Quantcast

Pages

Saturday, January 31, 2009

A Bill to End All Activities Beyond Breathing in Motor Vehicles

By Faultline USA

Today it’s Texas. Tomorrow it could be your state.

Up before the Texas state legislature is another draconian bill designed to eliminate the “inattentive operation” of a motor vehicle. Well actually, the bill is designed to up the fines for accidents to at least twice the minimum fine applicable to any driving offense if “inattentive” behaviors are involved in the offense.

The bill lists a multitude of “inattentive’ behaviors including the consumption of food or beverage, tuning a radio, and even interacting with a passenger. Of course every imaginable behavior that could be deemed as “inattentive” couldn’t be included or the bill would have run on for hundreds of pages, so the sponsor added this little phrase to cover all bases: “engaging in another activity that prevents the operator from safely operating the motor vehicle.”

Since this bill makes every imaginable behavior beyond the act of breathing an “inattentive behavior” wouldn’t the sponsor have been more honest to simply write a bill that doubles all driving fines for offenses of reckless driving laws currently in effect?

Some say that this bill, if passed into law, would be unenforceable, but they are wrong. The police are not going to stop you just because they see you sipping your morning cup of Jo, but if you commit any minor driving violation with even an empty cup of coffee in your cup holder, you will get a double fine. Eventually you will either leave home without your coffee or you will be sure to dump the evidence at your first convenience. The unintended consequences – sleepy drivers and more highway litter!

What would be the point of sponsoring this bill? Perhaps the sponsor just wanted fifteen minutes of fame? Or perhaps this is one of many bills designed to test the waters? Getting people used to accepting seemingly ludicrous or unenforceable laws is a good Orwellian plan. Loading up state legislatures with repressive bills is a kind of socialist lottery. Eventually enough inattentive voters will discover that their own state legislatures actually passed such a bill and then other states will easily fall.

I first heard about this bill on Thursday night when our local TV stations were all a buzz and actually making fun of the bill. None of the news broadcasts mentioned the name or number of the bill or its sponsor.

Naturally, I began to ponder this question: “Who would sponsor such a bill?” My first thought was that it had to be sponsored by a National Socialist (NAZI) hell-bent on dishonest social engineering and someone who actually believes that more government regulation is the answer to all human problems.

I wouldn’t want poor Rep. Chente Quintanilla, Democrat, of El Paso, Texas to be disappointed that his name failed to get mentioned in many of the news broadcasts the other night. Let me give him the fame his bill, 81(R) HB 738, deserves!

If you are a Texan please be sure to drop your state representative a little note about this bill. Tell your representative to “Let it die!!!” If you live in another state check out the bills up before your state legislature today.

ACTION ALERT: CAIR is to meet with members of the House and Senate.

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle
 
It is time to contact your Congressmen and Senators again.

The Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR) is starting to lobby Congress for special considerations for the Muslim community. ACT! for America members, it’s time to take ACTION !!!  

STEP ONE: Send emails and faxes, starting today and continuing through the weekend, to your Member of Congress and two Senators asking that they not meet with CAIR given that the FBI has severed contacts with CAIR. Include the story below in your emails and faxes. (Click here to find contact information for your Member of Congress and Senators).  

STEP TWO: On Monday or Tuesday place a follow-up call to your Member of Congress and two Senators. Ask to speak to their Defense or National Security Legislative Assistant (LA). When you have the LA on the phone, ask (1) if they got your email or fax and the article; (2) if they read it; (3) if the Member of Congress or Senator is aware of the issue. If the LA has not seen or read the email or fax, send it again if necessary. If you don’t reach the LA, leave a message and phone number, and if you don’t hear back by the next day, call again!
 
LET’S SEND A RESPECTFUL, CLEAR MESSAGE TO CONGRESS: THE FBI HAS CUT OFF CONTACT TO CAIR DUE TO ITS TIES TO HAMAS. CAIR WAS AN UNINDICTED CO-CONSPIRATOR IN THE HOLY LAND FOUNDATION TRIAL. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SHOULD NOT MEET WITH CAIR.

And email us at info@actforamerica.org to let us know what response you get from your contacts to Congress.

The FBI has already cut all ties to CAIR, now it is time for the Congress to do the same.


