 5, 2009