At a news conference immediately following this visit, a reporter asked Quayle, "How do YOU spell potato?" Caught off guard by the reporter's question, Quayle displayed puzzlement in his face, at which all the journalists present laughed. Until that moment, the Vice President had not given a second thought to the incident at the blackboard, since all he had done was read off a flash card prepared by someone prior to his arrival. For the remainder of 1992, almost every single day until the election, the media networks and liberal press continually replayed this gaffe, omitting enough of the facts to make sure that Dan Quayle would be seen as a "dummy who cannot spell" and an "unintelligent, under-educated" man, not worthy of being only "one heartbeat away from the Oval Office." They did everything they could do to make sure that Quayle would become a "liability" to bring down the incumbent President, George H.W. Bush.

Remember when George W. Bush used the term "Grecian" instead of the proper noun, "Greek" as he was first running for President back in 2000? At that time, just about every far left elitist and practically everyone in the liberal mainstream media went into overdrive, mocking candidate Bush's gaffe by hurling invective statements about "W's" total lack of intelligence. From Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann to the "journalists" of the three major networks, the misnomer was "proof" that "W" was a "stupid idiot" who would not be able to ascend to the highest office in the land because he lacked the necessary, elitist-vetted "intellectualism" that can only be approved by liberals. Over the subsequent eight years, not to mention one year into Obama's term, the vitriolic, left-wing, "progressive" media never  ceased putting every single verbal gaffe or mispronunciation made by Bush under a high-powered microscope. They made sure everyone knew about any misstatement President Bush made and then took most gaffes out of context in order to portray him as an "air-headed bumbling idiot."

Fast forward to the Presidential campaign in 2008, when then-presidential candidate Barack Obama was at an Oregon campaign rally. During his teleprompter speech, he said, "It is wonderful to be back in Oregon. Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it." The Los Angeles Times lead the way for the mainstream media to excuse their candidate's gaffe, by explaining; 

Two months into his new Presidency, Obama appeared on The Tonight Show and got into a discussion about how bowling is not really his greatest sport. When asked about his score in a recent game, the President mentioned that he had scored a 129.

"That's very good, Mr. President," Leno said sarcastically.

It's "like the Special Olympics or something," the president said.

The following morning, the pro-Obama mainstream media began to immediately run cover for their man, Barack Obama, essentially doing damage control for the President. On Good Morning America, Tim Shriver, Chairman of the Special Olympics, was invited to share the exchange that he had with President Obama, who had personally called to apologize for his remark the previous night.

"He expressed his disappointment and he apologized," Shriver said. "He expressed that he did not intend to humiliate this population, certainly didn't want to embarrass or give anybody any more reason for pain or just suffering I would say. He was very sincere, expressed an interest and an openness in being more engaged in the movement, and said he was a fan of the movement and I think importantly he said he was ready to have some of our athletes over to the White House to bowl or play basketball or help him improve his score." Soon after, the mainstream media either buried the story or dropped it altogether, confident that they had helped their guy in the White House dodge a public-relations disaster. Within a matter of weeks, no one at the three main networks nor their colleagues at MSNBC, CNN or The New York Times were referring to the incident at all. It was almost as though it had never happened.

One month later, when the comment to Leno had been "erased" from the public memory by the press, Obama was doing a news conference in Europe, and said, " It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There’s a lot of — I don’t know what the term is in Austrian — wheeling and dealing — and, you know, people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics." Do you remember that?

Probably not, because other than Fox News and the independent and conservative blogosphere, not one other mainstream media network or paper made any reference to this gaffe, despite the fact that is was very comparable to Bush's "Grecian" misstatement. Of course, when Bush made that gaffe, the same pro-Obama press circled the "W" like vultures and milked the "Grecian" mistake for all it was worth. Had Sarah Plain, or for that matter, even newly-elected Scott Brown made such an error, the leftist mainstream media would make sure that their gaffes were the leading story of the day, to be followed by a flurry of "round-table discussions" about their ability to lead.

Which brings us to the latest gaffe by the big guy in the Oval Office.

On Thursday, President Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast 2010. While addressing the audience, he made a reference to Navy corpsmen twice. However, he did not say "corpsmen" when he spoke. While there has been a brief mention of the gaffe on the mainsteam media networks, the story was buried under several other topics. This gaffe, which the left-wingers at the main press outlets such as NBC/MSNBC, CNN, Headline News, ABC, CBS, as well as the mainstream print press like the New York Times, chose to give scant attention to, has clearly shown just how much of a pro-liberal, pro-Obama, biased, nonobjective double-standard that today's "journalists" practice. Had this gaffe been made by George W. Bush, Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin or even Sen. Scott Brown, all Republicans and, for the most part, conservatives, there is no doubt that the mainstream media would have treated the American people to a daily barrage of the gaffe, whilst setting up the conservative in question to look either ill-informed, uneducated or just plain dumb in their attempt to humiliate the center-right.

The mainstream press finds itself in a crisis for its survival, as their audiences dwindle to just a few hundred thousand viewers per cable and news network, with the exception of Fox News. Only extreme, hard core, far left socialist-liberals  really watch the or believe the vitriolic hate that spews from the talking heads at MSNBC anymore. While Fox News continues to grow their audience and increase their ratings at an exploding rate, the other three cable networks combined cannot pull together an audience to match that of Fox. That is because Fox News is showing both sides of a story, with differing political viewpoints. And they do that without using all the obscenities or personal insults during their broadcasts.

Of course, the other networks and liberals will then try to label Fox News as extreme right wing, but that is because the leftist media has gone so far left and have crossed over the ethical line of not being objective, have literally dropped all pretenses of not being biased. This extreme shift to the political left means that anything that tries to cover the news from a middle perspective are demonized by liberals as "right wing extremists." Hence the reason that MSNBC absolutely hates Fox News and its huge ratings success.

Americans are not stupid, regardless of the contempt that the likes of Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow hold for them. It is middle America that sees the double-standard that the left-leaning mainstream media play in order to favor liberals and Democrats while portraying conservatives, independents and Republicans in the worst light possible. Middle America, meaning the vast majority of everyday Americans, understand that when Olbermann directs his hate-filled, mean-spirited, angry vitriol by hurling obscenities or assigning downgrading labels at all conservatives, Republicans or anyone not in agreement with his agenda, it is they who he is attacking. That is why the vast majority of Americans, who are more center or conservative in their politics, are heading to Fox News, talk radio and the Internet for their news, and why the newspapers and mainstream electronic media are rapidly dying off. They totally understand that the self-proclaimed intellectual elitists sitting in their MSNBC anchor seats to pontificate their superiority do not actually respect normal America.

While it would be nice to see the mainstream media finally accept that it is they who are so out of touch with middle America and then come back to the center to deliver the news, it is highly unlikely to happen. They will continue their self-immolation and destruction by remaining radically to the left and out of touch with the majority of us.

Which brings us to an interesting question; will the mainstream media do its job and give Obama's gaffes the same type of scrutiny that they put former President Bush under? If I were a gambling man, I would fold because this is never going to happen. So I will not hold my breath to wait for sanity to return to mainstream journalism.

I would advise all Navy "Corpse-men" everywhere to not wait around for the mainstream media to come around. Because Hell will have frozen over by the time they do.

Sources:

1. http://www.capitalcentury.com/1992.html

2. http://usconservatives.about.com/b/2009/07/20/top-10-obama-gaffes.htm

3. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/barack-obama-wa.html

4. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/president-ob-15.html

5. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/04/06/if-obama-believes-austrian-language-so-will-ap

If you have ever wondered why Europe is rapidly becoming "Eurabia," a once-great continent doomed to eventually submit to the fascist Islamist ideology that Al-Qaeda, Wahhabi-st Saudi Arabia and the Taliban wish to impose upon the world, look no further than the Euro-weenie attempt to punish those who simply speak the truth by citing the exact language from the Islamic text itself, the Koran. It appears that if a Westerner or European decides to call attention to the thousands of Suras in the Koran that call for endless murder of all non-Muslims, unless they submit to Islam, they will be hauled into the European kangaroo court, to be found guilty and thrown into prison by a panel of extreme leftist judges with absolutely no regard for due process or actually trying to find the truth.