FBI Cuts Off CAIR Over Hamas Questions

by Mary Jacoby IPT News January 29, 2009 The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has cut off contacts with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) amid mounting concern about the Muslim advocacy group's roots in a Hamas-support network, the Investigative Project on Terrorism has learned.
The decision to end contacts with CAIR was made quietly last summer as federal prosecutors prepared for a second trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), an Islamic charity accused of providing money and political support to the terrorist group Hamas, according to people with knowledge of the matter. CAIR and its chairman emeritus, Omar Ahmad, were named un-indicted co-conspirators in the HLF case. Both Ahmad and CAIR's current national executive director, Nihad Awad, were revealed on government wiretaps as having been active participants in early Hamas-related organizational meetings in the United States.
During testimony, FBI agent Lara Burns described CAIR as a front organization. Hamas is a US-designated foreign terrorist organization, and it's been illegal since 1995 to provide support to it within the United States. The decision to end contacts with CAIR is a significant policy change for the FBI.
For years, the FBI worked with the national organization and its state chapters to address Muslim community concerns about the potential for hate crimes and other civil liberty violations in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. But critics said the FBI improperly conferred legitimacy on CAIR by meeting with its officials, even as its own investigative files contained evidence of CAIR leaders' ties to Hamas.
Last autumn, FBI field offices began notifying state CAIR chapters that bureau officials could no longer meet with them until CAIR's national leadership in Washington had addressed issues raised by the HLF trial, according to people with knowledge of the notifications. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper declined to comment Wednesday when the IPT called for comment. Before hanging up, Hooper said "We're more than happy to cooperate with legitimate media. But we don't cooperate with those who promote anti-Muslim bigotry."
In one letter obtained by IPT News, James E. Finch, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Oklahoma City field office, canceled a meeting of the local Muslim Community Outreach Program, a state-federal program designed to enlist Muslims in terrorism prevention and investigate reports of civil liberties violations. "Regrettably, due to circumstances beyond my control, the meeting will be postponed until further notice as a result of the planned participation by the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations," Finch's Oct. 8, 2008 letter to Muslim groups in the Oklahoma outreach program said. Finch made clear the Oklahoma office valued its relationship with local Muslims. He said the stumbling block to further outreach was CAIR's national leadership. "[I]f CAIR wishes to pursue an outreach relationship with the FBI, certain issues must be addressed to the satisfaction of the FBI.
Unfortunately, these issues cannot be addressed at the local level and must be addressed by the CAIR National Office in Washington, D.C.," the letter said. A spokesman for the FBI's Oklahoma City office referred questions about the letter to the FBI's national press office. In Washington, FBI spokesman John Miller said, "We've certainly been in contact with CAIR chapters" about the un-indicted co-conspirator designation. "The letter speaks for itself." Letters with similar wording were sent in other states, people with knowledge of the matter said.
It is not known how many letters were issued, but the FBI has had strong working relationships with CAIR chapters in states including Ohio, Michigan, Arizona and Florida. Hamas was formed in 1987 as the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, the global Islamic political movement that aims to spread the rule of Shariah, or Islamic law, throughout the world. A North American branch of the Brotherhood supervised HLF, CAIR and other organizations to build political, financial and public relations support for Hamas, evidence at the HLF trial showed.
The U.S.-based Brotherhood formed a Palestine Committee, headed by Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook, in 1988 during the first intifada uprising in Palestinian territories against Israel. Hamas's stated policy is for the destruction of Israel. CAIR co-founders Ahmad and Awad were early active members of the Palestine Committee, evidence showed.
Wiretaps recorded the two CAIR leaders participating in strategy meetings of the committee in the 1990s, and both were also on a phone list of its members, the evidence showed. The first HLF trial in Texas ended in a mistrial in October 2007. In November 2008, the second trial resulted in convictions of five former HLF officials on all counts of providing material support to Hamas
is unclear what changed between the first and second HLF trials to make the FBI rescind its policy of outreach to CAIR. The un-indicted co-conspirator designations were made on May 27, 2007 in connection with the first HLF trial. Moreover, much of the evidence linking the CAIR officials to Hamas was aired in an earlier public trial in 2006. CAIR, however, vigorously challenged the un-indicted co-conspirator designation as a violation of its First and Fifth Amendment rights, accusing the government of "demonization of all things Muslim" in a brief filed in the summer of 2007 with the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The co-conspirator designation is "particularly insidious and ironic as CAIR is an organization dedicated to fostering acceptance of Muslims in American society and protecting the civil liberties of all Muslim Americans," CAIR's brief read.
The government filed a brief on Sept. 4, 2007 opposing CAIR's filing, arguing the group lacked standing to challenge the co-conspirator designation and that the matter was moot, as the evidence was already entered into the public record. The judge never ruled on CAIR's request. The HLF trial showed that CAIR was formed to covertly influence US opinions of the Palestinian conflict and Islam, but without revealing its connections to Hamas. Read the full article here.
To allow CAIR access to members of Congress to discuss security issues would be like allowing the Mafia to discuss issues about organized crime with members of Congress. To find and contact your Congressman or woman go here. To find and contact your Senator go here.
   
REMEMBER: Ask to speak to their Defense or National Security Legislative Assistant (LA). When you have the LA on the phone, ask (1) if they got your email or fax and the article; (2) if they read it; (3) if the Member of Congress or Senator is aware of the issue. If the LA has not seen or read the email or fax, send it again if necessary. Send a copy of the article and remember to always be polite.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Republicans Lost - and the Dems are... Mad?

In a stunning turn of events, House Republicans won a critical symbolic victory Wednesday in uniting against Obama’s $1 trillion phony economic “stimulus” plan. Call your Republican congressman and thank him/her. They did right for a change and we need to let them know it. If your representative was one of the eleven Democrats who courageously crossed lines to oppose the plan, call to thank them too. Of course the Democrats passed the bill anyway, 244 to 188. But they’re mad! After the vote they came out swinging, lambasting the Republicans, with Nancy Pelosi issuing a memo to “interested parties” warning that Republicans have put themselves in a “politically untenable position” by opposing the bill. The memo is a laundry list of alleged Republican crimes. Me thinks thou protest too much, Nancy. When a Democrat gets mad at you, you know you’ve done something right. The “Stimulus” bill is nothing more than a massive serving of Democrat pork, with huge payoffs to favored groups like ACORN, a laughable tax cut averaging about $12 per week and a modest amount for infrastructure that will not be spent for years. None of the provisions in this bill will stimulate the economy. But Democrats are not interested in stimulating the economy. They are interested in securing their majority into the foreseeable future by purchasing votes and placing great swaths of the economy under their thumbs. Obama’s cultivation of Republican votes is merely an effort give him cover for this heist and prevent Republicans from using it as an issue against Democrats in the upcoming 2010 elections. Oh yes, 2010! For those of you who don’t know, in 2010, Congressional Democrats have to defend 84 seats in Republican districts that George Bush carried strongly in both the 2000 and 20004 elections. These are very vulnerable seats. All Republicans need to do to get them back is prove that they are still Republicans! If Obama succeeds in suckering Republicans into supporting this hog, Republicans will have lost what may be their last chance to convince the public that they have any relevance at all. They will have no issue to run on in 2010. Instead they will share blame for the stimulus package’s certain failure, which should be readily apparent by then. Not only that, Republicans will be on record supporting a blatantly radical leftist power grab, setting the stage for massive tax increases that will be necessary to fund these programs in the future, and creating trillion dollar deficits “for years to come...” in Obama’s own words. If they fall for this the Republican Party can kiss conservatives goodbye, and for that matter practically everyone else. The Dems know that too. The Democrats’ true goal in cultivating Republican support for this monstrosity is the same goal as always: to defeat the competition and secure unchallengeable power for the foreseeable future. As usual they are relying on public ignorance and Republican stupidity to pull it off. But for a change House Republicans didn’t take the bait, so the Dems are mad. Republicans did the right thing yesterday. I pray Republican Senators have the wisdom to do the same. The future of the Republican Party, and perhaps the nation, depends on it. What You Can Do Call your Republican senator and urge him/her to filibuster the stimulus plan in the Senate. If you don’t have a Republican senator, call the Democrat. Most, if not all Democrats will get behind Obama, but a call to them will let them know just how disgusted you are with this massive pork bill and they may soften up a bit. Most Republican senators are now against the bill, but five have indicated support: Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Kit Bond (R-Mo.) Snowe is the weakest link, but someone needs to read them all the riot act.

