I've previously written and opined that it is entirely possible that BHO, Soros and their union allies deliberately started the middle east uprisings to create Islamic states and further damage the U.S.
Michael Gerson's article, In Search of the Obama Doctrine, provides a piece of evidence that is very interesting. He states, "During Obama's first year in office, funding for democracy programs in Egypt was cut in half. The initial stirrings of discontent in the Middle East were treated as unfortunate complications in the administration's strategy of engaging dictators."
According to Gerson, "The final element of the Bush Doctrine is an emphasis on fighting global poverty and disease -- based on the theory that hopeless and lawless parts of the world export problems such as terrorism, human trafficking and the drug trade.
Gerson helped to shape The Bush Doctrine, and noted that another element of the Bush Doctrine is the promotion of democracy and human rights as alternatives to Islamist ideology. With BHO cutting funding for democracy programs and handling the entire middle east situation apprently incompetently, is sure appears that what we see on the news has some deliberate elements to it. The end result may be an expedited export of terrorism.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Saturday, April 2, 2011
The “Religion of Peace” Update - Cockroaches, Turds, and Proper Moozlums
Well, I said it long before the lackies of the M3 even hinted of it, that toppling Ghadaffi by assisting Libyan rebels was a big mistake. In Diana West's article, we learn that the NATO commander Stavridis "let the jihad out of the bag" when he told the U.S. Senate this week that the intelligence they have received indicates that al-Qaida and Hezbollah are involved in the rebel movement.
As West points out, "That means the U.S. military is fighting on behalf of the flickers that took down the World Trade Center in 2001 and the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983." Of course U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, a professional diplodunk, disagrees with Stavridis' intelligence reports. West also points out how sad Rice's position is, given that the media is now reporting the involvement of jihadis in the Libyan rebellion. West even cites a 2007 West Point study that shows that eastern Libya "sent more jihadis per capita to Iraq to fight American forces than any other region in the world."
Hey, but at least self-proclaimed mujahedin Khalid Arshad Ali stated publicly that Ghadaffi "is not a proper Moozlum." Now we're making progress!
West also points out that we've spent about $1 billion on ordnance in Libya alone. I truly wish we had some leadership with an ounce of intelligence. We need to appoint Dave Ramsey as the financial counselor to the U.S. and make the U.S. government live within it's means and stay out of fights that we have no business being in. As a nation we're in debt up to our eyeballs, the only way the government can continue to run is to borrow money from other countries, unempoyment is as high as the Great Depression, and we spend $1 billion on ordnance in an attempt to get rid of a cockroach.
Here's a lesson for our leaders - cockroach's are masters of survival and carpet bombing has never killed a leader/cockroach that we wanted gone. It didn't work in Vietnam and it didn't work in Afghanistan or Iraq. And Ghadaffi is a cockroach that has caused us less trouble than other Moozlums since The Gipper, Ronald Reagan, thumped him on the chest back in the 1980s.
Ghadaffi is a cockroach we should have squashed 20 years ago, but BHO has picked a time in history when the middle east is on fire with rebellion to topple Ghadaffi when there is no plan in place and no indication that his replacement will be friendly to the U.S. This quote from the movie Off Limits sums it up:
“…You’re floating in a big sea of shit! And instead of just staying in the boat - no, you reach out and pick up this one little turd, and you say ‘This turd, well this turd pisses me off! I’m gonna do something about this turd!'”
Update: 4/3/11 - great article, 'No Blood for Oil' Is for Sale!, by Debra J. Saunders
Update: 4/3/11 - great article, 'Obama's 'Bloodbath': Can We Believe the Hype?, by Steve Chapman. Here are a couple of excellent excerpts:
1. 'Obama implied that, absent our intervention, Gadhafi might have killed nearly 700,000 people, putting it in a class with the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. White House adviser Dennis Ross was only slightly less alarmist when he reportedly cited "the real or imminent possibility that up to a 100,000 people could be massacred."'
2. 'Alan Kuperman, an associate professor at the University of Texas' Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, is among those unconvinced by Obama's case. "Gadhafi," he told me, "did not massacre civilians in any of the other big cities he captured -- Zawiyah, Misratah, Ajdabiya -- which together have a population equal to Benghazi. Yes, civilians were killed in a typical, ham-handed Third World counter-insurgency. But civilians were not targeted for massacre as in Rwanda, Darfur, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bosnia or even Kosovo after NATO intervention.'