In this case, a member of the Dutch parliament, Geert Wilders, is facing a litany of trumped-up charges by the Dutch "legal" system, including the outrageous charges of "inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims." While the mainstream press outlets who are sympathetic to the extreme left, like Reuters, call Wilders an "extremist" or "a far right wing radical" politician, the reality is that Mr. Wilders only sin has been to expose the reality of the Islamist world-view and its growing threat to the liberal democracies of the West. Geert Wilders has not made any false statements, nor has he slandered or libeled Islam. He has done nothing more than to quote the Koran itself, or to cite statements and hadiths, which are written first-hand accounts, or "reports" of the Prophet Mohammed's actual beliefs, decrees, prohibitions and actions of his day-to-day life. The hadiths, as written by Mohammed's contemporaries, are a basis by which devout Muslims live today. However, almost all political Islamists believe that they must literally follow the hadiths, meaning that it is a requirement to copy and imitate the seventh-century Mohammad in every way, including his practice of continual warfare against all "non-believers." For simply reiterating the exact texts, practices and statements made in the Koran while reciting the countless acts of terror in the name of Islam, the appeasers of the Left are working in tandem with their Islamist masters to impose the Sharia, or Islamic Law on the non-Islamic populations and governmental systems of Europe and the rest of the so-called "infidel world." 

For anyone who even remotely understands or has read the Koran, there are the "Suras," roughly comparable to the verses of the Christian Bible and Jewish Torah. However, the similarities end there, as the Torah (essentially the Jewish holy book and the Bible's Old Testament) and the Bible are a collection of books detailing the history of the Jews from the time of creation through the birth of Christ (the old Testament), followed by the New Testament, where Christians believe the new covenant was created between God and man through the birth, passion death and resurrection of his Son, the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The "Books" of the Torah and Bible, authored by several individuals over a period of thousands of years, follow a consecutive time line while citing similar history and prophesy through the stories told of God's prophets in the Old Testament and through the details of Christ and his disciples in the New Testament. While there are stories of warfare and violence, the chapters relating to these incidents are in the context of God protecting his followers from hostile invaders. Never in the Bible, especially the New Testament, does the Christian Messiah, the Son of God and founder of the Church, declare that "all other religions must submit to Judaism or Christianity" while mandating, in the name of that very religion, that all "unbelievers must be killed to make the entire world say there is no God but God and his Son, Jesus, is the Messiah."

Yet in the Koran, we have a large collection of unrelated stories, heaped with one contradiction after the other. For example, a Koranic verse (2:256) answers: "There is no compulsion in religion"(in Arabic: la ikrah fi'd-din). To the uninformed "infidel," this sounds wonderful because the verse firmly reinforces the liberal belief that "Islam is peaceful and tolerant of other religions and practices." Yet, the contradictions to this very statement are found time and again throughout the entire Koran. For example, consider the following Koranic statements;

• Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
• Qur'an (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
• Qur'an (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
• Qur'an (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
• Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".
• Qur'an (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."
• Qur'an (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
• Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
• Qur'an (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-"
   
• Qur'an (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..."
• Qur'an (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
• Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
• Qur'an (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."
• Qur'an (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"
• Qur'an (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."
• Qur'an (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."
• Qur'an (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
• Qur'an (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."
• Qur'an (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant."
• Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
• Qur'an (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra 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!"
• Qur'an (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."
• Qur'an (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination."
• Qur'an (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."
• Qur'an (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
• Qur'an (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"
• Qur'an (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an)."
• Qur'an (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"
• Qur'an (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"
• Qur'an (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom."
• Qur'an (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"
• Qur'an (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way"
• Qur'an (61:10-12) - "O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity."
• Qur'an (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end."

These are actual words taken from Koranic texts, verbatim!

While there are many who will try to equate the violence of Islam with the Christian Crusades that occurred a thousand years ago, there is a glaring difference that must be noted; the Crusades were an order given by a man (Pope Urban) to other men, and carried out in the name of their religion under the orders of man. The Crusades were a belated, direct response to the Islamic aggressions and conquests that had all but "cleansed" the Middle East of all Christians and Jews. At the time of Pope Urban's edict to initiate the First Crusade, Spain had been conquered by an aggressive Muslim invasion, while the eastern regions of Europe were under threat of assault by advancing Muslim armies. Despite the Crusade's defensive nature, nonetheless, there were massive atrocities visited upon the Muslim populations that the Crusaders re-invaded, none of which were or are condoned by the Bible. In fact, the vast majority of knights on the Crusades carried within their hearts a strong desire to defend the European borders from an alien ideology bent on Christianity's destruction.

The Koran preaches eternal war, murder and plunder of all it perceive as "enemies of Allah" for all times. It openly calls Jews the "sons and daughters of apes and swine" while calling all unbelievers (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) "vile animals or panting dogs."

The Bible, by contrast, is focused on personal redemption for individual sin by asking for God's forgiveness. In the Old Testament, this is done through animal sacrifices at an alter, while in the New Testament it is in the death and resurrection of Christ. The Christian text places great emphasis on forgiving your enemies of their transgressions, of loving your enemies, and of following the Golden Rule. There is nothing in the Holy Bible that literally orders continual war and murder of all those who "do not believe" in the Jewish or Christian God. There is nothing in the holy texts, doctrines or scriptures of any monotheistic religion, other than Islam, that practices offensive imperialism as part of its religious doctrine. There is a reason why "Islam's borders are bloody."

So while Geert Wilders must defend himself, and vicariously, the rest of us, to protect what remains of freedom of speech in Europe in general, against a set of charges under so-called hate speech laws that would make Stalin and Hitler proud, many Islamists, including former leaders of Islamic nations, are free to go about their business of preaching hate and making false statements about all their perceived enemies, meaning Jews, Christians, Europeans, Westerners, Americans, Buddhists, Hindus, and anyone else that are not part of the Muslim world.

As they continue to gain control of what was once Europe and turn it into Eurabia with the help of Western liberals and progressives, non-Muslim Europeans can expect to see their  hard-won freedoms going the way of the Roman Empire, to be replaced by further pogroms against Christians and Jews. Eventually, cases like Geert Wilders will be the norm, with all forms of honest, open dialog and debate being eliminated altogether.

Sources:

1. http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/terrorism_verses1.htm

2. http://www.danielpipes.org/2110/the-issue-of-compulsion-in-religion-islam-is-what-its

3. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6120ME20100203

4. http://www.geertwilders.nl/

5. http://www.wildersontrial.com/

6. http://www.jihadwatch.org/

7. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/135856

8. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/02/spencer-islamic-nazis.html

9. http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html

10. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

11. http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-islamic-law-shariah.htm

12. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

13. http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/002.qmt.html

President Obama gave his first official State of the Union speech this evening at the Capital. The speech lasted almost 80 minutes, and it appeared that his focus remained on continuing most of his agenda that is shaped by the far left of his party. There was very little evidence that the president was prepared to move to the political center, despite the Democrat's loss of their super majority in the Senate with last week's election of Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown. Here are some of my first immediate thoughts of the speech;

1. Obama has been the President for well over one year now, yet he still cannot take responsibility for the current state of the U.S. economy or national security without trying to blame the Bush administration. I lost count of how many times he referred to the prior eight years before he took the oath of office. But on several occasions when the president cited current economic conditions, he tried to use the disclaimer that all the problems on his watch were created in the eight years of Bush. Only upon his ascendancy of the presidency has Obama been able to "stop" a  second "great depression" by more than doubling the national debt for a failed stimulus package. It appears that Mr. Obama cannot come to terms with the fact that he owns the responsibility for the current condition created in his expansion programs after one full year in office with a large Congressional majority supporting him.

2. Despite his call for bipartisanship, the president seems intent on continuing with his tactics of setting various groups against each other in the interest of gaining power. Several times, Mr. Obama made reference to the banks on Wall Street as being the propagator of the economic collapse. He made several references to the "injustice" of allowing banks, business owners and entrepreneurs of making "windfall profits," with the goal of subsidizing the costs of various government programs by taxing "the wealthy."

3. The main area of economic growth that Obama can lay claim to is the massive growth of the federal government bureaucracy. At one point during his speech, the president stated that he would push for a $10,000 tax credit for all families to send their children to college rather than continuing with the "status-quo" of student loans and Pell Grants. Essentially, he was saying that his administration would give the loans to students, yet limit the payments of the loans to no more than 10 percent of their income. Yet Obama will forgive all remaining debt after 10 years of payments for those graduates who decide to work in "public service" (a.k.a. government") for 20 years upon receiving their degree. That "forgiven" debt will need to be paid by someone, and that probably means all of those graduates who choose to start a business or work in the private sector will be the ones picking up the tab for their peers in the government. Obama's plan will continue punishing those who are not excited about joining in his program to expand the government even further.