Obama, Clinton Send Political Clone to the UN

Another in a long list of additions to the Obama Administration reinforces the concern that while Hillary Rodham Clinton was unsuccessful in becoming President she succeeded in establishing a third Clinton term in spite of the loss. Susan Rice is US Ambassador to the United Nations and was a member of the Obama Biden Transition Team as well as senior foreign policy adviser for their 2008 campaign. It has been said of Obama that filling vacancies from the previous administration demonstrates a preference for persons with impressive resumes' in both education and experience. This selection was no departure from that criteria or strategy. A Wikipedia account of Dr Rice states her father told her to 'never use race as an excuse or advantage' and that she was concerned her accomplishments would be viewed as the result of affirmative action. Her personal success is impressive. It is possible she hails from a family with above average means so affirmative action should be a moot point. But what if any is the role of nepotism? Madeleine Albright is described in the same account as a family friend and mentor to Rice. She urged Clinton to appoint Rice as an Assistant Secretary of State in 1997. While she impressed many and certainly enough to be confirmed others felt she was inexperienced and inflexible. A few years in the Clinton Administration and then to the Brookings Institution. A common career path for unemployed public servants similar to former Congressman becoming lobbyists. Next up the Clinton Obama Wars and filling the Administration with former staff to appease the Clinton clan before the convention. Oh there's no nepotism here. And this is not a criticism directed at Rice for it is the case with most if not all Obama selections. So how is that working or shaping up for the average citizen? Regarding President Obama's election UN Sec Gen Ban Ki Moon expressed 'Our goals are shared. Together, the United States of America and the United Nations can look forward to a new era of strong and effective partnership, delivering results and the change we need.' If you take that statement at face value avoid persons selling infrastructure in Brooklyn or vacant land in Florida. Moon had more to say. Earlier this week, he welcomed Mr. Obama's election “with great optimism,” noting that the UN and US have many common goals. By his own admission and that of Obama and Clinton these goals include but are not limited to the following: United Nations reform (which will never happen) Climate Change (or the promotion of more gloom and doom) The Darfur Peace Process ( which does not exist, resembles the climate change item and is as likely to fail as that in the Middle East ) Global Economic Crisis (his words, and something these spendthrifts no nothing about ) But what Ban Ki Moon and the rest of the posse at the UN were really interested in was this. UN Launches $613 Million Appeal for Gaza By Lisa Schlein Geneva 29 January 2009 The United Nations is appealing for $613 million to help tens of thousands of people in Gaza recover from the three-week Israeli military offensive in the Palestinian territory. The money will provide life-saving assistance over the next six to nine months. The U.N. appeal was launched at the annual World Economic Forum in the Swiss alpine village of Davos. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is the first world leader to enter Gaza since Israel imposed a blockade on the Palestinian territory in June 2007. He describes his distress at what he saw. And how does Moon qualify for the designation in the report above as a 'world leader'? More to the point is what does the UN do besides make headlines and statements when they're not collecting money and using it for who knows what? Could it be that aside from all the other conspiracy theories about the UN that they are quite happy with the Middle East conflict as another venue to work their craft of separating people from their money and giving it to their friends? If you object to that suggestion please explain why none of their 'programs' end in success or just end? Sustaining conflict in the world would be of benefit to them given their methods of operation. So what does Dr Rice bring to the party? 26 January 2009 – There is no more important forum for effective cooperation among States that the United Nations, the new ambassador of the United States to the United Nations stressed today, following her first meeting with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. “I am looking very much forward to engaging in a cooperative, constructive fashion with my colleagues here in New York. I will listen, I will engage and I will work to advance United States interests, recognizing that in many, many instances, our national interests are best advanced when we are working hand in hand with that of others,” Susan Rice told reporters at UN Headquarters in New York. Ms. Rice said she had an “excellent meeting” with the Secretary-General, covering a range of issues including climate change, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), UN peacekeeping, non-proliferation, Sudan and the situation in the Middle East. “The United Nations is a vitally important institution. It has great potential. It still has room for great improvement,” she said, adding that she and Mr. Ban also touched on the challenge of making the Organization more effective and more efficient. She recalled that President Barack Obama had wanted to place the US at the centre of the fight against poverty, and had stated that the MDGs – the globally agreed targets to slash poverty and other development challenges by 2015 – were now US goals. Based on President Obama rescinding The Mexico City Policy, the liberal thirst for abortion and a press conference by the executive director of the UN population fund the crew must be drunk with sadistic pleasure over the spoils of a political victory. Here's the damming evidence from the UN press conference in their own words. “President Obama’s actions sent a strong message about his leadership and strategic vision to support causes that will promote peace and development, equity and dignity, equality for women and girls and economic empowerment of the poor in all regions of the world,” she said. With the resumption of United States funding, UNFPA would be able to maintain recent gains during the current financial crisis and provide support to women in the poorest countries of the world. United Nations Member States had repeatedly said that progress for all would not happen without progress for women. That meant making women’s health, rights and equality an international priority. She also welcomed the decision of the new United States administration to revoke the Mexico City policy, which paved the way for a restored United States partnership with some of the world’s leading non-governmental organizations that provide family planning services around the world. Access to safe and effective voluntary family planning, as Mr. Obama had said, was one of the most effective ways of preventing unwanted pregnancies and empowering women and men to plan their families. If a woman could not take decisions about her own fertility, she could not make decisions about anything else in her life. And the final expression of support for 'safe' abortions as 'family planning'. To a question about family planning, she said that its importance was demonstrated by the fact that unsafe abortion was considered the second leading cause of death for African women. Women who did not have access to family planning would go to have unsafe abortions, which often led to death. Translation:: The money is used to pay for abortions the 'patient' cannot afford which would lead to back alley practitioners who care less about the patient than the liberals care about the unborn child. And 'family planning' is liberal-speak for abortion. The only reason they support contraception is political. It gives them another pork item to support in legislation and lets them believe they have convinced you they are trying to do things the right way. Could it be any more pathetic? So Dr Susan Rice will be doing the bidding of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Keep in mind both Clinton and Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy. Also notable is Obama's weakness for ACORN and voter and campaign finance fraud as well as the Clintons' scandal history including illegal transfers of sensitive technology via Chinagate. The perils of international politics grow larger. And the threat is not always from without but within. Stanford Matthews MoreWhat.com

Celebs PLEDGE: Short Memories - Ashton Kutcher gets Naughty!

You've probably seen this Hollywood "Presidential Pledge," but if not take a look. To give you a little incentive, Jason Bateman's pledge is to "flush only after a deuce and never after a single." An unknown young Black man (unknown to me - I'm sure he's wildly popular) pledges to consider himself an American and not an African American. Another pledges to sell a culture of intelligence instead of a culture of ignorance. Wife and Husband, Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher, pledge to fulfill the "200 year old promise to end slavery," "the abolition of 21st Century slavery" and "to free one million people from slavery in the next five years."



Demi Moore

Moore and Kutcher end the video with: I pledge to be a servant to all mankind and to our President. These are just a few of the pledges. I think some are excellent and worthy, some full of self-absorption, some predictable and at least one hilarious. The problem is, Hollywood doesn't realize that most of us practice the worthy ones every single day, and never give it a thought - would never considering making a "pledge,"...because it just isn't necessary. If you've seen this video, scroll down to find out what comes next, because something definitely comes next.