3. 'Another skeptic is Paul Miller, an assistant professor at National Defense University who served on the National Security Council under Bush and Obama. "The Rwandan genocide was targeted against an entire, clearly defined ethnic group," he wrote on the Foreign Policy website. "The Libyan civil war is between a tyrant and his cronies on one side, and a collection of tribes, movements, and ideologists (including Islamists) on the other. ... The first is murder, the second is war."'
As West points out, "That means the U.S. military is fighting on behalf of the flickers that took down the World Trade Center in 2001 and the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983." Of course U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, a professional diplodunk, disagrees with Stavridis' intelligence reports. West also points out how sad Rice's position is, given that the media is now reporting the involvement of jihadis in the Libyan rebellion. West even cites a 2007 West Point study that shows that eastern Libya "sent more jihadis per capita to Iraq to fight American forces than any other region in the world."
Hey, but at least self-proclaimed mujahedin Khalid Arshad Ali stated publicly that Ghadaffi "is not a proper Moozlum." Now we're making progress!
West also points out that we've spent about $1 billion on ordnance in Libya alone. I truly wish we had some leadership with an ounce of intelligence. We need to appoint Dave Ramsey as the financial counselor to the U.S. and make the U.S. government live within it's means and stay out of fights that we have no business being in. As a nation we're in debt up to our eyeballs, the only way the government can continue to run is to borrow money from other countries, unempoyment is as high as the Great Depression, and we spend $1 billion on ordnance in an attempt to get rid of a cockroach.
Here's a lesson for our leaders - cockroach's are masters of survival and carpet bombing has never killed a leader/cockroach that we wanted gone. It didn't work in Vietnam and it didn't work in Afghanistan or Iraq. And Ghadaffi is a cockroach that has caused us less trouble than other Moozlums since The Gipper, Ronald Reagan, thumped him on the chest back in the 1980s.
Ghadaffi is a cockroach we should have squashed 20 years ago, but BHO has picked a time in history when the middle east is on fire with rebellion to topple Ghadaffi when there is no plan in place and no indication that his replacement will be friendly to the U.S. This quote from the movie Off Limits sums it up:
“…You’re floating in a big sea of shit! And instead of just staying in the boat - no, you reach out and pick up this one little turd, and you say ‘This turd, well this turd pisses me off! I’m gonna do something about this turd!'”
Update: 4/3/11 - great article, 'No Blood for Oil' Is for Sale!, by Debra J. Saunders
Update: 4/3/11 - great article, 'Obama's 'Bloodbath': Can We Believe the Hype?, by Steve Chapman. Here are a couple of excellent excerpts:
1. 'Obama implied that, absent our intervention, Gadhafi might have killed nearly 700,000 people, putting it in a class with the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. White House adviser Dennis Ross was only slightly less alarmist when he reportedly cited "the real or imminent possibility that up to a 100,000 people could be massacred."'
2. 'Alan Kuperman, an associate professor at the University of Texas' Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, is among those unconvinced by Obama's case. "Gadhafi," he told me, "did not massacre civilians in any of the other big cities he captured -- Zawiyah, Misratah, Ajdabiya -- which together have a population equal to Benghazi. Yes, civilians were killed in a typical, ham-handed Third World counter-insurgency. But civilians were not targeted for massacre as in Rwanda, Darfur, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bosnia or even Kosovo after NATO intervention.'
3. 'Another skeptic is Paul Miller, an assistant professor at National Defense University who served on the National Security Council under Bush and Obama. "The Rwandan genocide was targeted against an entire, clearly defined ethnic group," he wrote on the Foreign Policy website. "The Libyan civil war is between a tyrant and his cronies on one side, and a collection of tribes, movements, and ideologists (including Islamists) on the other. ... The first is murder, the second is war."'
Saturday, March 26, 2011
The Triumph of Evil
Try as I might, I could not post the following comment to Bill O'Reilly's article The Triumph of Evil on Towhnhall.com today. I kept receiving a message that the post contained inappropriate language:
O'Reilly usually makes a few good points, but generally misses the mark. I love the quote from Edmund Burke, and it is a truism, but the time to oust Ghaddafi was 20 years ago, not now when there is no hope of an opposition group taking power that does not have the goal of creating another Islamic state.
I've long held that only a brutal dictator can keep a 7th century mentality Moozlum population in check. So what if he was going to slaughter his opposition? Why do we care if one group of America haters kills another group of America haters? Yes, Ghaddafi is a lunatic and a state sponsor of terror. Again, he should have been dealt with 20 years ago, not now when the entire Middle East is aflame in rebellion.
