Barack Obama's Courtship Of Radical Islamists And His False Charge Of Pro-Lifers Lying

If B. Hussein Obama is this clueless about the company he keeps here in the United States, then how clueless would he be when it comes to dealing with Islamists (especially extreme radical Islamists) on the world scene? The answer to that would be "extremely clueless" as well as "extremely dangerous."

This whole question came about after Obama attended Rick Warren's forum this past Saturday in an effort to prop-up his image as a Christian.

Frank Gaffney Jr. over at TownHall takes a look into just how B. Hussein Obama is running his affairs and with whom:

It is, therefore, curious in the extreme that he is giving a prominent role at next week’s Democratic convention to a leader of an organization identified by the Department of Justice as a Muslim Brotherhood front organization and an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism financing conspiracy. Dr. Ingrid Mattson is the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an organization created by the radical, Saudi-financed Muslim Students Association. She will represent the Muslim community at the first-ever interfaith prayer service at a Democratic nominating convention. Now, we know from the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial that ISNA is one of many Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups operating in America. We also know from a Brotherhood document entered into evidence in that case (which is currently being retried after the first prosecution resulted in a mistrial) that, “The work [of Brotherhood members] in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Yep, you read that right. Islamists think the United States is a "miserable house" and are committed to "destroying Western civilization from within." And B. Hussein Obama apparently has no problem at all cozying up with them.

More:

Whatever the reasons for the Democratic presidential candidate’s sensitivities about the Islamic faith, he has an obligation to make clear his attitude towards the Muslim Brotherhood, its mission in America and his willingness to be associated with its front organizations. It is still the case that most Muslims in this country do not want any part of Shariah law. It behooves Sen. Obama to make known now whether he is willing to embrace those who do, and his true attitude towards their ambition to impose the Islamists’ barbaric code here through such subterfuges as Shariah-Compliant Finance.

Why do the Democrats still insist on believing we are stupid enough to let news items like this somehow slip our notice?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obama's Islamist Problem
Frank Gaffney Jr.
TownHall.com
August 18, 2008

---

And here is another reason not to trust B. Hussein Obama: He has been accusing Pro-Lifers of "lying" about his abortion record despite the fact that the evidence shows the pro-lifers are telling the truth.

From Amanda Carpenter at TownHall:

Obama made the aggressive attack when Christian Broadcasting Network Senior National Correspondent David Brody asked Obama about documentation the National Right to Life Committee recently obtained of a 2003 committee vote on “born alive” legislation that would have required medical officials to give life-saving care to babies who survived abortion. Obama has said again and again he voted against versions of that bill as an Illinois state senator because it did not include language to protect Roe v. Wade, as the federal version did which sailed through the U.S. Senate 98-0. The committee report, however, shows a 10-0 vote in favor of an amendment to add the same language to protect abortion rights that was added to the federal bill. That same committee report subsequently shows Obama voting the kill the bill in a "final action" vote.

No lie there. The records clearly show that the Pro-Lifers are absolutely accurate in their portrayal of Barack Obama's abortion views. The Associated Press verified it:

Associated Press Story

And yet here is what Obama says about it:

Obama said the NRLC “have not been telling the truth” and launched into some of the most vicious language he’s ever used against his opponents. “And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying,” he lectured. “It defies common sense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it's an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond,” Obama said. “It's one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice; it's another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they're wrong. And that's what's been happening.”

But, once again, as the record shows, it is B. Hussein Obama who has been misrepresenting himself. The NRLC simply exposed the truth and exposed Obama to be the liar.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Calls Pro-Lifers Liars
Amada Carpenter
TownHall.com
August 18, 2008

Domestic Terrorists Target American Scientists And Republicans Call The Blue Dog Bluff

It is an unfortunate fact of life that there will always be a vocal minority seeking to impose its will on the majority. It is also an unfortunate fact of life that said vocal minority will invariably engaged in illegal and immoral activities in order to impose their will on the majority.

Such is happening today in America where terrorists who hide behind the nomenclature of "animal rights activists" are terrorizing medical researchers and their families.

Debra Saunders has more from TownHall:

They perfected the art of intimidation in the United Kingdom. First, extremists vandalized research labs. Then, they targeted companies that did business with researchers. In 2004, activists finally went too far when they dug up the remains of the mother-in-law of a guinea-pig breeder. Now animal rights extremists are targeting University of California researchers. First, they placed bombs that did not go off. When that didn't shut down labs, they ratcheted up the violence. Wanted posters warned UC Santa Cruz researchers: "Animal abusers everywhere beware; we know where you live; we know where you work; we will never back down until you end your abuse." Early Saturday morning, a firebomb destroyed a car belonging to a UCSC scientist. Shortly afterward, a firebomb erupted in the nearby townhouse of assistant biology professor David Feldheim. As smoke and flames filled the first floor, Feldheim, his wife, their 7-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter were forced to use a drop ladder to escape from a second-floor bedroom.