 






Ashton Kutcher
 

So Ashton is awakened one morning recently, about 7:30 a.m., somewhere in the Hollywood Hills, by construction from the repair of his neighbor's home. The following, says Big Hollywood, is some of Kutcher's tweeting:
“this SOB owl feces cougar placenta jack bone dick!” “Jack ass 7am building a goddamn fort next to my house f’in up my view and noise polluting the entire f’in neighborhood with pounding steal” “holy moly I’m gonna lose it!” “this ass clown has another thing coming!” “I’m gonna kill my neighbor”
Video seen here.
Big Hollywood tells an interesting story, coming from the LA Times: something about the house Kutcher lives in taking about 10-years to complete, and the neighbors just sucking it up. Read the entire store there's more.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot: there's something about Demi referring to Kutcher as "calm and gentle baby." Can that possibly be true? Demi and Kutcher caught my attention with their mission to free slaves.

I know a little about bonded slavery around the world and it heartbreaking. I also know that Hollywood, and feminist organizations, have turned their backs on the slaves that we are most familiar with, at this moment in time. I'm speaking of the freeing of Muslim woman and girls, and boys too.

The fact that thousand of girls are now attending school in Iraq is one way we have freed the slaves of Saddam Hussein. Women everywhere in Muslim countries need our help...but that's a conservative issue - not at all attractive to these free and unencumbered American women. This idea of ending slavery, and I assume they mean around the world, is a good one. We need an "example," and I'll be watching Demi and Ashton to see exactly what they do about freeing 21st Century slaves. Maybe we can all follow their example.

Illusions

Cross posted by Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

From the Sderot Media Center

Sderot Student, 23, Addresses UN Human Rights Council in Geneva Liraz Madmony, 23 of Sderot, grew up under Palestinian rocket fire for eight years of her life. Although a rocket has never directly hit her home, Liraz has experienced the terror of rocket explosions countless times. "We don't have a bomb shelter in our house," she recently told SMC. "Every time, the Tzeva Adom is set off, our family races to the shower, the only room that is most 'secure' from a rocket attack."

Liraz Madmony with Israeli representative to the UN.

Liraz is a law student in a Ramat Gan college in central Israel and is heavily involved with student organizations such as WUJS (World Union of Jewish Students). "Many times I've missed my law classes and student activities because of the rocket attacks. It's almost impossible to lead a normal life when you are forced to live under with warning alerts and raining rockets." While Liraz admits that balancing life as a college student and a resident in a war-zone can at times be very difficult, she recently found the time to share her story with the world community. Thanks to a trip coordinated by UN Watch two weeks ago, Liraz Madmony addressed the UN Human Rights Council Special Session on Gaza in Geneva, on behalf of the European Union of Jewish Students (EUJS) on January 12, 2009.

View at YouTube

"It was a very moving moment for me," says Liraz. "Here I was standing in front of all these people--in Geneva, Switzerland--representing the people of Sderot and all our years of suffering and terror."

Read the rest here.

Liraz is just a normal person, leading a normal life, wanting only the rockets to stop. In the last 8 years dozens of UN resolutions were passed condemning Israel. Not one has ever been passed condemning Hamas. And yet Israel is suppose to accept all the resolutions passed by the UN.

From 90210 to Sderot: Get the Story Right! I just returned from a two week visit to Israel. I spent my last weekend in Sderot and the Western Negev. One year out from volunteering in Sderot, I have written this piece on the international media's lack of context in covering the current conflict between Israel and Hamas. Hundreds of journalists from all over the world just left Sderot and the surrounding areas covering the current conflict between Israel and Hamas. Where were they one year ago? Where were they four years ago, eight years ago? I spent six weeks volunteering in Sderot exactly one year ago, and I can tell you, the journalists were no where to be found. Unfortunately for Israel, it took eight years for the international community to understand that innocent civilians in a western democracy live daily under the current threat of rocket fire. During this time, the range of the threat expanded from a tens of thousands to over one million innocent Jewish and Muslim Israeli citizens. In these eight years, has the UN Security Council ever condemned nearly a decade of rocket fire on innocent civilians of one of its member states, Hamas’ use of human shields, and its use of schools, hospitals, and mosques to store and launch rockets at Israel? Are you laughing at me for even thinking to ask such a question? Well you should be, because why would anyone assume the international community to be, um, sensible? Maybe they could be just a little rational? Nah, that’s just too silly! Furthermore, has any news organization mentioned the fact Israel is the only western democracy in the entire world that has a significant - let alone any - part of its population living under the threat of daily rocket fire? “Oh it’s just Israel, who cares right?” “They can take it?” Or rather, “Maybe they deserve it, right?” Well you know what I have to say that... I’d also like to thank the international media for providing ZERO context for the humanitarian issues of the Palestinian people. Let me describe to you a little bit of Israel’s commitment to helping the Palestinians suffering from the wrath of their authoritarian, fanatical terrorist rulers, Hamas. From the beginning of Operation Cast Lead, December 27, 2008, until January 12, 2009: - 926 truckloads (22,046 tons) of humanitarian aid were delivered to Gaza - 449 dual nationals were evacuated from Gaza - 3000 units of blood were donated by Jordan and transferred into Gaza - 5 ambulances were donated by Turkey and transferred into Gaza - 5 ambulances were transferred from the West Bank to Gaza on behalf of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society - 34 people were evacuated to Israel for medical needs On Jan. 7, 2009, the IDF decided it would ceasefire for three hours each day in order to let humanitarian aid reach civilians in the Gaza Strip. I love when this gets mentioned, and they say three hours is simply not enough. So, Israel should stop defending its civilians all together, fully commit itself to giving aid to the other side, and allow terrorists to fire rockets at it and threaten one million of its population? Do you find it a tad bit odd that Israel is forced not only to defend its own citizens, but those of its enemies as well? Well I don’t...I mean, isn’t every western democracy supposed to do that during wars? Duh! I got a question for you Mr. and Mrs. International Media. Israel is the bad guy? Are you kidding me! What does Hamas do for Israeli civilians? Oh yeah, they’ve been terrorizing them with rockets for the last eight years! What other country, when immersed in a full scale war, commits itself to providing humanitarian aid to their enemy? Oh yeah, Russia! Read the rest here.

I am suppose to accept that the world media isn’t biased against Israel. And then I am suppose to acknowledge the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny too. Right. If it was not so tragic, I would laugh.

