Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘terrorism’

GALLUP POLL – YOU MEAN PEOPLE ACTUALLY WORRY ABOUT THE DEBT? AND TERRORISM?

Posted by Andrew Roman on June 11, 2010

We should fear large corporations – those soulless, money-hungry rapists of all that is decent, upstanding and pure, those bastards.

We should recognize that discrimination against minority groups is not only a major problem in this country, but that it could very well be the single most destructive force in America today.

We should understand that the very existence of humanity hangs in the balance due to the perils of global warming and environmental-health ignorance.

And we had better be willing to admit that the ungoing battles against overseas contingency brigades in Afghanistan and Iraq are tearing this nation apart.

Or should we?

According to a Gallup poll, these four topics come in dead last (out of ten) on the list of things Americans fear today.

From The Foundry, via the Say Anything blog:

“How serious of a threat to the future of the United States do you consider the following…” The results are clear: Americans judge the national debt on par with terrorism as the top threat facing the nation. Further, independents – a crucial constituency during an election year – believe the debt to be the single most threatening issue facing the country, even topping terrorism.

A quick analysis of the numbers reveals why the public is alarmed. Today debt held by the public stands at approximately $8.6 trillion, up from around $7.5 trillion less than a year ago. Over the past 30 years, debt held by the public has averaged about 39.4 percent of gross domestic product, and last year stood at 53 percent, the highest since 1955. Unfortunately, instead of taking swift actions to address the worsening problem, Congress and the White House have chosen to double down on the unrestrained spending policies of the past. Obama’s budget (the only budget available because Congressional Democrats refuse to draft one this year) sees debt held by the public hitting 90 percent of GDP by 2020.

 

What would the percentage have been had one of the choices been “Barack Obama?”

Or Michelle Obama’s belt collection?
wordpress statistics

Advertisements

Posted in Polls | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

NEWSWEEK ASKS: DOES KILLING TERRORISTS PREVENT TERRORISM?

Posted by Andrew Roman on June 4, 2010

At times, I still find myself surprised by some of the things I come across. For instance, did you know that Newsweek magazine is still around?

Who knew?

I thought they went the way of hoop skirts and coherent liberals. I couldn’t believe Newsweek still had a pulse. And it didn’t take long to discover that they are still as vapid as they ever were.

Take a recent article posted at their blog, “The Gaggle.”

The headline alone speaks for itself.

Does Killing Terrorists Actually Prevent Terrorism?

As tempting as it is to pull that plum off the tree and woof it down, the real fruit of the post in inside.

Chasing terrorists in Waziristan with missiles clearly is not going to end, or definitively win, the “War on Terrorism,” and whether we should think about a diplomatic rapprochement with these groups instead of fighting an endless war with them is a legitimate question. If the U.S. could avoid war with the Soviet Union, a.k.a. the “Evil Empire,” why not Al Qaeda or the Taliban?

To begin with, the headline asks the wrong question.

Killing terrorists clearly – definitionally – prevents terrorism. But it doesn’t prevent all terrorism. No one ever said it did. And the fact that all terrorists will not be eliminated by this country’s continuing efforts to wipe out as many of these thugs as possible doesn’t mean that it’s time to scrap that approach and invite Al Qaeda to lunch for a heaping helping of falafel and tea.

Should the police quit doing their job because there will always be criminals? Should law enforcement sit down and try to come to mutual understandings with child rapists and cold-blooded murderers?

We continue to fight the war – on all fronts – because we must. And that includes killing as many of the enemy as possible.

That’s because the only way to stop those who idealize and pray for death is to give them exactly what they want before they can take any innocents with them.

Second, the United States avoided direct war with the Soviet Union because the Reds did not crave death as do the followers of radical Islam. The USSR was not a suicidal regime. The Soviets truly wanted to expand their evil empire and sphere of influence. They were a genuine nation with borders, a constitution, a standing army and a leader. And they believed that an all out nuclear war with United States would result in mutually assured destruction. They certainly didn’t want that. They wanted to survive; not find ways to make it to the afterlife for a cabana full of virgins.