3. Cap and Trade, a program designed to kowtow to the global "man-made global warming" crowd while simultaneously destroying the economy, is still on the table. Despite all the evidence this past autumn that proves the entire "man-made climate change science" as nothing more than a manipulated scam by radical left wing environmentalists seeking control of everyone's lives, Obama made clear that he intends to move forward on this program. Degrading those who see the climate change fraud for what it is by lecturing Congress on the "overwhelming pr oven science" that "undeniably shows the dangers of man-made climate change," the president said "even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future, because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy, and America must be that nation.” Obama used the term "doubt" to downplay those who do not buy into the so-called "settled science," yet he never once mentioned the fact that the global-warming crowd, himself included, "doubt" the evidence that came to light last fall in the ClimateGate email scandal.

4. National Security was less than 1/5th of the entire speech. Obama, citing his disclaimer once again of the mess he "inherited," went on to tell the nation that he is following in the footsteps of JFK and Ronald Reagan by his goal of a "nuclear free world." He took credit again for ending the war in Iraq, yet failed to acknowledge credit to his predecessor for the surge that actually won the Iraq war. He also failed to remind his audience that he was an opponent of that surge when he was in the Senate, and that his policy at the time was to cut and run when that war was not going well. Yet he has the audacity to claim that it is because of his agenda that the Iraq war is ending "responsibly."

As for Afghanistan, he mentioned his own surge of 30,000 troops to train the Afghan army to win the peace for the Afghan people. However, he also reminded the enemy that they only need to hold off and wait until July 2011 to regain control of the country, as that is when Obama declares the war will be over and the U.S. military will pack up and leave. With a presidential address like this, Al Qaeda does not need to invest in spies to determine our next moves.

The president mentioned only in passing that we will overcome the difficulties of fighting terrorism without sacrificing our own morals and values, meaning that he intends to continue on his mad plan of treating enemy combatants as simple bank robbers who can be tried in our own civilian courts while getting the same legal rights and protections that should only be afforded to U.S. citizens. He also failed to mention his plans for moving the Al Qaeda detainees at Guantanamo to U.S. prisons for further trials in U.S. civilian courts. In other words, Obama did not highlight his plan to the return of treating the war on Islamist terror as nothing more than a simple law issue to be managed by the cops and the lawyers.

5. Health Care Agenda; Obama made clear that he intends to continue with his push on a government-run health care program, and he lectured the Senate Republicans on the fact that their ability to stall his legislation with a filibuster would "prove" that they are not serious about reform. The president tried to act as though he is above the fray by "inviting" Republicans to "come to the table" and "contribute" their ideas to reforming health care that will be acceptable to all Americans. However, he failed to mention how the Republicans have been completely locked out of all negotiations and debates by the House and Senate Democrats when they held the super majority. He failed to mention how Republicans have tried to bring alternative reform packages to the table, only to be shown the door so Democrats could dictate the reform without opposition input. Republican ideas such as tort reform, which would drastically reduce health care costs by eliminating the liability insurance doctors are forced to carry in order to protect themselves from bogus lawsuits initiated by "ambulance-chaser" lawyers, were never given consideration by Obama, Reid and Pelosi. For Obama to now lambaste Congressional Republicans for having not cooperated over the past year and then to lecture them about the need to drop "partisanship" was pure hypocrisy.

Overall, the speech seemed uninspiring and appeared to show Obama had not tilted to the center as had been anticipated by Washington insiders.

As I stated, this was just my first run of thoughts on the speech tonight. Of course, there was much more in the speech that need to be examined, piece by piece. The fact-checkers will be hard at work overnight to study the president's words while the pundits ponder the substance of the address in the weeks to come.

 

Exactly one year ago from today, a majority of the nation tingled with excitement at the prospect of the future under their newly inaugurated President, Barack Hussein Obama. Weary of two ongoing wars that had lasted seven years, as well as an economic recession bordering on near depression during the second term of George W. Bush, Americans were ready for a change in the direction their country was headed and hungered for new leadership to take them out of the political and economic wilderness. In Barack Obama, the extreme left found their messiah who would provide the leadership to the far left’s liberal utopia. In the rest of the electorate, meaning moderate liberals, independents and disenfranchised conservatives who had become upset with President Bush and the increasingly weak Republican Party, Obama represented a shift from what were viewed as the non-conservative policies that Bush represented. The mantra of a slight majority of the nation was the slogan “anyone but another George W. Bush!”

 

John McCain, a very moderate and centrist Republican who ran against Obama in the presidential election, was viewed by much of the electorate as nothing more than an extension of the Bush policies, with no real change in policy or direction. The inclusion of Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket as the second female vice presidential candidate in the nation’s history did not translate to a McCain victory, because his campaign mismanaged the one major conservative asset he had that truly excited the Republican base that also intrigued independent voters. Palin, a true Reagan-inspired conservative, was not allowed to run on her true conservative values. Her public dissent with the McCain campaign over its decision to completely abandon the voters of Michigan that October brought accusations by Republican staffers that she had “gone rogue” and was “out of control.” The result was the historic election of Obama as the nation’s first bi-racial president, and on January 20, 2009, he was sworn in as the 44^th President of the United States on a promise of reviving the economy, rebuilding international respect for American foreign policy, and the most transparent and ethical administration that would ever govern the nation.

 

The Democrats and their liberal base were ecstatic about the win and made extremely bold statements. James Carville, Bill Clinton’s former campaign manager and a Democratic pundit, declared the election of Obama, coupled with complete Democratic control of both the House and Senate, meant that the Democratic Party would rule America for the “next 40 years.” In the Huffington Post, Tom Matzzie, a former MoveOn.org Director and an Obama political strategist, wrote “Progressive ideas are what Americans want. We went into the election with an alignment between progressives on the Left and more centrist voters. On the big issues--Iraq, the economy, energy and health care. Left and center agree. The war will end. Things will change.” As far as the American far left was concerned, conservatism was now dead and America was ready for a radical change to socialism.

 

Moderates and conservative who voted for Obama, somehow convinced themselves that the new president would govern just as he had campaigned, as a centrist. They were hopeful the comments they were hearing from Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, were true, when she said that the Congressional Democratic majority understood clearly that the American people still expected Congress to govern from the center, and that her party would endeavor to do so.

 

One year later, America has seen the most radical, leftward tilt in its 235 year history. Obama’s administration is by far the most liberal that we have experienced. Coupled with the radical, socialistic elitism of the Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid-led Congress, we have seen an intrusion into our private lives from the Federal Government in ways that were unfathomable just a couple of years ago.

 

Obama and the Democratic-led Congress have done a full 180-degree turnaround on virtually every promise they made during the campaign. They have decided to force an unwanted and extremely unpopular government-run socialized health care bill down the collective throat of the American people. Deals have been made behind closed doors by the Democratic leadership on a bill that will impact one-sixth of the U.S. economy and virtually every American citizen. These deal making sessions have completely excluded any Republican or opposition members from the debate, and have completely disregarded any opposing input, viewpoints or alternative bills from being presented. 

 

In return for a “yes” vote on a rammed version of the Democrat’s pet project of socialized medicine, the Democratic leadership has made “sweetheart deals” with certain Congressional and Senate members. One example is the “Cornhusker Kickback,” in which Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson sold his vote favoring health care reform in exchange for a special, back-room deal that could save the Nebraska state government millions of dollars in Medicaid subsidies. No other state will get this same deal, but all other states will pay for Nebraska’s special treatment. A second example is the “Second Louisiana Purchase,” in which Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., won between $100 million and $300 million in additional federal aid for her state's Medicaid population by selling her vote to favor the unpopular health care bill. So much for Obama’s promised “transparency.”

 

Then there is the issue of “man-made global warming,” which was recently exposed as a fraud in the email scandal known as “Climategate.” Regardless of the fact that scientists have been covering up the lie of man-made global warming for years to advance their dreams of global, centralized socialist control and the transfer of wealth from America and the West to the Third World, the Copenhagen Climate Summit went full steam ahead, even denying the scandal had occurred. The environmental radicals conceded, however, that even if it did prove that global warming was not really true, we still needed to surrender our sovereignty to a select group of international, unelected bureaucrats so they can best manage our resources through U.N. regulation.