And the animal rights activists claim to be on the side of the good? Read what their spokesman has to say about the acts of terrorism being committed:

Jerry Vlasak, who, as a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Press Office, serves as an apologist for animal rights zealots, issued this statement: "This is historically what happens whenever revolutionaries begin to take the oppression and suffering of their fellow beings seriously, whether human or nonhuman. It's regrettable that certain scientists are willing to put their families at risk by choosing to do wasteful animal experiments in this day and age."

I don't know what is more infuriating. Mr. Vlasak's irritating spin on the story or that he actually believes us to be stupid enough to accept what he is saying. Scientists are not putting their families at risk, the animal rights terrorists are illegally and immorally putting the families at risk by committing crimes that endanger the lives of innocent children!

More:

UCSC professor Marty Chemers already had called a rally for 5 p.m. Monday to express outrage at these attacks. "These are people who want to do violence and they cloak themselves in this kind of moral stance," Chemers [said].

They are indeed terrorists and should be rounded up as such and sent to Gitmo to live with their Islamic brethren.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The War On Scientists In America
Debra J. Saunders
TownHall.com
August 5, 2008

---

Republicans are still in the House of Representatives to protest the fact that Congress never dealt with the Energy Crisis before skipping town while Democrats are on a five week vacation. The message is clear and the American people are starting to see the Dems for what they really are.

Even Nancy Pelosi is starting to get it since she has privately been telling certain Dems whose seats are now at risk to support domestic drilling to help in the upcoming elections. House Minority Leader John Boehner is calling the bluff.

From Amanda Carpenter at TownHall:

After a contentious weekend with the GOP over energy, Politico reported Monday that Pelosi had indicated to some Democrats that they should position themselves as pro-drilling if it would help them win upcoming election races. Boehner told those Democrats to “put it in writing.” “If you aren’t willing to put it in writing, you’re fooling no one,” Boehner said. “You’re siding with the Speaker of the Drill-Nothing Congress and radical special interests that favor higher gas prices at the expense of energy-strapped American families.”

How many Dems, if any, are willing to put that writing?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Boehner Calls Blue Dog Bluff
Amanda Carpenter
TownHall.com
August 5, 2008

Diplomas For The Jihadis? Hasn't Worked Before And It Won't Work Now.

You can always count of Michelle Malkin to find that one little nugget of news, that one little tidbit of information that the lesser jounalists of Old Media will always miss. She found this one during the political firestorm over a front-page cartoon ran by the New Yorker. Michelle notes:

The magazine piece quotes Obama's recommendations for how to stop jihad, which he had previously published in a local Chicago newspaper eight days after 9/11. It's a self-parody of blind, deaf and dumb Kumbaya liberalism: "We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."

Well, Michelle gives us some pretty good examples as to why this policy is a failure since we have already tried it and it returned to bite us in the collective rear-end:

Author and National Review Online blogger Mark Steyn's sharp rejoinder to McCain then applies to Obama now: "There's plenty of evidence out there that the most extreme 'extremists' are those who've been most exposed to the west -- and western education: from Osama bin Laden (summer school at Oxford, punting on the Thames) and Mohammed Atta (Hamburg University urban planning student) to the London School of Economics graduate responsible for the beheading of Daniel Pearl. The idea that handing out college scholarships to young Saudi males and getting them hooked on Starbucks and car-chase movies will make this stuff go away is ridiculous -- and unworthy of a serious presidential candidate." Ayman al-Zawahiri didn't need more education or wealth to steer him away from Islamic imperialism and working toward a worldwide caliphate. He has a medical degree. So does former Hamas biggie Abdel al-Rantissi. Seven upper-middle-class jihadi doctors were implicated in the 2007 London/Glasgow bombings. Suspected al-Qaida scientist Aafia Siddiqui, still wanted by the FBI for questioning, is a Pakistani who studied microbiology at MIT and did graduate work in neurology at Brandeis. And as I've reported before and must reiterate for the hard of hearing in Washington, lowering academic standards at American colleges helped al-Qaida mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed further the jihadi cause. In the early 1980s, he enrolled at tiny Chowan College in Murfreesboro, N.C., which had dropped its English requirements to attract -- ahem -- wealthy Middle Easterners.

This policy of giving Western educations to those who hate the West has been shown to be nothing but a failure. It shouldn't be surprising that Barack Obama would embrace it since he is also embracing the disastrously failed Socialist economic policies of the Carter Administration.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Diplomas Won't Make Jihadis Go Away, Barack
Michelle Malkin
TownHall.com
July 16, 2008

The Ice Age Cometh, Muslims Want McCain To Be PC And Rick Santorum Supports McCain

Whew! It's been a week since I last posted? Well, that will happen sometimes. As I have mentioned many times before, I do have a real life outside of blogging and that life takes a higher priority than trying to keep up with and make sense of current event issues.