O'Reilly is all high and mighty on the nobility of America preventing massacres. Doesn't the rest of the world have any responsibility? This is an Arab issue and the U.S. shouldn't be doing their work for them. They have the money and the military might, but are afraid to use it. Instead, they want us to be the bad guys. What about the fact that we're basically bankrupt and can't afford to shoot $1.5 million Tomahawk cruise missiles all day long into Libya? No one much cared while the slaughter in Darfur was occurring. No one much cares about the Christians who are being slaughtered around the world. If we really want to be noble, we'd be protecting Christians and seeking justice for their murders.
O'Reilly usually makes a few good points, but generally misses the mark. I love the quote from Edmund Burke, and it is a truism, but the time to oust Ghaddafi was 20 years ago, not now when there is no hope of an opposition group taking power that does not have the goal of creating another Islamic state.
I've long held that only a brutal dictator can keep a 7th century mentality Moozlum population in check. So what if he was going to slaughter his opposition? Why do we care if one group of America haters kills another group of America haters? Yes, Ghaddafi is a lunatic and a state sponsor of terror. Again, he should have been dealt with 20 years ago, not now when the entire Middle East is aflame in rebellion.
O'Reilly is all high and mighty on the nobility of America preventing massacres. Doesn't the rest of the world have any responsibility? This is an Arab issue and the U.S. shouldn't be doing their work for them. They have the money and the military might, but are afraid to use it. Instead, they want us to be the bad guys. What about the fact that we're basically bankrupt and can't afford to shoot $1.5 million Tomahawk cruise missiles all day long into Libya? No one much cared while the slaughter in Darfur was occurring. No one much cares about the Christians who are being slaughtered around the world. If we really want to be noble, we'd be protecting Christians and seeking justice for their murders.
Friday, March 25, 2011
The “Religion of Peace” Update - Moozlum Heritage in the U.S.
I've received this Moozlum Heritage email a few times. I have no idea who created it, but it does share the tone and spirit of The Kansas Infidel, so I'm posting it:
Barack Obama, during his Cairo speech, said: "I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America 's story."
AN AMERICAN CITIZEN'S RESPONSE:
Dear Mr. Obama:
Were those Moozlums that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed? Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians. Were those
Moozlums that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians. Can you show me one Moozlum signature on the United States Constitution? Declaration of Independence?
Bill of Rights? Didn't think so.
Did Moozlums fight for this country's freedom from England? No. Did
Moozlums fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America? No, they did not. In fact, Moozlums to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery. Your own half brother, a devout Moozlum, still advocates slavery himself, even though Moozlums of Arabic descent refer to black Moozlums as "pug nosed slaves." Says a lot of what the Moozlum world really thinks of your family's "rich Islamic heritage," doesn't it Mr. Obama?
Where were Moozlums during the Civil Rights era of this country? Not present. There are no pictures or media accounts of Moozlums walking
side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.
Where were Moozlums during this country's Woman's Suffrage era? Again, not present. In fact, devout Moozlums demand that women are subservient
to men in the Islamic culture. So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the 'hajib' or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband. Yep, the Moozlums are all for women's rights,
aren't they?
Where were Moozlums during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Moozlum grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi's in killing Jews.
Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Moozlums on Sept. 11th, 2001? If they weren't flying planes into the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East. No one can dispute the pictures
shown from all parts of the Moozlum world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other cable news networks that day. Strangely, the very "moderate" Muslims who's asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo, Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.
And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here
in America.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates. They were Moozlums.
And now we can add November 5, 2009 - the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That, Mr. Obama is the "Muslim heritage" in America.
Barack Obama, during his Cairo speech, said: "I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America 's story."
AN AMERICAN CITIZEN'S RESPONSE:
Dear Mr. Obama:
Were those Moozlums that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed? Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians. Were those
Moozlums that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians. Can you show me one Moozlum signature on the United States Constitution? Declaration of Independence?
Bill of Rights? Didn't think so.
Did Moozlums fight for this country's freedom from England? No. Did
Moozlums fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America? No, they did not. In fact, Moozlums to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery. Your own half brother, a devout Moozlum, still advocates slavery himself, even though Moozlums of Arabic descent refer to black Moozlums as "pug nosed slaves." Says a lot of what the Moozlum world really thinks of your family's "rich Islamic heritage," doesn't it Mr. Obama?
Where were Moozlums during the Civil Rights era of this country? Not present. There are no pictures or media accounts of Moozlums walking
side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.
Where were Moozlums during this country's Woman's Suffrage era? Again, not present. In fact, devout Moozlums demand that women are subservient
to men in the Islamic culture. So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the 'hajib' or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband. Yep, the Moozlums are all for women's rights,
aren't they?