 

In order to kowtow to the global warming scammers and the radical environmental leftist movement in the United States, Obama not only discouraged American drilling for oil in American locations where oil is known to exist in vast quantities, he also asked Congress to pass a huge cap-and-trade legislation in which American industry would be forced to reduce their carbon footprint to levels preceding the 1990 Kyoto Treaty requirements. Cap-and-trade requires businesses that use more than their allotted amount of CO2 emissions to find other businesses that have remained below their cap, and then purchase, or “trade” the unused emissions so as to not technically exceed their own government imposed cap. If they exceed the cap and cannot trade, the “offending” company would then be required to pay a massive fine to the E.P.A., who could then do as they wish with the money, including payoffs to the U.N. In short, this move would radically destroy the U.S. economy and put a stop to any hope of new business growth. In turn, this would hamper an economic recovery and force more citizens onto the government welfare dole, which is in the Democrat’s interest.

 

Knowing that the Senate would never commit economic suicide by letting this pass, Obama simply ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to do a regulatory run around the elected members of Congress by declaring CO2 as “dangerous” to American health, to now be regulated through the E.P.A.’s Clean Air Act of 1970. By doing this, Obama now has a free hand to use command and control of the private sector in forcing his cap-and-trade system, regardless of what the voters and their elected representatives in Congress want. Like several other decisions Obama has made or considers, consulting with some 40-some unelected “czars” who answer only to the President; this move by the E.P.A. demonstrated a total lack of ethics and transparency while demonstrating the totalitarian tendencies of this administration. The list of shady governing practices by this administration are simply too great to fit in one article.

 

Needless to say, this blatant disregard for the American voter, coupled with an open display of raw arrogance and elitism, has finally caught up to the Democrats. Their unrelenting drive to force their health care agenda regardless of the constitutionality of the agenda, its cost to our sick economy or the will of the American voters have exposed the Obama Administration’s true intentions for the naked grab of unchecked power that it is. This has given rise to the T.E.A. party movement that seeks to reform not only the radical governance of the Democrats, but the lost direction of the Republicans as well.

 

The culmination of this liberal dictatorship was with yesterday’s election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Massachusetts is not only a Democratic “blue” state; it is the most liberal state in the union. It is so left-leaning that it could almost be described as “indigo blue.” Yet Scott Brown, a relative unknown outside of his state, came from nowhere to win the vacated seat held for 46 years by the late Ted Kennedy, over Democrat Martha Coakley, a Democrat and Massachusetts Attorney General.  In a state where only 15 percent of the voters are registered as Republicans, Brown was able to overcome the Democratic machine by appealing to the 50 percent of independent voters who are absolutely fed up with the policies of Barack Obama, as well as the arrogance of the Democratic liberal elitists.

 

Not only did Scott Brown win on the promise that he would use “the people’s seat” to be the 41^st crucial Senate vote against the health care bill, but he also won big. Taking 52 percent of the vote, a five point margin over Democrat Coakley, demonstrates just how out of touch Obama and his Democratic allies have swayed from the American people. Massachusetts simply does not elect Republicans to the Senate. The last time this happened was during the Nixon presidency almost 40 years ago.

 

There is no doubt that the people of the bluest of states, Massachusetts, have sent a very, very strong message to President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. That message is to slow down the health care bill and start from scratch, make economic recovery the top focus the Obama agenda, open the doors on all pending legislation to full transparency of the people, slow down uncontrolled spending and the takeover of the private sector, and stop trying to bypass our check and balance system by forcing regulation via unelected bureaucrats rather than the elected servants of the people. In short, do as Obama promised during the 2008 campaign or prepare to pay a very heavy political price this coming November and beyond.

 

Already this morning, there are several leftists and liberal Democrats trying to put a spin on the meaning of the election. Several of Obama’s lovers in the old mainstream media are already trying to convince the American public that the outcome of Massachusetts is in no way a referendum on the Obama presidency or agenda, rather it is just a local Senate race of a rather “small” state.

 

Obama and the Democrats can try to deny what happened by continuing to bury their head in the sand. They can still try to use various legislative instruments, like reconciliation, to ram this bill through, despite the outcome of the Massachusetts race. They can continue to insist that they know better than the American people and continue trying to govern from the extreme left while displaying their familiar elitism. However, should they choose to not heed the message the voters sent and continue to ignore the voters, they do so at their own peril.

 

Happy Anniversary, Mr. President. What a difference a year can make!

 

Sources:

 

1. http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/james-carville-gop-exile/2009/05/11/id/330024
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-matzzie/what-obamas-win-means_b_141202.html
3. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/05/1651482.aspx
4. http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/health-care-bill-contains-a-special-deal-for-nebraska/1060974
5. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/21/price-right-payoffs-senators-typical-health-care/
6. http://conservativecamp.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36935:climate-change-fraud-exposed&catid=143:robert-ditmar&Itemid=128
7. http://conservativecamp.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=112061:treason-at-copenhagen&catid=143:robert-ditmar&Itemid=128
8. http://conservativecamp.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=183891:obamas-united-socialist-states-of-america&catid=143:robert-ditmar&Itemid=128
9. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/20/politics/main6118913.shtml

 

 

 

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, recently stated in an interview on Bloomberg television that if Republican Scott Brown wins the Massachusetts senate seat, vacated by last summer's passing of Ted Kennedy, the Democrats will ram through the very unpopular health care bill by pushing the so-called "nuclear option button" of reconciliation. “Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation.” said Van Hollen, who stands by his belief that Brown's Democratic challenger, Martha Coakley, will win. Regardless of the outcome, Van Hollen made clear his party's intention of overruling the desire of an overwhelming majority of Americans who do not want this health care bill to pass by stating, “Getting health-care reform passed is important.”

Reconciliation is a process in the Senate whereby certain bills related to budgetary issues can be passed by a simple majority of only 51 Senators, allowing a bill to avoid being filibustered by the opposition. It is a process that has been seldom used since the founding of the nation some 230 years ago, because the very nature of this option is akin to "tyranny by the rule of the majority," in this case, the simple majority the Democrats would have in the senate.

Given that Mr. Obama has just cut a closed-door, non-transparent deal with the AFL-CIO union in which their members will not have their high-end health insurance taxed as income like every other American non-union member will, resorting to reconciliation to force us all into socialized medical care is nothing short of a totalitarian insult. Keep in mind that the union's high-end health care will still need to be subsidized somehow until 2018, when they would supposedly be required to pay the taxes. That money is going to come from the rest of us, who will start paying income taxes on our own high-end health care policies in 2013. Over time, it is going to become so expensive for the average American to be able to keep affording their current program under the Democrat's tax plan that they will eventually be forced by default off their own health insurance and into the socialized government bureaucratic health system. At that point, your medical care is going to be decided by the state, not you or your doctor. Yet the unions will enjoy being exempt from the very taxes and socialism that you will be forced to endure.

Obama has two goals with this deal. First is to force his socialism down all of our throats. The second is to force all of us to become more inclined to join unions so we can become "benefactors" of their double-standard deal while the union leadership gets to increase their personal coffers through the dues you will be forced to pay them. Perhaps a third goal is for the increased union membership dues to pay into the future campaign war chests of the Obama administration and his Democratic-Socialist cronies in Congress.

In the end, the use of reconciliation to force us all into an ugly, inferior health care system where we will be forced to submit to both the state and the unions smack of old Soviet-style double standards. It is nothing short of a dictatorship when a political party makes deals for their own corrupt, special interests and unpopular programs instead of representing the people they are supposed to serve. In this case, the majority of us have stated loudly that we do not want this health care bill. The Massachusetts race, regardless of who wins, is so close that it demonstrates just how far the policies of the Obama administration have fallen out of favor with the electorate. Yet come hell or high water, you will take Obamacare, courtesy of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and you will like it.

Just pray that all of us stay extremely healthy once this unconstitutional bill and process has worked its way through the American Politburo.

The Bay State appears to be on the verge of overthrowing the royal Kennedy family in favor of a man of the people. To the dismay of Congressman and Banking Queen Barney Frank, New York Sen. and flight attendant basher Charles Schumer, not to mention Prince Harry, Princess Nancy and King Obama, the conservative Republican candidate, Scott Brown, is now ahead in polling for the Massachusetts senate seat. A new poll released by Suffolk University shows a statistical dead heat in the Massachusetts Senate race.

State Senator Republican Scott Brown takes the lead among likely voters over the state's Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley- 50% to 46%. With a margin of error of 4.4% this race is neck-in-neck.

For the Democrats, the stakes could not be higher. If Scott Brown wins the contest, taking “the people’s seat” back from the Democratic dynasty, it will spell certain death of any socialized health care legislation passing. For Obama, this would mean the crown jewel of his radical socialist reformation of America would be D.O.A. and his legacy will suffer with his far left base.