So, what do I have today? A little more debunking of the Human Induced Global Warming Theory, some PC madness from the Muslims and a strong case for supporting John McCain for President.

Let's start with Global Warming. Our first item comes from Down Under. Why is that significant? Because the author, Phil Chapman, was the first Aussie to become an astronaut for NASA. Pretty solid credentials there. He has a few things to say about the objective scientific view of what is really going on with our climate and why.

From his column:

The scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity. What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Note that. Sunspots. They are very important in determining the climate of the Earth.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously. All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

The crux of the column is that Global Warming Theory maintains that an increase in atmospheric CO₂ will lead to increased temperatures. But that is not what has been happening over the past ten years. In fact, the exact opposite has been occuring. This is a set of facts and circumstances that people like Al Gore refuse to allow debate on.

But let's read more about sunspots:

The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers. It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790. Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.

Who says that science can't help us understand history? In fact, you can relate the sinking of the Titanic to the sunspot cycle. (Artic pack ice flows further south at certain times of the cycle than at other times. Captain Smith was unfortunate enough to sail Titanic through one of those flows.)

So what does all of this mean for us today?

It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850. There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.

Sorry, Al Gore. But your incovenient truth is becoming an incovenient fantasy.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Sorry To Ruin The Fun, But An Ice Age Cometh
Phil Chapman
The Australian
April 23, 2008

---

Fox News is reporting this about Muslim groups here in the United States:

A coalition of American Muslim groups is demanding that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain stop using the word "Islamic" to describe terrorists. The Washington Times reports Islamic Society of North America's secretary general wants McCain to use something he calls "more acceptable to the Muslim community." "You want to call them terrorist criminals, fine. But adding the word 'Muslim' or 'Islamic' certainly doesn't help our cause as Americans... It paints an entire community of believers, 1.2 billion in total, in a very negative way." But McCain strategist Steve Schmidt says there will be no changes. "The reality is, the hateful ideology which underpins bin Ladenism is properly described as radical Islamic extremism. Senator McCain refers to it that way because that is what it is."

They are demanding. Not asking but demanding that John McCain stop using the words "Islamic" and "terrorist" in the same sentence. As if they have some special sort of status which precludes them from the scrutiny of the general public.

The Islamic ideology of Wahabbism is probably the main engine for exporting Islamic extremism and terrorism throughout the world. Why don't these so-called peace loving Muslim groups speak out against that?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Muslim Groups Take Issue With McCain's Vocabulary
Brit Hume
FoxNews.com
April 21, 2008

---

And fianlly, Rick Santorum (R-PA) gives us more good reasons why Conservatives should support John McCain for President:

Of all the issues confronting the United States today, none is more important than our nation's security. Although these issues don't dominate our news as they once did, we cannot forget that without a safe and secure country, all other issues don't matter. McCain is clearly the candidate with the capacity, judgment, experience and will to confront America's enemies. He's served our country honorably - heroically - in war. I served eight years with him on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I can assure you he knows our military. Importantly, he also knows our enemies. He understands their capabilities and their aims. He will not sugarcoat the human or financial commitment and cost needed to defeat this enemy. The most important social issue is life. Yes, I often wished McCain would have joined me on the Senate floor in debating Barbara Boxer on issues like the partial-birth-abortion ban. In the end, with the exception of embryonic stem-cell funding, he always voted for life and stood for the culture of life. In short, he's been a reliable vote on life issues, which are critical to conservatives. Many conservatives have given McCain poor marks for his involvement in the Gang of 14. I was in leadership pushing hard for a showdown with the Democrats on using the "Constitutional Option" to end their filibuster of judicial nominations. The Gang of 14 broke the impasse, and it probably was for the best. I was the one counting votes on that issue, and I was much less certain of success than others. In the end, the Gang deal resulted in numerous confirmations of qualified conservative jurists. On judges, McCain has repeatedly made clear that he will, as his Web site states, "only nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat." Sounds good to me. Yes, I disagreed with McCain's opposition to President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. But I give him credit that he now thinks we must make those tax cuts permanent to boost our now-struggling economy. And, yes, McCain has been a thorn in the side of many of us who supported important appropriations earmarks for our states. But he's always objected with principled consistency. This is but one example of McCain's character - the kind of character I want in the person who answers 3 a.m. phone calls at the White House.

Of course, I shouldn't have to mention what the two possible alternatives to John McCain are.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Elephant In The Room: Why Conservatives Should Support McCain
Rick Santorum
The Philadelphia Enquirer
April 21, 2008