An Illusion of Normalcy? An uncertain calm rests upon Sderot at the moment. The sounds of war have disappeared, replaced by the sounds of a city slowly coming back to life. The click of the intercom followed by the voice that repeatedly stated Tzeva Adom, followed by the rocket explosion a few seconds later seems to be something of the past. But daily news reports on Palestinian terror activity from Gaza are constant reminders to Israelis in Sderot and the western Negev that the calm remains seemingly temporarily. Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire on Saturday night, January 17 at 2:00 am, which ended Operation Cast Lead, a 3-week offensive against Hamas. It was Israel's longest offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, following two brief military offenses in the Gaza Strip in 2004 and 2006 in response to Qassam attacks that killed two Israeli girls, and wounded several other civilians.

Sderot children play around protected shelters.

Two day after the ceasefire was declared; Palestinian terrorists fired 8 mortar rockets at Israel on Tuesday morning, January 20. Palestinian militants also opened fire on IDF soldiers in Gaza. On Tuesday evening, the last of the IDF troops had pulled out of Gaza before the inauguration of US President Barack Obama at 6 PM. Israel time. On Tuesday, January 27, Palestinian terrorists carried out the first deadly attack on Israel since the ceasefire concluded. An Israeli soldier was killed on Tuesday morning when an explosive device set at the Kissufim crossing along the Gaza Strip border exploded as an IDF force patrolled the area. Another officer was seriously injured, with one leg amputated and another severely damage. Two other soldiers suffered from extensive shrapnel wounds, but were categorized as lightly hurt. They remain hospitalized.

Read the rest here.

And on Wednesday, rockets again flew into Israel from Gaza.

IAF jets struck a weapon manufacturing site in the Rafah area late on Wednesday night, in response to a Kassam rocket fired from the Gaza Strip at Israel several hours earlier. t was the IDF's first attack on a building inside the Strip since the end of Operation Cast Lead. The Kassam was fired at southern Israel a day after Gaza operatives breached the cease-fire with a deadly bomb attack along the border. The rocket hit an open area in the Eshkol region, causing no casualties or damage.

Hamas can violation a cease-fire and the world says nothing. Israel strikes back and there are riots in the streets. Can anyone see a double standard here? I do.

Like always, Israel will do what it has to do to survive. And like always I once again send out a plea for donations for the Sderot Media Center. The donation you give goes directly to the victims of the terror. To donate either click the logos on the top or bottom of the page or go here. The people of Sderot will be very grateful.

Senate Republicans: Start Kickin' Ass for the Good of America

I found this great graphic and even better short and to-the-point commentary at JaneqRepublican. The JaneqRepublican post lead to a January 28th article by Michelle Malkin. Michelle is reviewing some of the pitifully few moments that a true Conservative could applaud the GOP.

elephantkicksass

MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

FLOOD THEIR INBOXES!

MELT THEIR PHONES!

CONTACT YOUR SENATOR AND DEMAND THAT HE OR SHE STAND BY THE REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES ON WHICH HE OR SHE CAMPAIGNED.

DEMAND THAT HE OR SHE VOTE AGAINST THE STIMULUS BILL!

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Barack Obama's Self-Acknowledged "Blank Slate"

Perhaps you remember Barack Obama's statement in his book Audacity of Hope:

I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."
Tony Blankley writing for Townhall.com today examines this curious proclamation and pairs it with Obama's inaugural speech:
Run-of-the-mill politicians try to hide their duplicity. Only the most gifted of that profession brag that they intend to confound and confuse the public. Such an effort is beyond ingenious; it is brazenly ingenuous.
Blankley asks "What are we to make of the following dismissive assertion by Obama?"
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
I thought Obama's mention of "petty grievances," childish things," and "wornout dogmas"was astonishing. Certainly he could only view Conservative "grievances" as petty. Our vehement dislike for his admiration for distribution of wealth? Not so petty. Or "healthcare?" Not so petty. Don't touch mine. Or "tax reform." Not at all petty. He didn't let us in on what he views as petty, childish or wornout, but we know it had nothing to do with Democrats. Blankely looks at "petty grievances, childish things and wornout dogmas" and names them for what they are from the lofty perch of the Democrats: our hard fought for conservative values - low taxes, free markets, small government, and says:
I believe that Obama intends to craft a new nationalism, using the disassembled timber of our traditional values to build a new, more collectivist and less individualistic ship of state. The planks will look vaguely familiar, but the ship will be quite different. It is as if he would disassemble the warship Old Ironsides and build with its timbers a collectivist's ark.
This is an excellent article. I hope you will read it in it's entirety: Obama's Collectivist Nationalism

Emanuel Carville Begala Stephanopoulos: The Gang of Four

The President's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, rendevous' with the most Liberal of Liberal pundits - every morning, and these four have hooked-up nearly every morning for 17 years. The Gang of Four are all employed by MSNBC, ABC or Barack Obama. James Carville - MSNBC, Paul Begala - MSNBC and George Stephanopoulus - ABC. That's a conference call coming out of, or into, the highest level of the White House...to or from the media - every morning! And Obama whines about Limbaugh! A Politico article describes what each of these pundits bring to the conversation each morning, and the characterizations first indicate that each man has his own strengths and areas of expertise. Carville's wife, Republican strategist Mary Matalin, says it's like listening to "girl talk." Right. Al Hunt, Bloomberg's Washington Bureau Chief says he talks to Carville almost daily, and of the 17-year conference call, he says:

there's rarely more than one degree of separation between them," - no matter any subject in the news. There is no parallel, he said, to a group of friends who has remained so central to the daily shaping of Washington conversation as these Clinton-era comrades.
Begala hints at the truth:
Still, the line between journalism and politics is not always bright. Begala said he often can’t remember the originator of any particular insight: “We talk so much — was this my idea that James changed, or was this George’s observation that Rahm tweaked?”
I guess it would be wrong of me to assume that Carville, Begala, Stephanopoulos et al might hold back critical information gleemed from their insider, Rahm Emanuel - like something damaging to the President, or dangerous to the Nation, - something like Iran BEING nuclear, sooner rather than later? I guess it would be wrong of me to assume that Rahm Emanuel might provide highly sensitive information to these three bastions of Liberal verbosity, information or hints that deserve no spin when they do come out - something like Iran BEING nuclear? I guess it would be wrong of me to assume that the Gang of Four controls the news at MSNBC and ABC?