Third, whereas throughout all of human existence nations who have been defeated in war surrender to the victor, the current battle against Islamo-fascism is unlike any we have ever fought. There is no nation of Islamo-Fascist-Land with defined borders, a constitution and a standing uniformed army who will wave a white flag when handed a major military setback (like the killing of a terrorist leader). Islamo-facists exist in all countries. They live in caves as well as inner-cities. They exist in terrorist training camps and among us. They can be our neighbors or those charged to defend this country. They fight on the battlefield and shelter themselves in civilian neighborhoods. They target innocents and do not compromise. And because they don’t fear death – they revere it – they have an advantage no enemy of the United States has ever had.

That anyone can honestly ask the question, given the endless amount of examples of the nature of Islamo-terrorism, why Al Qaeda and the Taliban cannot be reasoned with is still astounding.

Astounding.

 

wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, Media, Media Bias, Values, War on Terror | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

THE TAVIS SMILEY THING – CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS

Posted by Andrew Roman on June 1, 2010

Tavis Smiley

Ask a liberal this question: If a black man commits a crime, is he, by default, doing so in the name of his blackness? Assuming the criminal did not specifically designate the crime as such, is it fair, or accurate, to say it was a “black” crime, perpetrated in the name of being black?

If a woman commits a crime, is she, by default, doing so in the name of her sex? By virtue of the fact that she is a woman, does it mean that the wrongs she does are automatically assumed to be enacted in the name of her genetalia?

On both counts, it would be a ridiculous assumption … unless evidence supports the claim.

If, for instance, person A (a black man) walks into a convenience store, blows five people away and shouts, “I dole out this justice in the name of my black skin!” can one reasonably assume that the crime was committed in the name of his blackness? Certainly, in his mind, it was … hence, the proclaimation. And what if it is discovered through subsequent investigation that he possessed anti-white literature and posted frequently at militant black-power websites and blogs? Would it then be safe to assume he did so in the name of his blackness?

And what if, person B (a black man) walks into a convenience store, blows five people away and says absolutely nothing about skin color and makes no overt references to the melanin in his skin? Can one conclude the crime was also committed in the name of his skin color? And if ensuing investigations reveal a person who did not involve himself in racially charged activities and did not post at black power blogs, should we still infer he did what he did in the name of being black?

What does the evidence show?

(On a side note, I am vehemently opposed to hate-crime legislation and all the silly post-it-note classifications that liberals attach to crimes. The action is either a crime or it isn’t. The mother of a slain daughter will not feel any better knowing that her baby was murdered by a non-bigot. It’s a matter of values.)

In this country, the overwhelming vast majority of people are Christian.

Does that mean that crimes committed in this country by Christians are necessarily to be considered Christian crimes, even when perpetrator has made no mention of faith and has not referenced his or her faith in the undertaking of the act?

PBS’s Tavis Smiley, an intelligent man by all accounts – and a card-carrying, hard-core liberal – seems to be a tad confused on the matter.

During a recent television interview with Ayann Hirsi-Ali, a Somalian-born Dutch activist and politician who is openly critical of Islam, Smiley broke out his trusted “moral equivelancy” card in discussing the dangers and threats Americans face on a daily basis from radical Christians.

The exchange went like this:

AYANN HIRSI-ALI: The people who were engaged in terrorist activities look like you and me. They look like everyone else here. Major Nidal Hasan, the military guy who, in November, shot thirteen of his colleagues and injured thirty-two – he’s going to be on trial pretty soon, I think this week – (and) the young man, Faisal Shahzad, in Times square, who tried to blow innocent people that he doesn’t know up, these guys are acting on conviction. Somehow, the idea got into their minds that to kill other people is a great thing to do and that they would be rewarded in the heaeafter.

SMILEY: But Christians do that every single day in this country.