Where were Moozlums during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Moozlum grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi's in killing Jews.
Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Moozlums on Sept. 11th, 2001? If they weren't flying planes into the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East. No one can dispute the pictures
shown from all parts of the Moozlum world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other cable news networks that day. Strangely, the very "moderate" Muslims who's asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo, Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.
And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here
in America.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates. They were Moozlums.
And now we can add November 5, 2009 - the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That, Mr. Obama is the "Muslim heritage" in America.
The “Religion of Peace” Update - Christians Attacked in Ethiopia
On 3/2/11 a Christian in the town of Asendabo Ethiopia was accused of desecrating a Koran. What is the Moozlum response to such an accusation? Since 3/2/11, over 50 Christian churches and dozens of Christian homes have been burned. At least one person has been killed, dozens injured, and up to 10,000 have been displaced.
Christians are the majority in Ethiopia, but they are being persecuted by Moozlums. Moozlums reportedly make up 1/3 of the country, but in some areas make up 90% of the local population. We have seen what this concentration of Moozlums has done to communities in England, France, and Germany. It breeds intolerance and violence. From the article Thousands of Christians Displaced in Ethiopia After Muslim Extremists Torch Churches, Homes:
"One of those areas is Besheno where, on November 9, all the Christians in the city woke up to find notes on their doors warning them to convert to Islam, leave the city or face death....
"Later that month three Christians in Besheno were assaulted in religiously-motivated attacks and three others were forced to flee the city after being told that Muslim leaders had commissioned hit men to kill them, one of the exiled Christians told FoxNews.com."
True to communist and Moozlum sympathies, the M3/MSM refuses to report on the persecution of Christians by Moozlums. Fox News seems to be the only outlet to receive this information form a U.S. source.
Compass Direct News article, Christian Jailed in Ethiopia Accused of Desecrating Quran .
Christians are the majority in Ethiopia, but they are being persecuted by Moozlums. Moozlums reportedly make up 1/3 of the country, but in some areas make up 90% of the local population. We have seen what this concentration of Moozlums has done to communities in England, France, and Germany. It breeds intolerance and violence. From the article Thousands of Christians Displaced in Ethiopia After Muslim Extremists Torch Churches, Homes:
"One of those areas is Besheno where, on November 9, all the Christians in the city woke up to find notes on their doors warning them to convert to Islam, leave the city or face death....
"Later that month three Christians in Besheno were assaulted in religiously-motivated attacks and three others were forced to flee the city after being told that Muslim leaders had commissioned hit men to kill them, one of the exiled Christians told FoxNews.com."
True to communist and Moozlum sympathies, the M3/MSM refuses to report on the persecution of Christians by Moozlums. Fox News seems to be the only outlet to receive this information form a U.S. source.
Compass Direct News article, Christian Jailed in Ethiopia Accused of Desecrating Quran .
The “Religion of Peace” Update - Moozlum's Wet Dream: Israel Not on the Map
Is Egypt through Egypt Air trying to tell the world something? They have removed Israel from the map on their website, even though they fly to Tel Aviv four times per week. The world knows that removing Israel from the map is Islam's Holy Grail, but perhaps they've realized that the task is just too daunting, and have taken the coward's approach by simply removing Israel from the printed map, rather than trying to literally wipe it off the planet. This would not be a surprising approach, since jihadis regularly employee the cowardly approach of homicide bombing unarmed civilians rather than attacking a military adversary man-to-man.
BHO's Incompetence on Display
Michael Savage announced on his radio program today that 1 out of 5 insurgents our troops fought in Iraq were from the eastern part of Libya. These are the "freedom fighters" that BHO has chosen to help overthrow Ghadaffi. And while the libtard left adores BHO for his multilateralism, they continue to perpetuate the lie that Bush acted unilaterally in Iraq, when over 35 countries acted with us.
David Limbaugh's article, Obama's Libya: Completing His Remaking of America outlines how BHO's Libyan endeavor is truly in keeping with his radical view of the need to remake America:
"His primary goals are neither to oust Gadhafi nor to rescue the Libyan rebels for humanitarian reasons, for if ousting an evil dictator or protecting his victims were the motivation, he would have intervened in any number of other places. His apparent vacillation and indecisiveness must be viewed in the context of his overarching goal: to change America's approach from "unilateralism," which it never was, to radical, deferential multilateralism replete with ceding our sovereign decisions to international bodies -- and to change our image.
Obama was not even slightly equivocal about deferring to international bodies for decisions on prosecuting this "kinetic military operation." This would be his showcase to prove to the world that he fully intends to remake ugly America into a place that he and his wife will no longer be ashamed of."