According to a Washington Examiner report, Coakley’s own polling is showing the Democratic heir apparent to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. However, Obama is polling at around 60 percent in this bluest of blue states. Democrats concede that Coakly falling behind the Republican candidate while Obama’s numbers are still so high should not be happening, but it is.

To combat a possible loss, the Democratic spin doctors are already starting to run cover in order to protect the president. Their strategy is to distance the Obama agenda from this election by painting the Democrat candidate as being a “terrible candidate.” Referring to the Democrat gubernatorial candidate who lost the Virginia election last November, the Washington Examiner report states a Democratic source as saying, “This is a Creigh Deeds situation. I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."

Because the election is still four days away, the Democrats are clinging to the hope that Coakley can somehow pull ahead of Scott Brown and still win the seat. To help back their liberal Democratic candidate, the left wing of the Democratic party has started to resort to a well-worn tactic that they are best at; smearing their opponent with lowball insults and vitriolic statements. Democrat New York Sen. Chuck Schumer wrote, "Martha Coakley is running to fill the rest of Ted Kennedy's term, and her opponent is a far-right tea-bagger Republican." Schumer means to insult Brown with the “tea-bagger” comment, knowing that it refers to a somewhat disgusting sexual practice. Coming from man who recently called a flight attendant a “b**ch” because of her request that he follow the rules and turn his cell phone off during a flight, this latest assault on Brown carries the stench of hypocrisy.

The Coakley camp, desperate to take her place in the so-called “Kennedy seat,” has resorted to launching attack ads against Brown, even going so far in one ad of showing Brown in a bad light with images of the World Trade Center. However, she had to yank the ad, as even the New York Times reported.

The reason that Brown is ahead in the polls and has a strong probability of taking the senate seat of Massachusetts is because this election IS a referendum on Obama’s plan to socialize health care. The majority of Americans do not want this plan to happen. The Democrats know this, but they are going to do everything possible to hide the facts and cloud the truth

On September 1, 2009, three U.S. Navy SEALs captured Ahmed Hashim Abed, the Al Qaeda mastermind behind the 2004 murders of four U.S. civilian Blackwater security contractors in Fallujah, Iraq. Ahmed also encouraged insurgents and residents to drag and mutilate the victim’s bodies through the dirty streets before hanging them like meat carcasses from a bridge. He was an active member of Al Qaeda in Iraq and was active in attacking American troops as well as treating non-combatant civilians harshly. The three Navy SEALs, Navy Petty Officers Matthew McCabe, Jonathan Keefe and Julio Huertas, who participated in capturing Ahmed, were allegedly met with resistance and had to restrain the murdering terrorist to bring him under control. The operation was a success, and one of the most-wanted Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq had been taken out of commission.  

Ahmed Hashim Abed was then taken to Camp Baharia (Dreamland), a Marine base adjacent to the main compound of Camp Fallujah, about 2 miles out of the city. While he was briefly detained at this location, Ahmed alleges that the three Navy SEALs involved in the operation punched the terrorist, thereby causing Ahmed to suffer a bloody lip. Of course, Ahmed claims that he had not instigated any situation in which the alleged “assault” took place, and therefore blames the incident on the three SEALs as nothing more than an act of “discriminating abuse and torture.” "A punch in the gut," is the way a defense lawyer described Abed's accusation. Other than Ahmed’s own allegation and statements, there appear to be no other witnesses to verify that this altercation occurred.  

In the ensuing “investigation” by the military, the three SEALs were charged, but were offered an opportunity to “defend their actions” in front of a captain’s mast, also known as an admiral’s mast, or flag mast, which is not a trial, but is a non-judicial discipline hearing. In other words, the military brass decided to believe the uncorroborated word of the terrorist and decided the three SEALs were guilty, so the hearing would determine what punishment would be meted out to the three servicemen. If they did not accept this hearing, they were informed that they would face a military court-martial, in which the three men could face prison time.  

To their credit, the three SEALs turned down this hearing in favor of the court-martial, as all three are of the strong conviction that no wrongdoing had occurred and that they had successfully carried out the mission they were ordered to do. Had they agreed to the hearing, under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, their submission to the proceedings would have been seen as tantamount to an admission of guilt.

So now, three Navy heroes, who should be receiving medals for their courage in apprehending a reprehensible Al Qaeda terrorist murderer, are fighting for their very freedom. They are facing charges of dereliction of duty, making a false statement and impeding the investigation. All three have been arraigned in a military court-martial and face up to a year in jail, demotion to a lower rank, and dishonorable discharges.  

In the deposition and discovery process leading to the upcoming trial, the SEAL’s defense attorneys asked that they be given the opportunity to question Abed face to face, while the prosecution was asking the court-martial to permit a videotaped deposition instead. Abed is currently being held in a secure location in Iraq. The court-martial proceedings have taken place at the Naval Station in Norfolk, Virginia thus far. Cmdr. Tierney Carlos, the Navy judge in charge of the proceedings, told the defense, "If he is available for deposition, he is available for trial." While this sounds like good news, the judge has added a little insult to injury to the SEALs by a Monday ruling in which he ordered two trials should be moved to Camp Victory in Baghdad where Ahmed Hashim Abed is being held in U.S. custody. It is better to inconvenience the Navy SEALs who were doing their job, admirably, than to inconvenience an Al Qaeda terrorist who made a career of murdering “infidels” and preaching hatred of anyone that will not submit to his interpretation of Islam.  

This case is mind boggling to any sane American, not only because of the twisted way in which a fanatical terrorist’s statement, minus witnesses, are being openly accepted as “truth,” but also in the way that three honorable service members are being treated as thugs and liars by military justice system. The fact that the brass tried to force an “admission of guilt” hearing on the three Navy heroes is a blatant disregard of the defendant’s rights to due process and a fair trial. Already, some twisted, politically correct military bureaucrat has denied the defendants the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. It is a travesty that a known murdering terrorist can simply make an uncorroborated accusation and get the automatic, immediate benefit of doubt while three SEALs with excellent records are being treated as though they were criminals, deserving nothing but a jail cell.  

Contrast that against the upcoming civilian trial that the 9/11, self-confessed mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-defendants, in New York City. Here is the man who bragged about his part in creating the plan which led to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the resulting murder of 3,000 innocent American civilians, and he is about to be given a soapbox from which to spew his hatred for America, the West, and all “infidels” in general. He will be treated like an indicted man, presumed innocent until proven guilty, while he is under the protection of the rights granted in the United States Constitution. His own attorneys can move for dismissal of charges or even mistrial based on the fact that Mohammed was not Mirandized upon his capture. The defense will be able to claim that a fair trial cannot be attained because of statements made by Barack Obama and Eric Holder, which essentially said that “we will try him, find him guilty and then execute him.” The defense can argue that these statements take away the terrorists right to due process by implying guilt rather than presumption of innocence ahead of the trial.  

In the politically-correct and warped mindset of Attorney General Eric Holder and his boss, President Barack Obama, it is only natural to allow foreign enemies who mean to harm and kill Americans the right to American civilian trials with the full protection of the rights granted in the Constitution. Yet the Obama Administration’s total contempt and disdain for the American military allows Holder to rationalize as “normal” the ironic fact that three US Navy SEALs are being put through a military justice process with far fewer rights than the Al Qaeda terrorists that the Attorney General seems most concerned about protecting. It sort of devalues your own rights as an American citizen when your enemies are given the exact same protections and are treated just like you would be for shoplifting gum from a convenience store. 

Like Alice in Wonderland, we seem to have gone through the looking glass. Political correctness and it’s propagation by adherents such as Eric Holder and Barack Obama are creating a new level of military bureaucrats who appear bent on pleasing their new masters in the White House and at the Justice Department. It is rapidly decaying the morale of our military and eroding our ability to defend ourselves against a dangerous and continuing Islamist threat. It is endangering America by slow strangulation.  

It appears that everything is going perfectly to the Obama Administration’s plan.

When the radical-liberal leadership of the House Democrats are meeting behind locked doors with the radical-liberal leadership of the Senate Democrats to merge an unwanted, socialized health-care bill into a final bill that will be forced on one-sixth of the U.S. economy, we are witnessing nothing less than form of liberal fascism being implemented. Because the House and Senate versions of the health care bill, each of which were passed in the wee hours of the night and on Christmas Eve, are so cumbersome, with layer upon layer of bureaucracy, and hidden away in thousands of pages, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and President Obama know full well that the American people would never allow the bill to become law if the public were able to scrutinize the details being worked out in a smoke-filled Capital room.