The Mexico City Policy Endless Loop

The debate and/or division among opponents and supporters of abortion may never end. That supposition is based partly on the near equal division in US politics demonstrated in the back and forth restoring and rescinding of the Mexico City Policy initiated in the Reagan years and named after the location of a UN conference on population where it was announced. Adam and EveFrom the standpoint of 'rights' those who approve of abortion typically refer to it as a 'woman's right to choose' and those reject it defend the rights of the child to live. In the Mexico City Policy debate those who oppose the policy say it not only denies money to NGOs who provide abortion but other contraceptive methods as well. And of course opponents of abortion who favor the policy typically indicate pro-choice advocates support abortion as a barbaric after-the-fact solution for irresponsible behavior and a failure to accept the consequences of their actions. About the only thing the two sides agree on is encouraging a decrease in the number of unintended pregnancies. Pro-life advocates maintain that better alternatives for unintended pregnancies include abstinence and adoption. Many pro-choice advocates would likely support the notion expressed by Barack Obama during the presidential campaign. 'Look, I got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old,' he said. 'I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.' Below is a brief review excerpt from USAID on President Bush restoring the policy in 2001 shortly after taking office. After that is a link to President Obama rescinding the policy shortly after he took office. After President Reagan initiated it in 1984 President Clinton rescinded it in 1993, again, shortly after taking office. The trend is painfully clear. Restoration of the Mexico City Policy Concerning Family Planning "This policy recognizes our country's long history of providing international health care services, including voluntary family planning to couples around the world who want to make free and responsible decisions about the number and spacing of their children." The White House January 22, 2001 On January 22, 2001, President George W. Bush announced reinstatement of the so-called Mexico City policy that required non-governmental organizations to "agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations." The President is committed to maintaining the $425 million funding level provided for in the FY 2001 appropriation because he knows that one of the best ways to prevent abortion is by providing quality voluntary family planning services. President (Obama) rescinds "Mexico City Policy" on Abortion If one searches data on abortion recurring statistics may shed some light on the problem. A significant percentage of the abortions performed each year are not the patient's first. As many as one out of five abortions in given years were the patient's second or third. A not so surprising number of women reported inconsistent use of contraception as the reason for the unintended pregnancy. Wikipedia history, etc., of Mexico City Policy Stanford Matthews MoreWhat.com

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Obama's Blue Wall

Newsmax has put together an incisive analysis of how Obama and the Democrats plan to use "economic stimulus" monies to cement Democrat electoral gains, moving us further down the road toward one party rule. This is genuinely creepy. I have articulated that concern elsewhere in general terms, but no one has put it together in such stark terms. Here are a few examples:

Stimulating Democrats — Obama has estimated that 80 percent of the 4 million jobs that his stimulus package creates or saves will come from the private sector. But that still means 800,000 will be public sector jobs. This alone means Obama’s plan conveys “a partisan advantage,” says GOP leader Ken Blackwell. He points out that last year Virginia went Democratic for the first time since 1964. Obama won the Old Dominion by just 130,000 votes. Creating 800,000 new jobs “might help cement Virginia in the Democrat column, making it harder for Republicans to retake the White House,” Blackwell says.
Infrastructure Politics — Democrats, who so often tout the economic virtues of infrastructure projects, are continuing to build their party’s political infrastructure as well. One notable example is the Secretary of State (SOS) project. SOS, funded in part by George Soros, was created to seed state election bureaucracies nationwide with partisan activists, usually secretaries of state who are strategically positioned to influence the outcome of close recounts. The prize SOS pupil is Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, who recently oversaw the recount that flipped the original result in the Gopher State from GOP Sen. Norm Coleman to Democrat Al Franken.
Boosting Hispanic Support — Obama carried the Hispanic vote by 67 percent, a key part of his victory. The $32.2 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP) that Obama is expected to sign will provide health insurance for some 11 million children. The House version would cover hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants’ children, without the current five-year waiting period for eligibility. Along with a phased-in amnesty push that will likely begin with immigrants serving in the U.S. armed forces, this should solidify a Democratic constituency that, as recently as 2004, split its vote much more evenly with Republicans. William Gheen, president of the Raleigh, N.C.-based Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), tells Newsmax that amnesty would so indelibly alter the nation’s political balance that it would “destroy any future hopes for immigration enforcement or border security.”
Promoting Unions — Most union members vote Democratic, so one way to tilt the game in Democrats’ favor is to swell union ranks with more workers. That’s where card check comes in. Also called the Employee Free Choice Act, it would eliminate the confidential balloting in which workers now determine whether they want to be unionized. Even former liberal presidential candidate George McGovern warns that the measure could deny “freedom to many Americans,” as union toughs bully American workers into joining the unions, whether they want to or not.
There is much more, and it presents a grim picture. All the more reason Republicans must stonewall the Democrats' blatantly cynical, self-serving manipulation of the financial crisis to enrich themselves and cement their powerbase. America almost didn't survive Jimmy Carter. As I have written elsewhere, Obama is Carter on steriods. He and his fellow Democrats will bring this country to ruin. If there is any sense of self-preservation yet alive in the body politic, we'd better organize it and get moving.

Boycott Israel - Video

Thanks to YouTube

Love Song to Islamic Fundamentalists From a Jew

I would say this is "darling" if it weren't so darn serious. Are there any Muslims out there out that feel the same as this young man? Thanks to YouTube and Jerstadlin

Monday, January 26, 2009

Glen Beck Details the Obama Stimulus Plan - Video

Thanks to The Lonely Conservative

Barack Obama Meets Al-Arabiya for Interview: Transcript - Video

Members of al-Aribiya, the Arab Dubai-based satellite network entered the White House and President Obama "sat" for an interview...in the White House.





Video Obama in the White House - Interview with al-Arabiya


 I'm putting this up out of sync with the linked article. This is the most important and abhorrent part of what we know so far (Washington Post): WAPO says that in "stark contrast" to President G. W. Bush, Obama said:
"...IF America is ready to initiate a new partnership [with the Muslim world] based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress."
This borders on treasonous. What kind of "partnership" can America have now, how can we believe Islam wants a "partnership," and what broke an assumed "partnership" in the first place? How does America embark on a "new partnership?" Does he have a clue? Will his Envoy, George Mitchell take his message to al-Qaeda or the Taliban? Or maybe they'll see this video in a tricked out cave somewhere. How does he think he can deal with Hamas? Pre-conceptions. What can be "Pre." We acted "after," not "Pre." We were just sitting here minding our business and they took the towers down. (NOTE: I just got the video. His comment is not exactly as stated above). From the Washington Post:
All too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues -- and we don't always know all the factors that are involved," Obama told al-Arabiya. "So let's listen. He's [George Mitchell] going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response."
He said "I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries,..." I'm also reading that the interview airs at 11 p.m. EST in the U.S. tonight, January 26th. As George Mitchell, new Middle East Envoy, prepared to leave for the Middle East, Obama told reporters that that peace in the ME is important to America, and also personally important to him. Read this from The Politico's Ben Smith, and run for the toi-ty:
President Barack Obama presented a humble and conciliatory face of America to the Islamic world Monday in the first formal interview since he assumed office, stressing his own Muslim ties and shying away from any hint of belligerence even when asked if he could “live with” an Iranian nuclear weapon.
Here's the transcript:

INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT BY HISHAM MELHEM, AL ARABIYA
Map Room
5:46 P.M. EST

Q Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity, we really appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.