Colonel Oliver North's article Laureates and Leaders succinctly describes BHO's incompetence:
"While Obama dithers and tries to avoid offending anyone, Bahrain and Yemen descend further into turmoil exacerbated by Iran. Protesters are being gunned down in Syria. Hamas rockets and mortar rounds rain down on Israeli civilians as Islamic radicals butcher innocents with knives and bombs. The price of crude oil and the cost of motor fuel are heading up faster than a Tomahawk cruise missile. Meanwhile, "what's the mission?" has become a bipartisan refrain in our nation's capital. In a letter sent to the White House while our commander in chief was flying back to Washington, House Speaker John Boehner asked, inter alia, "How do you define success?""
Pat Buchanan's article How Killing Libyans Became a Moral Imperative
has a beautiful quote:
"Until the modern era, the idea of sending armed forces across oceans to kill and die for moral or humanitarian causes would have been seen as an insult to the Founding Fathers, an abandonment of a vital American tradition, and ruinous to the national interest."
Buchanan also points out with some impressive numbers of the dead from other civil wars in the region, what I stated in my last post, that the Libyan civil war is an Arab issue and should be handled by the Arabs, not the U.S.
And I just found a perfect article by Nile Gardiner of the London Telepgraph describing BHO as AWOL on the issue and that BHO "increasingly makes Jimmy Carter look like General Patton." Well said Nile! Thanks for doing the heavy lifting for the M3 (marxist media moguls), a.k.a the MSM, a.k.a. the U.S. news media.
From The Patriot Post, Chronicle - March 23, 2011:
The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/ )"
"In the past, obstacles, even failures, have been viewed by Americans as an opportunity to excel, as a chance to overcome and to gain the advantage by learning from mistakes and making a better product or service. ... What the nation lacks is a leader capable of summoning the nation's abilities. So far, all we seem to be getting is the thin gruel of defeatism that urges us to abandon hope, because the problems are just too hard. I, for one, am sick of it. We are a great people, capable of great sacrifices and great accomplishments. If only President Obama would believe it too." --columnist Lurita Doan
David Limbaugh's article, Obama's Libya: Completing His Remaking of America outlines how BHO's Libyan endeavor is truly in keeping with his radical view of the need to remake America:
"His primary goals are neither to oust Gadhafi nor to rescue the Libyan rebels for humanitarian reasons, for if ousting an evil dictator or protecting his victims were the motivation, he would have intervened in any number of other places. His apparent vacillation and indecisiveness must be viewed in the context of his overarching goal: to change America's approach from "unilateralism," which it never was, to radical, deferential multilateralism replete with ceding our sovereign decisions to international bodies -- and to change our image.
Obama was not even slightly equivocal about deferring to international bodies for decisions on prosecuting this "kinetic military operation." This would be his showcase to prove to the world that he fully intends to remake ugly America into a place that he and his wife will no longer be ashamed of."
Colonel Oliver North's article Laureates and Leaders succinctly describes BHO's incompetence:
"While Obama dithers and tries to avoid offending anyone, Bahrain and Yemen descend further into turmoil exacerbated by Iran. Protesters are being gunned down in Syria. Hamas rockets and mortar rounds rain down on Israeli civilians as Islamic radicals butcher innocents with knives and bombs. The price of crude oil and the cost of motor fuel are heading up faster than a Tomahawk cruise missile. Meanwhile, "what's the mission?" has become a bipartisan refrain in our nation's capital. In a letter sent to the White House while our commander in chief was flying back to Washington, House Speaker John Boehner asked, inter alia, "How do you define success?""
Pat Buchanan's article How Killing Libyans Became a Moral Imperative
has a beautiful quote:
"Until the modern era, the idea of sending armed forces across oceans to kill and die for moral or humanitarian causes would have been seen as an insult to the Founding Fathers, an abandonment of a vital American tradition, and ruinous to the national interest."
Buchanan also points out with some impressive numbers of the dead from other civil wars in the region, what I stated in my last post, that the Libyan civil war is an Arab issue and should be handled by the Arabs, not the U.S.
And I just found a perfect article by Nile Gardiner of the London Telepgraph describing BHO as AWOL on the issue and that BHO "increasingly makes Jimmy Carter look like General Patton." Well said Nile! Thanks for doing the heavy lifting for the M3 (marxist media moguls), a.k.a the MSM, a.k.a. the U.S. news media.