Obama promised the most “transparent and ethical” administration in the history of our quickly-dying republic. On a campaign stop in August 2008 to discuss his position of supporting socialized medicine, Obama said, "We'll have all the negotiations around a big table. . . . But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." (See Video Here)

So when C-SPAN founder Brian Lamb requested that negotiations be televised live in order to make the process available to the American public and thereby keeping the Democratic negotiators honest in their deliberations, he was simply told “no cameras.”  (See Letter Here) Mr. Lamb even conceded that his network would use technologies that would not interfere with the process whatsoever. In other words, the Democrats would not even know that the cameras were there. To his dismay, Mr. Lamb has discovered that this is precisely the problem the Democratic leadership has with C-SPAN coverage; they do not want the American people to see the absolute corruption in the deals they are making to buy off votes from certain Democratic lawmakers, nor do they want the voters to see the kickbacks that various special interest groups will be getting.  According to the Huffington Post, Mr. Obama is is planning to meet with union leaders in the next few days in order to address their opposition to a proposed tax on high-cost health care plans. In other words, the unions have representation and a say in the outcome of these so-called reconciliation “negotiations” whereas the American people are being told to shut up, get out of the way and get ready to accept whatever the radical left decides is best for you in terms of health care.

This is simply insane. The vast majority of Americans do not support this bill, yet President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Reid are simply thumbing their noses as us. We are not being represented in this process, because no opposition members are even allowed to participate in the negotiations. The standard procedure for reconciliation of such a bill between both houses of Congress is to set up a conference committee with representatives of both parties in both houses to work out differences in the reconciliation process before sending the completed bill up for the final vote in Congress. This is the most democratic way to achieve consensus on such matters. However, Obama has asked that this process be completely bypassed in order to speed up the final passage of his bill in time for his State of the Union address in early February.

In a recent article I wrote that the American Revolution was conceived out of a colonial rejection of being forced to pay taxes to England on all kinds of finished goods, without the benefit of having colonial representation, nor a vote, in Parliament. The shenanigans being conducted by these so-called “public servants” in the Capital are probably just as much a violation of our rights to have representation and a say on a subject that will affect each and every American citizen. We are about to be ruled by an elitist bureaucracy who will not only tell us which doctor we can see, or which plan we can be on, but also force us to purchase insurance under threat of criminal confinement. In other words, the government is going to force every single one of us to be required to spend thousands of our dollars on insurance from whatever companies survive the transformation. We will be forced to transfer wealth to bureaucrats who can then dispense your money to whatever special interest groups this administration deems favorable to their policies.

Mr. Lamb has said that during the entire health care debate this year, C-SPAN has only been allowed one hour of total coverage on all deliberations. This is the total coverage that Obama and his radical allies have permitted. If the American people saw the utter disdain and contempt that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Nelson, and scores of leftist Democrats held for all of us, they would never allow this totalitarian group of lunatics out of the asylum. Pelosi , Reid and Obama know that there would be such an uproar and backlash against their forced bill that the American people would probably begin a recall or impeachment of all members of Congress and the administration who have played such a role in forcing this nightmare on all of us.

We are being dictated to in a way that Comrade Stalin would be very comfortable with. We are no longer allowed a say in the affairs of our own lives and the direction of this nation. It is evident that Obama and his cronies could care less about the polls or popular opinion, because they are going to ram their program through come hell or high water.

We have definitely crossed a threshold of power abuse in this country that I never thought I would see. This madness has got to stop.

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/07/obama-to-meet-with-union_n_415088.html
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010600259.html

On Christmas Day, just as Northwest Flight 253 crossed over the Detroit River at the point where Canadian airspace ends and U.S. airspace begins, a Nigerian Muslim, with verifiable Al Qaeda ties, attempted to ignite an explosive chemical mix with the intention of bringing down the plane and violently killing all 278 passengers and 11 crew members on board. Within hours of this attempted terrorist act of war upon American “infidels,” dispatches from Al-Qaeda confirmed what the Nigerian would-be murderer had already confessed to the FBI; that the bomber, whose name is Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, had been trained in the use of detonating the explosive PETN by Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen. This is the same type of explosive that Al Qaeda terrorist Richard Reid had used in his attempt to down a Miami-bound airliner over the Atlantic in 2001. Had it not been for the heroic actions of some passengers on board the aircraft, there could have been a horrible outcome, with the death of all on board and a swath of death and destruction on the ground of Metropolitan Detroit. 

So how is it that President Obama waited until December 28 to make a response to this incident? Furthermore, why is this President so concerned about giving these Islamist murderers the protections of our U.S. Constitution by treating this act of war like a simple bank hold-up? Consider his following remarks during his response;  

“Here's what we know so far: On Christmas Day, Northwest Airlines Flight 253 was en route from Amsterdam, Netherlands, to Detroit. As the plane made its final approach to Detroit Metropolitan Airport, a passenger allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device on his body, setting off a fire.  

Thanks to the quick and heroic actions of passengers and crew, the suspect was immediately subdued, the fire was put out, and the plane landed safely. The suspect is now in custody and has been charged with attempting to destroy an aircraft.

A full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism, and we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable.”

Notice that Obama uses legal boilerplate terms such as “allegedly” and “suspect,” to describe the terrorist and the atrocity that he attempted. There was nothing “alleged” about what Abdulmutallab attempted over Detroit. Further in his remarks, Obama said;  

“Finally, the American people should… (Read it all here)

 

“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?” – Thomas Jefferson

 

After a weekend in which the Democratic leadership of the Senate engaged in closed-door “negotiations” to “secure” the 60 votes required to pass their sweeping “health care reform” bill, it is now a certainty that socialism will become a reality in America. Regardless of the fact that a majority of Americans are already happy with their health coverage and do not want this bill to pass, the Democratic Party plans to simply ignore the pleas of their voters and intend to ram the bill through the Senate early on the morning of Christmas Eve. The vote on this bill, which will radically transform one-sixth of the American economy and put our nation into debt for generations to come, arrives on the heels of a final vote to shut off all debate on the bill one day earlier. As far as Harry Reid and his radicals are concerned, the debate is over.

 

In essence, President Obama, Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi have kept the details of their bill hidden away from the American people, whom they hold in total contempt. They have intentionally locked the electorate out the debate because they know the American people would never allow their radical plan to leave the gate if they knew what was really coming down the road. In order to get this bill passed as quickly and quietly as possible, the Democrats have resorted to threats, intimidation and bribery of various members of the Senate, including Democrat holdouts, to obtain a “yes” vote. Reid has made back door deals with several members of his party, such as Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, with financial earmarks to their respective states in exchange for their votes. If a private citizen does this, it is called blackmail, coercion and bribery, usually punishable by law. When Harry Reid does it with Senators, who gladly sell their votes, and souls, for the money, it is called “compromise.” They will use these purchased votes to ramrod their “hope” and “change,” better known as the failed system called Socialism, right down our throats. It is the equivalent of “flipping the bird,” not only to the Republicans and TEA Party members, but to almost 75 percent of the American electorate who oppose this measure.

 

This corrupt “legislation” is just the…

(Read More Here)

When Journalist Phelim McAleer ('Mine Your Own Business', 'Not Evil Just Wrong') asks Prof Stephen Schneider from Stanford University an Inconvenient Question about 'Climategate' emails , he is interrupted twice by Prof Schneider's assistant and UN staff and then told to stop filming by an armed UN security guard. Later, when Mr. McAleer tries to ask Al Gore a few questions in Copenhagen, he is simply snubbed, because Al Gore knows he cannot truthfully answer the journalist’s questions. 

When Al Gore dances questions from Rep. Steve Scalise, of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee, he resorts to name-calling his challengers by implying that skeptics of man-made global warming are no different than those who still believe the moon landings were faked in a movie studio. In the same hearing, he refuses to acknowledge that there is any legitimate or provable data by the scientific community outside of the “respected community” endorsed by climate-change fascists. Al Gore attempts to delegitimize any scientist who does not buy into his Inconvenient Truth gospel by making fun of those who can prove his entire theory as nothing more than “hot air.” Al Gore, who thinks that Global Warming is caused by a LIFE GIVING GAS called C02, is effectively exposed by Rep. Scalise as an arrogant totalitarian during this testimony. Al Gore remains defiant during this exchange, never acknowledging that there may be legitimate data which can prove him wrong. Believe what Al says, not what you see.