AYANN HIRSI-ALI: Do they blow people up-

SMILEY: Yes, Christians, every day – people walk into post offices, they walk into schools … That’s what Columbine was. I mean, I could do this all day long. There are so many more examples of Christians — and I happen to be a Christian, that’s back to this notion of your idealizing Christianity in my mind, to my read — there are so many more examples, Ayaan, of Christians who do that than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country in which you live and work.

One can only find themselves detached from reality in this way if they are on the left. It is because of Smiley’s leftism that he can say such a thing … and absolutely believe it. (See Attorney General Eric Holder’s unwillingness to admit that radical Islam could be – I say, could be –  a factor in recent domestic terrorist attacks and attempted attacks: “I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion.”)

To begin with, since the beginning of 2006, there have been two post office shootings in the United States, both of which occurred that year.

As horrible as these crimes were, neither of them – nor any of the nearly 40 post office incidents that have occured since 1986 in the United States – were done in the name of Jesus Christ.

School shootings, such as the murderous rampage at Columbine High School, were also not undertaken in the name of Jesus. Rather, these were perpetrated by those who wholly rejected the Christian faith.

The threat of terrorism that exists to the American people by Christians who do so in the name of Jesus Christ is nonexistent. The number of terrorist attacks that have taken place on American soil – or anywhere for that matter – in the name of Christianity is equally quantifiable.

John at the Verum Serum blog writes:

But even if a church-goer gets angry and shoots his landlord today, that’s not at all what Hirsi-Ali was talking about. She’s talking about religiously motivated violence. And when you get to this category, you can bring up the murder of Dr. Tiller, Dr. Slepian and Dr. Britton. Those murders are arguably religiously motivated. But that’s three incidents in 12 years, four if you include Eric Rudolph. And as already noted, that’s compared to three incidents of attempted mass murder (successful in once case) by jihadist in just the last six months.

Has it officially been ruled out that the Times Square bomber was jilted by a girlfriend? Or that he was dissatisfied with Barack Obama’s health care reform bill?

As talk show host Dennis Prager says: “Leftism deprives you of wisdom because it creates a world in which you cannot see clearly.”

wordpress statistics

Posted in terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

AS LONG AS YOU CAN USE THE WORD “TERRORISM” AND “TEA PARTY” IN THE SAME CONVERSATION …

Posted by Andrew Roman on April 21, 2010

Friedn to conservatism, columnsit Kathleen Parker

I suppose the Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker is considered one of those mainstream-media-friendly “sensible” conservatives – the kind that doesn’t reflexively fall back on all of that “Constitution” and “Founding Fathers” stuff like many of the hate-peddlers that populate the right.

She isn’t scary like the throngs of sign-carrying tea-partiers who keep the shivering libs constantly having to unravel the knots in their collective panties.

She’s like David Frumm with big blue pearls – almost cuddly.

She poses no real threat.

She is one of those “reasonable” center-right voices that the mainstream media news outfits can summon when needed so they can say, “Of course we’re balanced. Of course we present both sides. We had Kathleen Parker talking with Bob Schieffer just the other day.”

Parker, indeed, may be one of those folks you’d love to split a knish with, but she doesn’t speak for conservatives or conservatism.

She is one of those tepid, non-wave-making, clever wordsmiths who believes it is a grave mistake for the Republican Party to espouse tried and true conservative principals. Such a strategy, according to her right-light way of thinking, would be alienating to too many. All of that ‘Declaration of Independence” stuff, and the whole thing with the guns and the Second Amendment, and always bringing up the Constitution and the Framers, and that God mumbo-jumbo … it’s just too much. To the Kathleen Parkers of the world, a shift toward the center is the way to draw the masses into the big tent of a mushier and more pliable GOP – as John McCain successfully proved in November, 2008.

*cough*

Speaking with Bob Schieffer on CBS’s Face The Nation on Sunday, the following exchange took place:

SCHIEFFER: And you write this morning about some of the rhetoric that’s coming out from the right side, especially from the tea party, and you point out that you think it may be dangerous.