From The Patriot Post, Chronicle - March 23, 2011:
The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/ )"
"In the past, obstacles, even failures, have been viewed by Americans as an opportunity to excel, as a chance to overcome and to gain the advantage by learning from mistakes and making a better product or service. ... What the nation lacks is a leader capable of summoning the nation's abilities. So far, all we seem to be getting is the thin gruel of defeatism that urges us to abandon hope, because the problems are just too hard. I, for one, am sick of it. We are a great people, capable of great sacrifices and great accomplishments. If only President Obama would believe it too." --columnist Lurita Doan
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The “Religion of Peace” Update - Paying People to Hate Us
As Representative Ted Poe points out in this video, there are about 192 countries in the world and the U.S. gives foreign aid to over 150 of them. That's just monetary aid. We also give military aid to a large number of countries. The reality is that there are only about 3-5 countries that we don't provide some sort of aid to, and that means that we are giving your tax dollars to countries that hate us and oppose us at every opportunity, especially at the UN.
Representative Poe is correct, the House rule needs to be changed. Rather than voting on each country that is to receive aid, the House votes to approve one bill containing all the foreign aid allocations. That's a ridiculous way to do business and a travesty regarding our tax dollars. Given that our checkbook balance is in the negative, we should immediately discontinue all foreign monetary aid and scrutinize whether the military aid is justified. If only our elected leaders had the cojones to do just that!
Paying People to Hate Us
Representative Poe is correct, the House rule needs to be changed. Rather than voting on each country that is to receive aid, the House votes to approve one bill containing all the foreign aid allocations. That's a ridiculous way to do business and a travesty regarding our tax dollars. Given that our checkbook balance is in the negative, we should immediately discontinue all foreign monetary aid and scrutinize whether the military aid is justified. If only our elected leaders had the cojones to do just that!
Paying People to Hate Us
The “Religion of Peace” Update - The True Face of Multiculturism
In recent weeks we've heard leaders from France and Germany delcare that their policy of multiculturism is a total failure. But that's about the depth of the reporting we receive in the U.S. If M3 (marxist media moguls) were truly journalists and not socialists promoting an agenda, we'd receive some truthful reporting about what the policies of multiculturism have produced in those countries.
Here is a video report that shows the truth of what Moozlum enclaves are like, Multiculurism of Islam in France
Here is a video report that shows the truth of what Moozlum enclaves are like, Multiculurism of Islam in France
Monday, March 21, 2011
The “Religion of Peace” Update - Toppling Ghadaffi a Big Mistake
"I would not have involved our military in Libya. For one thing, I see no reason why the Arab League, which gave the no-fly zone notion a big thumbs-up, doesn't take on that job. They have pilots and jets. Why is it that America and the European nations always have to do their dirty work? All it ever gets us is the ongoing hatred and resentment of Arabs and Muslims. Besides, unlike most people, I have not been sitting on the sidelines rooting for the rebellion forces in the Middle East. I do not confuse enemies of my enemies with friends. I have no reason to think that when the smoke clears, we are going to see a lot of George Washingtons and Thomas Jeffersons running any of those moral swamplands. It is far likelier that Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah, will fill any and all power vacuums in that part of the world, with the mullahs in Tehran pulling their collective strings. ... I am not suggesting that the U.S. military should never venture out beyond our borders, but we should have a better reason for doing so than because CNN is showing us one bunch of anti-American creeps killing another bunch of anti-American creeps. In short, we should not be letting the 6 o'clock news determine our foreign policy." -- columnist Keeping Santa's List by Burt Prelutsky
The Kansas Infidel will go on record with the position that toppling Ghadaffi will be a huge mistake. Yes, he's a brutal dictator. Yes, he's a state sponsor of terror. Yes, he should be brought to justice for the Lockerbie Scotland jet bombing, among other terrorist acts, but he should have been brought to justice 20 years ago. BHO dithered for weeks, then did the same thing Bush did regarding Afghanistan & Iraq, but instead of acting as a super power as Bush did, BHO went to the UN for approval to attack Ghadaffi. This is the only way libtards would accept the use of force. Acting as a moral super power by seeing something evil and acting to stop it is just not acceptable to libtards. No, we have to go to an international body of do-nothings to get permission under BHO. Now BHO has really stepped in it, as you would expect from his lack of experience. He's allowed an international body to authorize U.S. use of military force, but did not seek authorization from the U.S. Congress. He's definitely not following the Constitution and members of both parties are understandably angry. Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that members of Congress have no idea who is running the operation, and Army General Ham has publicly stated that the UN defined mission could leave Ghadaffi in power. The POTUS has publicly stated that Ghadaffi has to go. If this third rate dictator stays in power after the coalition operation, it will severly diminish U.S. prestige and credibility, but BHO has already made it a mission to do just that to the U.S. on the world stage. This latests blunder just unintentionally assists his earlier goal.