This is an Orwellian example of what to expect from the so-called "man-made" global warming crowd if they get their desired power to govern every aspect of our lives. These unelected "world government" bureaucrats in…

(Read Full Article Here)

When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made the announcement this week that it has declared carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other gases as “a danger to human health,” it fired the most lethal salvo yet into what little sovereignty remains of our constitutional republic. With her so-called “endangerment finding” declaration, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson made clear that this declaration will lead to new regulations under the Clean Air Act to govern emission standards for cars, power plants, crude-oil refineries, chemical plants and all other “environmental suspects” in the economic engine that drives the U.S. economy.  It appears that the act of exhaling when breathing will now become regulated.

In making this announcement on the same day in which the United Nations climate change conference began in Copenhagen, Denmark, Jackson was making it clear that when Obama attends the last day of the conference, he will be able to unilaterally commit the United States to a binding, international treaty that will begin the process of ceding our national sovereignty to a body of UN bureaucrats.  It is designed to make Obama look like “the savior” since the coming EPA regulations will practically force the US into signing a “Cap-and-Trade” bill to lower its carbon footprint to such a low target that will make U.S. economic growth virtually unsustainable. 

In light of the recent ClimateGate revelations, in which some 3,500 emails from the Climate Change Unit (CCU) at Britain’s University of East Anglia revealed the extent to which man-made global warming backers went to illegally skew real climate data in order to cover and hide the truth, the EPA should not be making this announcement, let alone hinting at further regulation. Because “man-made” climate change is not real, and every delegate at the UN conference knows it, the EPA’s actions are a means to hurry a final agreement before the masses really discover just how they have been lied to about the “urgency” of “global warming.”

It is an absolute scandal that the head of the UN panel of climate scientists have decided to attack the entire ClimateGate affair as nothing more than a way to undermine the credibility of the organization. Despite the fact that they were caught red-handed from the content in these emails, these hypocrites choose instead to lash out at those who exposed the fraud rather than try to come clean on what really is going on. The emails are directly from “respected” climate scientists, who, in their own words, exchanged messages that say real climate temperatures have not really risen to dangerous levels. Rather than try to find out why this is the case, they decided to engineer methods to keep all opposing viewpoints from being argued while covering real data with false data to match their own desired  “results.” 

The lack of any acknowledgment by the delegates at Copenhagen, and by our own President and the members of his radical leftist administration have been deafening.  If this is the so-called “science” on which Obama happily bases his actions in leading our national sovereignty to slaughter in a binding treaty, without question and without the support of Congress, it is akin to an act of treason against our constitutional republic. 

The Copenhagen conference is not about “man-made global warming,” it is about setting up an international, global supervisory body under UN auspices, in order to facilitate the transfer of national wealth and sovereignty from wealthy nations to the Third World. It is not about trying to save the planet, rather it is a means of controlling individual freedoms and getting your income in a global tax in order to transfer your income to bring about a lower standard of living in the developed world to match that of poor and corrupt nations.  In reality, this is about punishing success and free enterprise, especially the United States. 

Under the Treaty Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the President of the United States is only empowered to make treaties with other nations only after obtaining the consent of a two-thirds super majority of the United States Senate. This has not yet happened, nor will it before Obama goes to Copenhagen with the EPA declaration. Yet the Obama administration has indicated that the President will sign a binding treaty which will force the U.S. to commit to a twenty percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. Of course, the socialist European climate scammers are excited by Obama’s arrival in Copenhagen armed with bureaucratic, top-down command-style regulation rather than a legitimate mandate based on Congressional legislation. After all, they are unelected power-hungry bureaucrats who are excited to see this president doing everything in his power to literally destroy the liberty, sovereignty and power of the United States from within. 

As I watched President Obama give his speech on how he will conduct the war in Afghanistan last night, I became convinced that this man is not a true leader in the mold of Winston Churchill or Ronald Reagan. Instead, Obama is simply a politician who is more concerned about his political future and the Democrat’s hold on power than he is about giving our military the support needed to win the war. Obama decided that it is more important to give the left wing of his party what they want, rather than being the Commander-in-Chief that our soldiers need. The radical left of his party want us to pack up and surrender the effort in order to leave a power vacuum in Afghanistan from which Al Qaeda and the Taliban can re-establish their terrorist base of operations. By giving away our military game plan, telling our enemies how weak and broke we are, and putting a unilateral deadline for our withdrawal on the surge, it appears that Obama decided to give our Al Qaeda and Taliban enemies and his leftist friends an early Christmas gift.

Obama stood before an audience of West Point cadets, many of whom will be sent to the war zone and some who will not return, and attempted to politicize the entire effort in order to hedge his bets to protect his political reputation and agenda. First, he spent a great deal of time blaming former President George W. Bush, rehashing the Iraq war as a huge mistake that took resources away from Afghanistan. Then Obama proceeded to take personal credit for the success in Iraq by mentioning that his actions have allowed for the “responsible withdrawal” of all US troops from that country by next summer.

I could not help but notice that Obama still cannot bring himself to admit that the surge, which Bush authorized in the Iraq war, worked in bringing about a successful outcome in that country. Yet Obama made sure to take the credit personally for his ability to completely withdraw from Iraq in a “responsible manner” by the middle of next year. Had Obama been president when Bush actually was making the surge decision, there is no doubt that he would not only have opposed any surge, but would have withdrawn unconditionally and left a mess in Iraq. He said so much during the campaign last year. The only reason he can withdraw the military next year is because the surge did work and Bush would not leave until there was victory.

After taking credit for Iraq’s success, he moved on to the subject for which the speech was intended. First, the President rattled off the history of the situation going back to 9/11, and for a brief moment, appeared to “get it.” He seemed to be heading in the right direction of explaining why we must prosecute the Afghan war so there will no longer be a new terrorist haven from which to attack us again. But just as I started to believe he was going to start lifting morale and energizing Americans and the military to carry on with the fight ahead, Obama returned to his petty politicizing of the war to criticize how it had been handled up to now. He acted as though there had not been any success in Afghanistan prior to his watch, and failed to credit his predecessor for wiping the Taliban from power within 60 days of the initial invasion. He failed to recognize prior success of pushing Al Qaeda into a defensive position by taking its power base away. He spent time explaining how polarized all Americans are over the war now because of its conduct in the past, and then started to defend his reason for a surge of troops and his reason for setting a deadline for the war.
In defending the 100 days it took for Obama to act on the initial request from his chief commander of operations in Afghanistan, he made deflective statements that were designed again to protect his reputation. By claiming to be tied down by restrictions as to when he was allowed to commit more forces, he was attempting to divert attention away from his political reasons for stalling the decision. He also acted as though he had gone through all sorts of agonizing decision-making analysis in finally committing 30,000 additional troops to the Afghan theater. He explained why he was not going to authorize the 40,000 personnel that his generals had requested, as it was too expensive and the US is too financially ruined to sustain its defense against Islamist terrorism. Obama used the cover of additional troops that he expects the “international community” to provide cover for the 10,000 difference. Then, during what was supposed to be a speech focused on military objectives for the war in Afghanistan, Obama chose to be a politician again, by using the speech to state that his real objective was to focus on “rebuilding” America rather than making it possible for the Afghanistan to put itself back together.

After telling our friends and enemies alike just how bad our morale and fighting capabilities are, he then proceeded to tell the enemy our plans for conducting the war for the next year and a half. The plan consists of a “brilliant” strategy for putting these troops into action between January and June of 2010, and then making sure our troops are all withdrawn by July 2011. He did not once mention “winning” as the objective of the surge to end the war. His idea of victory seems to be getting all soldiers out of there by his deadline. In this way he could please the left wing of his own party and liberal idealists, and be ready to use the “successful” withdrawal as an asset when he runs for re-election. It is not an accident that he chose July 2011 as his complete withdrawal date.

Now Al Qaeda and the Taliban know our plans, our weaknesses and our scheduled date of withdrawal. They know when the additional troops will come over, and when they will leave. The enemy simply gets to adjust their own strategies of engagement to Obama’s planned schedule by choosing when to disappear and reappear to fight another day. They will now get to control the prosecution of the war because they “got our playbook” from Obama. Our troops will not be the ones who choose the battlefield or the time and method of attack, as they will be on the defensive. And don’t think for a minute that the enemy has not marked August 1, 2011 as the date they take over the government in Afghanistan.