Q Sir, you just met with your personal envoy to theMiddle East, Senator Mitchell. Obviously, his first task is to consolidate the cease-fire. But beyond that you've been saying that you want to pursue actively and aggressively peacemaking between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Tell us a little bit about how do you see your personal role, because, you know, if the President of the United States is not involved, nothing happens -- as the history of peacemaking shows. Will you be proposing ideas, pitching proposals, parameters, as one of your predecessors did? Or just urging the parties to come up with their own resolutions, as your immediate predecessor did?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away. And George Mitchell is somebody of enormous stature. He is one of the few people who have international experience brokering peace deals.

Q Sir, you just met with your personal envoy to theMiddle East, Senator Mitchell. Obviously, his first task is to consolidate the cease-fire. But beyond that you've been saying that you want to pursue actively and aggressively peacemaking between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Tell us a little bit about how do you see your personal role, because, you know, if the President of the United States is not involved, nothing happens -- as the history of peacemaking shows. Will you be proposing ideas, pitching proposals, parameters, as one of your predecessors did? Or just urging the parties to come up with their own resolutions, as your immediate predecessor did?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away. And George Mitchell is somebody of enormous stature. He is one of the few people who have international experience brokering peace deals.

And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues -- and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen. He's going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.

Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead, it's time to return to the negotiating table.

And it's going to be difficult, it's going to take time. I don't want to prejudge many of these issues, and I want to make sure that expectations are not raised so that we think that this is going to be resolved in a few months. But if we start the steady progress on these issues, I'm absolutely confident that the United States -- working in tandem with the European Union, with Russia, with all the Arab states in the region -- I'm absolutely certain that we can make significant progress.

Q You've been saying essentially that we should not look at these issues -- like the Palestinian-Israeli track and separation from the border region -- you've been talking about a kind of holistic approach to the region. Are we expecting a different paradigm in the sense that in the past one of the critiques -- at least from the Arab side, the Muslim side -- is that everything the Americans always tested with the Israelis, if it works. Now there is an Arab peace plan, there is a regional aspect to it. And you've indicated that. Would there be any shift, a paradigm shift?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia --

Q Right.

THE PRESIDENT: I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage --

Q Absolutely.

THE PRESIDENT: -- to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.

I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan. These things are interrelated. And what I've said, and I think Hillary Clinton has expressed this in her confirmation, is that if we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.

Now, Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel's security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.

And so what we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there's a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs.

Q I want to ask you about the broader Muslim world, but let me -- one final thing about the Palestinian-Israeli theater. There are many Palestinians and Israelis who are very frustrated now with the current conditions and they are losing hope, they are disillusioned, and they believe that time is running out on the two-state solution because -- mainly because of the settlement activities in Palestinian-occupied territories. Will it still be possible to see a Palestinian state -- and you know the contours of it -- within the first Obama administration?

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state -- I'm not going to put a time frame on it -- that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.

And, look, I think anybody who has studied the region recognizes that the situation for the ordinary Palestinian in many cases has not improved. And the bottom line in all these talks and all these conversations is, is a child in the Palestinian Territories going to be better off? Do they have a future for themselves? And is the child in Israel going to feel confident about his or her safety and security? And if we can keep our focus on making their lives better and look forward, and not simply think about all the conflicts and tragedies of the past, then I think that we have an opportunity to make real progress.
But it is not going to be easy, and that's why we've got George Mitchell going there. This is somebody with extraordinary patience as well as extraordinary skill, and that's what's going to be necessary.

Q Absolutely. Let me take a broader look at the whole region. You are planning to address the Muslim world in your first 100 days from a Muslim capital. And everybody is speculating about the capital. (Laughter.) If you have anything further, that would be great.
How concerned are you -- because, let me tell you, honestly, when I see certain things about America -- in some parts, I don't want to exaggerate -- there is a demonization of America.

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.

Q It's become like a new religion, and like a new religion it has new converts -- like a new religion has its own high priests.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q It's only a religious text.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q And in the last -- since 9/11 and because of Iraq, that alienation is wider between the Americans and -- and in generations past, the United States was held high. It was the only Western power with no colonial legacy.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q How concerned are you and -- because people sense that you have a different political discourse. And I think, judging by (inaudible) and Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden and all these, you know -- a chorus --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I noticed this. They seem nervous.

Q They seem very nervous, exactly. Now, tell me why they should be more nervous?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that when you look at the rhetoric that they've been using against me before I even took office --

Q I know, I know.

THE PRESIDENT: -- what that tells me is that their ideas are bankrupt. There's no actions that they've taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them.

In my inauguration speech, I spoke about: You will be judged on what you've built, not what you've destroyed. And what they've been doing is destroying things. And over time, I think the Muslim world has recognized that that path is leading no place, except more death and destruction.
Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.

Q The largest one.

THE PRESIDENT: The largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task.

But ultimately, people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration's actions. And I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I'm not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say, or what's on a television station in the Arab world -- but I think that what you'll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I'm speaking to them, as well.
Q Tell me, time is running out, any decision on from where you will be visiting the Muslim world?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm not going to break the news right here.

Q Afghanistan?

THE PRESIDENT: But maybe next time. But it is something that is going to be important. I want people to recognize, though, that we are going to be making a series of initiatives. Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we're not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we're going to start now. It may take a long time to do, but we're going to do it now. We're going to follow through on our commitment for me to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital. We are going to follow through on many of my commitments to do a more effective job of reaching out, listening, as well as speaking to the Muslim world.

And you're going to see me following through with dealing with a drawdown of troops in Iraq, so that Iraqis can start taking more responsibility. And finally, I think you've already seen a commitment, in terms of closing Guantanamo, and making clear that even as we are decisive in going after terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians, that we're going to do so on our terms, and we're going to do so respecting the rule of law that I think makes America great.

Q President Bush framed the war on terror conceptually in a way that was very broad, "war on terror," and used sometimes certain terminology that the many people -- Islamic fascism. You've always framed it in a different way, specifically against one group called al Qaeda and their collaborators. And is this one way of --

THE PRESIDENT: I think that you're making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations -- whether Muslim or any other faith in the past -- that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name.

And so you will I think see our administration be very clear in distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda -- that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it -- and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down.

But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.
Q Can I end with a question on Iran and Iraq then quickly?

THE PRESIDENT: It's up to the team --

MR. GIBBS: You have 30 seconds. (Laughter.)

Q Will the United States ever live with a nuclear Iran? And if not, how far are you going in the direction of preventing it?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran.
Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past -- none of these things have been helpful.

But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.

Q Shall we leave Iraq next interview, or just --

MR. GIBBS: Yes, let's -- we're past, and I got to get him back to dinner with his wife.