My position on Ghadaffi is consistent with my earlier stated position that only a brutal dictator can keep hordes of 7th Century mindset Moozlums in check. Unlike Iraq, where we had heard for years from those who escaped and were part of a (for lack of a better word) democratic resistance to Saddam, there is no democratic opposition in Libya. I'd much rather see an opposition group who was willing to establish a Republic, but what M3 calls a democracy would be a vast improvement over dicatorship. Even if democracy could be established, which it can't currently, it would quickly deteriorate in the middle east as our Founding Fathers predicted it would here - that's why they gave us a Republic!
"[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." --James Madison, Federalist No. 10, 1787
"The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty." --Fisher Ames, speech in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
Toppling Ghadaffi will leave a power vacuum, as there is no opposition group ready to step in and control the country. Toppling Ghadaffi will only ensure that another middle east nation becomes an Islamic state - and a radical Islamic state is almost certain. Is that BHO's plan? His union supporters have been very active in the middle east revolutions and his incompetent handling of the events almost assures that Israel will be surrounded by radical Moozlum states. This is going to go very badly, as you would expect from the least qualified man in any room.
"The President does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorized a military attack on a situation that does not involve stopping an action or imminint threat to the nation." -- Barrack Hussein Obama 12/20/2007
Why is it Arabs never lift a finger to help their fellow Arabs or Moozlums? Why do western countries have to step in and do the heavy lifting? Why don't the Arab countries take in the Palestinians? Why don't the Arab countries deal with Ghadaffi if they want him gone? Why did BHO get authorization from the UN to overthrow another nation, but not from the U.S. Congress?
From The Patriot Post, Chronicle - March 23, 2011
The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/)
"At once presumptuous and flippant, President Obama used a Saturday audio recording from Brazil to inform Americans he had authorized a third war -- a war in which America's role is unclear and the stated objectives are muddled. Setting aside the wisdom of the intervention, Obama's entry into Libya's civil war is troubling on at least five counts. First is the legal and constitutional question. Second is the manner of Obama's announcement. Third is the complete disregard for public opinion and lack of debate. Fourth is the unclear role the United States will play in this coalition. Fifth is the lack of a clear endgame. Compounding all these problems is the lack of trust created by Obama's record of deception." --columnist Timothy P. Carney
"At once presumptuous and flippant, President Obama used a Saturday audio recording from Brazil to inform Americans he had authorized a third war -- a war in which America's role is unclear and the stated objectives are muddled. Setting aside the wisdom of the intervention, Obama's entry into Libya's civil war is troubling on at least five counts. First is the legal and constitutional question. Second is the manner of Obama's announcement. Third is the complete disregard for public opinion and lack of debate. Fourth is the unclear role the United States will play in this coalition. Fifth is the lack of a clear endgame. Compounding all these problems is the lack of trust created by Obama's record of deception." --columnist Timothy P. Carney
"So in the eleventh hour we have decided to bomb Libya. What is the mission? What are our objectives? The public is in the dark. Barely anyone has mentioned how Congress hasn't debated or authorized any of this. Secretary of State Clinton is reportedly furious with the administration's dithering. Vice President Biden, the purported foreign policy expert, is missing in action. And President Obama is away touring South America. The whole scene is very strange and a bit surreal. We have stumbled into war and it feels as though the intervention is both belated and haphazardly rushed at the same time." --columnist N. M. Guariglia
"Hourly cost of whatever it is we're doing in Libya: about $4 million. Total cost of building one mile of border fence, as undertaken by our horribly inefficient, bloated, largely incompetent federal government: about $2 million. So, every 30 minutes we're in Libya is one mile of border fence we could have built: Assuming the mission is accomplished in each case, which investment would make us safer?" --columnist Kevin D. Williamson
Update - 4/1/11: Pat Buchanan's ariticle A Community Organizer Goes to War.