It is impossible to imagine Winston Churchill, at the height of World War II, explaining that the German blitz had wiped out most of Britain’s capabilities to fight on, and that morale in the island was so low that any invasion of Hitler’s territories would be governed by an artificial deadline. Just think of the consequences had Roosevelt and Churchill openly stated, in 1944, that once we put our troops into Normandy, we would plan on leaving France in 12 months as our goal is to get out of there, not the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany. After Hitler watched their public announcement on a newsreel, he would simply pull his frontline back far enough to wait out the 12 months, and then go back to reoccupy the ground that the Allies vacated because the clock had run its course. Then, when he had rebuilt his war machine, he could again bomb London and perhaps finish the invasion that he first attempted five years earlier. Fortunately, Churchill was a shrewd wartime leader who understood the necessity of boosting his compatriot’s morale and defining the goals of the war in terms that did not give away Allied military secrets. He was a gifted speaker and wordsmith, and he knew how to use those gifts to clearly state the objective was complete destruction of the Nazis and complete and total victory over Germany.

While Obama is said to be a gifted speaker by many, (I am not one of those who see this “gift”) he has not used his alleged gift to raise our morale and motivate us to action for a final objective. Instead, Obama has foregone victory as the top goal by making clear that our “real” objective is to start the clock on removing our troops by July 2011. He has put an 18 month deadline on the mission, telling us that the war would be run against a clock like a football game rather than getting the job done. The real objective is to get Obama re-elected in 2012.

And so, it appears that Obama is saying “Merry Christmas” to the Taliban, Al Qaeda and his radical leftist friends here in the States. And sooner or later, we will get an explosive thank-you note for not winning the war completely.

Merry Christmas, Everyone!
 

James Delingpole at the U.K. Telegraph has written a piece of advice for those who are invested in stocks related to companies in the "alternative energy" business. Alternative energy means wind turbins, solar power and water power sources. The advice is to dump the stocks fast, because the lie of "man-made global warming" has finally been exposed for the fraud it is.

It appears that hackers have broken into the Hackley CRU (Climate Research Unit) and have released 61 megabytes of confidential files pertaining to man-made global warming onto the Internet. The data appears to validate what we conservatives have known for years; man-made global warming is nothing more than a hoax that is designed for the leftist, elitist and radical enviromental groups in the West to tax all of us, over-regulate all of us, and finally, have total control over all of us. The files allegedly demonstrate the legths to which the left would go to hide any evidence to the contrary. There is a reason that Al Gore will not take any unscripted questions from his audiences when he jets around the world to give his powerpoint presentation on how the Earth is going to die if we do not enact cap-and-trade (a.k.a. cap-and-tax) on all of us to stop this "man-caused disaster." Al Gore has refused any offers to intelligently debate those scientists whom would back their argument of the global warming fraud with empirical evidence. Gore, like all liberals, are afraid of the truth, and so their strategy is to simply attack those who disagree with their world-view by not debating the other side. Instead, the radical left attempts to destroy those who can actually disprove the likes of Gore with real facts and scientific evidence. To radical leftist environmentalists, the ends justify the means. In this case, the ends are completely controlling what you eat, wear, drive, ride, and think. The ends are completely controlling where you will live, what size your dwelling will be, and where you will work. The ends are their ability to take between 50-90% of your income in order to "combat man-made global warming." So the means of complete control over all avenues of communication and media, shutting down any opponents, and hiding all evidence that will prove their theory and argument as false are hidden away. The means include Alinsky rules such as picking the target, i.e. scientists who do not buy into the climate-catastrophe hype, and doing all they can to discredit that scientist. One at a time, they do this, in the hopes that all who can disprove the man-made global warming hoax will fear what can become of them if they go public and argue against the fraud.

Which brings me back to Mr. Delingpole's report. This just proves what we already know. It proves that the radical left will stoop to any level for nothing more than aggresive, naked grabs at total power over all of us. If the truth gets in the way, they simply hide it away, and it "disappears" as though it never existed in the first place. Just like the Communist Party used to erase people from pictures in the old Soviet Union. Anyone with whom the party disagreed with, or those people who could expose the lies of the Communists, were simply "erased" from ever existing. Today's radical leftists are absolutely no different.

Obama is slowly succeeding in his attempt to destroy America from within. If he goes to Copenhagen to sign the latest "man-made global warming" treaty, in lieu of the evidence just released on the Internet, no doubt can be left as to what this man's real objective for our country is.

Source:

1. Telegraph U.K.- Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

In the aftermath of the Fort Hood atrocity, the mainstream media are wringing their hands over the "tragedy," while trying to wrap their heads around "what made poor Hasan snap?" The usual stream of mainstream media suspects, such as MSNBC, ABC News, NBC News and CBS News, trotted out their usual repertoire of politically correct excuses while obscuring the facts. Everything from  "snapping under tremendous pressure," or "pre-combat stress syndrome” were given as reasons why Major Hasan decided to go on a murder spree earlier this week.

If that isn’t enough, the mainstream media attempted to place blame on the shooting  victims as “the instigators” while putting the shooter on the “victim pedestal, “ with claims the killing spree was the result of "continued harassment" that Major Hasan allegedly experienced from his fellow soldiers. This warped viewpoint places the blame on the very soldiers who were killed or wounded, but not on Major Hasan.  

However, there is one small detail the liberal mainstream media continues to conveniently over look. It is the fact that Major Hasan is a radical Muslim who believes waging war against his fellow soldiers is willed by his religion. He has unabashedly let many of those who were serving with him know exactly where he stood on this issue. His Power Point presentation, which can be seen at this link at the website Atlas Shrugs, pretty much sums it all up in Hasan’s own words. He simply follows what his religion teaches him, and that means murdering all those who are not Muslim or do not submit to Islam. But you won't hear that at the media outlets named above. You will only hear more of the same politically correct assessments and the obligatory "Islam is the Religion of Peace" statement. “Journalists” such as Chris Matthews will simply blur the facts and bury their heads in the sand, refusing to believe their own eyes and ears. They will try to equate all other religions as having their own extremists in an attempt to whitewash the religious ideology behind this terrorist act in order to explain the shootings as the work of a “lone disgruntled gunman.” When the perpetrator literally explains his reasoning in a detailed 41- page presentation and the media still chooses to ignore the facts, the media become accessories to the crime by hiding facts from the public.

Political correctness has run amok. It is driven by the media, creating a culture of “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil,” as evil stares them in the face. It paralyzes individuals for fear of being labeled as ”racist" or "intolerant" if they see, hear or know of something that could lead to harming others down the road. Instead of risking being labeled in such ways, people choose to ignore certain realities and look the other way instead of reporting suspicious actions and behaviors. In this case, Major Hasan's colleagues were fearful of his radical language and open threats to kill American soldiers, yet they failed to report these incidents through their chains of command out of fear of being targeted for "Islamophobia" by the likes of the Center of American Islamic Relations (C.A.I.R.). Being labeled as such would have ended their careers in terms of advancement, as the stigma of bigotry would follow them everywhere. Rather than being destroyed in such a manner, it was preferable to keep these incidents to themselves.

Most of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims are peaceful, simply going about their daily lives. However, even if just 1  percent of them are willing to wage violent jihad against "infidels”, then it means there is an army of 100 million extremists who are dedicated to imposing radical Islamic rule on everyone and everywhere, including here in the United States. If we do not wake up to the paralysis of fear that created, led and fueled by the politically correct crowd, it will lead to our inability to protect ourselves. Our failure to recognize the threat and state the obvious about Islamist terrorism will only lead to more of these atrocities being committed in the future.

Right or wrong, there is a stereotype that all Muslims are terrorists. While this is not true, it is also not lost on the public that almost every terrorist act in the world is carried out by a Muslim in the name of Islam. While we should not rush to judgment to condemn an entire religion because of the actions of the 1 percent, the Islamic community needs to understand why non-Muslims hold such stereotypes and begin confronting the radicalism in their faith. That would go a long way toward eliminating distrust between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Hasan’s apologists and defenders in the mainstream media, and those of the politically correct left contribute nothing positive when they gloss over the facts. Excuses such as “snapping under pre-combat stress syndrome,” to run cover for mass terrorist murder by an army officer who had not yet deployed to a combat zone is an insult to all military personnel who are doing their duty. The media’s shameless attempt to sugarcoat the truth will only make matters worse for everyone.

Political correctness killed 13 unarmed people earlier this week. Unless we are willing to start calling a spade a spade, political correctness will continue to get innocent people killed.