Q Sir, I really appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.

Q Thanks a lot.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate it.

Q Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

END 6:03 P.M. EST

Thanks to Huffington Post

Nancy Pelosi: Abortion Stimulates the Economy - Video

Here's the latest justification for abortion from the Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives:

 

 Thanks to Reverse Vampyr who has some pithy commentary on the video and YouTube.com

 Related: Obama and Abortion: FOCA Looms Arrogant Obama: The Man with the Power of Life and Death

Obama and Abortion: FOCA Looms

Barack Obama promised pro-abortionists he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) should Congress pass the legislation (see video below). From FOX News:

The act is designed to eliminate the "threats that remain" to Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court abortion rights decision that prompted the annual March for Life. Those threats include possible reversal of the decision and "legislative or administrative policies that make abortion more difficult and dangerous to obtain."
From the pro-abortion side, FOCA is viewed as a guardian of women's health, both physical and mental. It relieves the burden of a unwanted child, thus enhancing the quality of life, and will decrease the number of abortions needed through planned parenthood. Today, Nancy Pelosi, speaking to George Stephanopolous, defends expenditures in Obama's new stimulus plan - "hundreds of millions" for contraceptives and Family Planning, "reduces costs." Friends, think about this - the Translation: abortions and condums "reduce costs to the states." Babies harm our well-being, that's what Nancy says. The former President of Catholics for Choice in Washington D.C. says FOCA will ensure all women, no matter their age, and particularly poor women, that FOCA will remove the opportunity for "political whims" denying the availability of legal abortion. From the pro-life side, FOCA is viewed as murder, and second as an abuse of a parent's right to participate in decisions regarding own child's pregnancy. Both pro-abortionists and pro-lifers say their supporters are energized by Obama's willingness to enact FOCA. From the pro-life viewpoint, finding something to be enthused about can't be an easy task. With FOCA looming, there's no doubt it will motivate pro-lifers and conservative religious organizations to get on the telephone to Congress, but the reality is...the path for the President to bring FOCA to his base is unobstructed...unless more than a few in Congress have their hearts touched by the thought of a innocent's death. Noreen Hobson, President of the Right to Life Organization, sees the glass at least half-full. In Obama's inaugural speech, she reminds us, he acknowledges "the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness." Good luck with that! "FOCA does restrict abortions after the fetus is viable, or can live outside of the woman, which is approximately 24 weeks into the pregnancy...." This is no small blessing.
Video Barack Obama on Abortion
Listen as a caller to Planned Parenthood makes a donation specifically for the murder of a black child: Thanks to YouTube Related: Aarrogant Obama: The Man with the Power over Life and Death

Immigration: France Testing DNA of New Visa Applicants

I don't know about you but I think the world is a better place now that a person's DNA can be used to answer important questions,. Under the lead of a new "immigration" czar, France plans to test the DNA of some incoming immigrants who claim they have family already residing in France.

Eric Besson, who was appointed this month, said the tests would establish which foreigners were claiming visas by making up family ties with those already settled in the country.
Civil and human rights activists are crying foul, but the French parliament has approved the legislation, which will not become effective until and unless Besson signs it. The legislation applies only to certain applicants: immigrants staying for more than three months and with questions about documentation (birth or marriage certificates). Immigrants in this category will be asked to provide DNA linking them to their family connection in France. Officials will "propose" that the applicant pay for the testing. Opponents say that applicants who cannot afford the testing will "have every chance of having their visas refused." Immigrants in the U.S. say they just want a chance at a decent life, a safe place to raise families, an opportunity to reconnect with parents and siblings, a chance for a good job, and a paycheck they can send back home. All worthy reasons to leave one country and enter one you think provides a better quality of life. It's simple, if you want to immigrate to France, and have an opportunity to do so because you have family already residing there, then provide your DNA. The price of the test must surely be worth the chance of a new and better life - or just a long visit with your loved ones. The world is a dangerous place. Have a little respect for the French people who are willing to receive you if you have been truthful on your visa application. Freedom isn't free. Homeland Security: Listen up! This is a great idea.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Larry King: Son Wants to Be Black - Video

Larry King interviewed Bob Woodward on January 21st. On the video we cannot see or hear what led to this comment from King: Larry King:

"My younger son Cannon, he is eight and he now says that he would like to be Black. There's a lot of advantages to being Black. Black in."
Woodward laughs. Isn't King just too cool, and his son, too? Where do our kids get this stuff, without massive injections of parental blabbering about the triumph of Barack Obama...and that's not to denigrate the achievement of the first half-white, "large" percentage of Arab, and a lesser percentage of African DNA, President of the United States.
Video Larry King
Go here for more.

Arrogant Obama: The Man with the Power Over Life and Death

For the Catholics who voted for Obama to end the war and revive the economy on the backs of higher income taxpayers, you must now deal with Obama's support of abortion - and almost unfettered abortion at that. Video below. Leading up to the November election, we watched as Obama supporters whipped themselves into a frenzy of adoration: believing every word he said, embracing every word NOT uttered, ignoring everything we knew we didn't know and feared, and expecting absolutely nothing from the media. The world wanted Barack Obama to be President of the World and he was willing. Two days after Obama's second swearing-in, he struck down the eight-year-restriction banning American funds facilitating abortions overseas. To be clear: American taxpayer monies can now be distributed to overseas family planning organizations to be used for, among other things, abortions. We have moved to that dark place where pro-abortionist Americans see abortion as a Humans Rights issue...and not in favor of the child, but as abolishing "deaths and injuries of countless women and girls." The Mexico City Policy, sometimes known as the Global Gag Rule, is gone. President Ronald Reagan set the Policy (the ban) into motion in 1984. Bill Clinton overturned it. George W. Bush restored it in 1993. A senior Vatican official, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, says that the "road to disappointment [with Obama et al] will be short. The Archbishop put it this way:

What is important is to know how to listen... without locking oneself into ideological visions with the arrogance of a person who, having the power, thinks they can decide on life and death...
Let's face it, in this case Barack Obama does have the power to snuff out life all over the glove. What can be more important than granting a President the power over life or death? Fisichella laments:
I do not believe that those who voted for him took into consideration ethical themes, which were astutely left aside during the election debate. The majority of the American population does not take the same position as the president and his team
Gallup polled voting Catholic Hispanics in America just prior to the November election. By 65 percent, Hispanic Catholics chose Obama. The Vatican's message is not getting through, it seems. Is it possible that a majority of Catholics no longer believe that abortion is wrong?
Video Some American Plain Talk
Thanks to YouTube Related Reading: Barack Obama Abortion Policy

©2007-2012copyrightMaggie M. Thornton