PARKER: Well, I think we have to be cautious. I’m not saying that the tea partiers are bad people or dangerous, but I think that the zeitgeist now – with all this heated rhetoric, and some of these words that are pretty loaded: “reload,” “targeting,” all that sort of thing – you know, there’s a danger there. I just think we have to be very vigilant. I do think there’s a lot of anger and it could become something else.

SCHIEFFER: I saw some of this really nasty rhetoric that shows up on the internet, where you don’t know who said it. There really is no accountability – the internet being the only place, the only vehicle that will deliver news that has no editor.

PARKER: It’s sort of like terrorism. You know, we don’t know where to aim our bombs, and we can’t go after a country because there’s no one place to focus on it, and it’s the same thing with the internet. You don’t know who to go after.

(see the video, direct from Newsbusters.org here)

Where to begin?

First of all, it might help if Parker stopped sounding like a typical, off-the-rack, inconsistent, speak-before-you-think liberal. (Unless, of course, she secretly is one).

Talking about the tea partiers, she told Bob Schieffer “there’s a danger there.” Yet, she insisted she was not calling tea partiers dangerous.

Huh?

Tea-partiers who, in her mind, pose a potential threat would have to be, by definition, “dangerous.” She cannot have it both ways. One cannot say that the tea partiers are not dangerous and then, in the next sentence, say that there is a danger there. It’s like voting for something before voting against it. It nothing but mushy-in-the-middle RINO-like double-speak. If, indeed, the tea parties could evolve into “something else,” as Parker believes, then the participants must be dangerous.

Second, Americans are angry. They should be. They see the freest, most accommodating nation the world has ever known – the beacon of liberty for the entire world – being transformed into a Marxist-flavored nanny-state. They see those things that have made the United States the greatest country ever to grace God’s green earth being beat down by big-government-loving leftists who spit on the free market and have contempt for rugged individualism.

What’s not to be angry about?

But being angry doesn’t mean violence is the inevitable next step, does it? What indications are there that the kind of “danger” Parker fears lurks ahead?

Has Parker actually been to any of these rallies? Has she seen the people who attend these events? Has she noticed how well-behaved and civil these gatherings have been? Has she taken note of the lack of violence and ugliness at these tea parties?

The tea parties, in fact, have been peaceful gatherings in the true spirit of the First Amendment. The tea-partiers even clean up after themselves – something that Inaugural Day attendees didn’t bother doing when The One was anointed fifteen months ago.

Have the tea parties, in any way, shape or form resembled the anti-war demonstrations of the Bush years? Have there been arrests and violence connected to the tea-parties akin to, say, the “Bush=Hitler” protests that we saw during the “W” era? Where are the books written by tea partiers that depict the assassination of Barack Obama? What conservative think tanks or organizations have sent out memos wishing for the death of a Democrat governor, as was done with New Jersey’s Republican Governor Christie by that state’s liberal teacher’s union? What conservative groups have had members chain themselves to the fence of the White House, as did some “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” protestors recently? What Republican presidents have had comedians wish for the death of liberal commentators at official functions?

It's called legitimate dissent, Kathleen

Third, does Parker really want to say that posting nasty rhetoric on the internet is somehow similar to perpetrating a terrorist act? Is that the best a so-called conservative columnist can come up with who wishes to appease her mainstream media overlords? Is that what it takes to keep those invitations to the most important cocktail parties in Washington coming? Using the word “terrorist” and “tea partier” in the same stream of thought?

I’m curious …

Did Bob Schieffer ever question Frank Rich or Paul Krugman on “nasty rhetoric” when the internet was rife with “Die Rush Limbaugh” posts after Rush was taken to the hospital several weeks ago? Did the “I hope Dick Cheney gets cancer” blog entries, or the “Put Bush out of this nation’s misery” posts somehow elude the ever-vigilant Bob Schieffer? Were the swastikas too small on the protest signs for Schieffer and Crew to notice as the anti-war left succumbed to their Bush Derangemnt Syndrome?