The Kansas Infidel will go on record with the position that toppling Ghadaffi will be a huge mistake. Yes, he's a brutal dictator. Yes, he's a state sponsor of terror. Yes, he should be brought to justice for the Lockerbie Scotland jet bombing, among other terrorist acts, but he should have been brought to justice 20 years ago. BHO dithered for weeks, then did the same thing Bush did regarding Afghanistan & Iraq, but instead of acting as a super power as Bush did, BHO went to the UN for approval to attack Ghadaffi. This is the only way libtards would accept the use of force. Acting as a moral super power by seeing something evil and acting to stop it is just not acceptable to libtards. No, we have to go to an international body of do-nothings to get permission under BHO. Now BHO has really stepped in it, as you would expect from his lack of experience. He's allowed an international body to authorize U.S. use of military force, but did not seek authorization from the U.S. Congress. He's definitely not following the Constitution and members of both parties are understandably angry. Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that members of Congress have no idea who is running the operation, and Army General Ham has publicly stated that the UN defined mission could leave Ghadaffi in power. The POTUS has publicly stated that Ghadaffi has to go. If this third rate dictator stays in power after the coalition operation, it will severly diminish U.S. prestige and credibility, but BHO has already made it a mission to do just that to the U.S. on the world stage. This latests blunder just unintentionally assists his earlier goal.
My position on Ghadaffi is consistent with my earlier stated position that only a brutal dictator can keep hordes of 7th Century mindset Moozlums in check. Unlike Iraq, where we had heard for years from those who escaped and were part of a (for lack of a better word) democratic resistance to Saddam, there is no democratic opposition in Libya. I'd much rather see an opposition group who was willing to establish a Republic, but what M3 calls a democracy would be a vast improvement over dicatorship. Even if democracy could be established, which it can't currently, it would quickly deteriorate in the middle east as our Founding Fathers predicted it would here - that's why they gave us a Republic!
"[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." --James Madison, Federalist No. 10, 1787
"The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty." --Fisher Ames, speech in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
Toppling Ghadaffi will leave a power vacuum, as there is no opposition group ready to step in and control the country. Toppling Ghadaffi will only ensure that another middle east nation becomes an Islamic state - and a radical Islamic state is almost certain. Is that BHO's plan? His union supporters have been very active in the middle east revolutions and his incompetent handling of the events almost assures that Israel will be surrounded by radical Moozlum states. This is going to go very badly, as you would expect from the least qualified man in any room.
"The President does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorized a military attack on a situation that does not involve stopping an action or imminint threat to the nation." -- Barrack Hussein Obama 12/20/2007
Why is it Arabs never lift a finger to help their fellow Arabs or Moozlums? Why do western countries have to step in and do the heavy lifting? Why don't the Arab countries take in the Palestinians? Why don't the Arab countries deal with Ghadaffi if they want him gone? Why did BHO get authorization from the UN to overthrow another nation, but not from the U.S. Congress?
From The Patriot Post, Chronicle - March 23, 2011
The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/)
"At once presumptuous and flippant, President Obama used a Saturday audio recording from Brazil to inform Americans he had authorized a third war -- a war in which America's role is unclear and the stated objectives are muddled. Setting aside the wisdom of the intervention, Obama's entry into Libya's civil war is troubling on at least five counts. First is the legal and constitutional question. Second is the manner of Obama's announcement. Third is the complete disregard for public opinion and lack of debate. Fourth is the unclear role the United States will play in this coalition. Fifth is the lack of a clear endgame. Compounding all these problems is the lack of trust created by Obama's record of deception." --columnist Timothy P. Carney
"At once presumptuous and flippant, President Obama used a Saturday audio recording from Brazil to inform Americans he had authorized a third war -- a war in which America's role is unclear and the stated objectives are muddled. Setting aside the wisdom of the intervention, Obama's entry into Libya's civil war is troubling on at least five counts. First is the legal and constitutional question. Second is the manner of Obama's announcement. Third is the complete disregard for public opinion and lack of debate. Fourth is the unclear role the United States will play in this coalition. Fifth is the lack of a clear endgame. Compounding all these problems is the lack of trust created by Obama's record of deception." --columnist Timothy P. Carney
"So in the eleventh hour we have decided to bomb Libya. What is the mission? What are our objectives? The public is in the dark. Barely anyone has mentioned how Congress hasn't debated or authorized any of this. Secretary of State Clinton is reportedly furious with the administration's dithering. Vice President Biden, the purported foreign policy expert, is missing in action. And President Obama is away touring South America. The whole scene is very strange and a bit surreal. We have stumbled into war and it feels as though the intervention is both belated and haphazardly rushed at the same time." --columnist N. M. Guariglia
"Hourly cost of whatever it is we're doing in Libya: about $4 million. Total cost of building one mile of border fence, as undertaken by our horribly inefficient, bloated, largely incompetent federal government: about $2 million. So, every 30 minutes we're in Libya is one mile of border fence we could have built: Assuming the mission is accomplished in each case, which investment would make us safer?" --columnist Kevin D. Williamson
Update - 4/1/11: Pat Buchanan's ariticle A Community Organizer Goes to War.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