To be fair, I don’t think anyone would disagree that anonimity is a powerful badge of courage in the cyber world. A large percentage of what we all see and read on the web simply would not be out there if a name and town were attached to everything that was written. And that goes for commentary on both sides of the aisle.

That being said, Parker’s language is disconcerting.

In agreeing with Bob Schieffer, she said it was difficult to know who is behind the anti-Obama rhetoric because “you don’t know who to go after.”

“Go after?”

Now that sounds dangerous.

_________________________________________

H/T to the great Weasel Zippers blog.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Media Bias, Tea Party | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

EX-CON CONVERTS: YEMEN, HERE WE COME!

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2010

From the “Fancy That” file …

The religion of peace is wrapping its ever-loving, all-inclusive arms around the dregs of American society and inviting them to blow up infidels. According to a new Senate report, it turns out that a number of ex-convicts who saw the light and converted to Islam while behind bars in American prisons have made the most out of their post-incarceration lives by going to Yemen and trying to become new Al Qaeda team members.

(But don’t think it necessarily has anything to do with Islam).

Richard Sisk of the New York Daily News writes:

The focus on ex-cons was part of an intensified effort by Al Qaeda to involve Americans who could more easily slip through security and pose a “significant threat” to carry out attacks in the U.S., said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

“These Americans are not necessarily of Arab or South Asian descent” but “include individuals who converted to Islam in prison,” Kerry said in a foreword to the report by his committee.

As many as 36 of the ex-cons, nearly half from New York, were believed to be in Yemen, and U.S. counterterror officials were on “heightened alert because of the potential threat from extremists carrying American passports,” the report said.

The FBI and CIA were also concerned about a separate group of fewer than 10 Americans without criminal records who went to Yemen, converted to Islam and married Yemeni women to be allowed to remain in the country.

The report quoted a U.S. official who described the smaller group as “blond-haired, blue eyed-types” who fit the profile of Americans wanted by Al Qaeda for terror missions.

So Al Qaeda is racially profiling?

Bastards!

Most interesting (and painfully typical of those who live in Leftsville) is this post from a blogger at the Daily News website called hjo4:

When you keep people disenfranchised, placing them in prison, the only (thing) that’s being done is that we’re creating Home grown terrorist. I often wondered what would America’s reaction be when her own citizens became suicide bombers, I guess we’ll find out.

So, according to hjo4, imprisoning people – which disenfranchises them – transforms these individuals into home-grown terrorists.

In short, we are to blame.

We keep people disenfranchised.

By coming down hard on larcenists, thieves and embezzlers, we alienate them. By laying down the law with child abusers, sexual deviants and violent miscreants, we make felons feel terrible about themselves. By throwing murderers and rapists behind bars, we shackle the souls within.

Where has the self-esteem inside our nation’s prisons gone?

This is one reason why the closing of Guantanamo Bay won’t be happening anytime soon, despite President Obama’s waffle-in-the-sky dreams of eradicating everything George W. Bush.

Real life has a way of intruding on the dreams of even the most idealistic water walkers.

But it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Islam. What about all of those abortion clinic bombers?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East, national security, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

ENOUGH WITH THE “GITMO IS A RECRUITING TOOL” CRAP

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 6, 2010

Yesterday, the President of the United States once again blamed the existence of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for boosting Al Qaeda recruitment.

It is a devastatingly idiotic contention that makes him – and this nation – look stupid and anemic.

At the risk of coming across as an aimless bomb thrower and smear merchant, I truly have to believe that Barack Obama and his senses are no longer on a first-name basis. Despite rumors to the contrary, his ability to dabble in coherence appears to be nonexistent, almost mythical.

I sincerely mean that.

To listen to him say anything anymore is both exasperating and frustrating. With each syllable that bounces out of his pie hole, he embarrasses himself and weakens my country. With the world watching – and with America’s enemies feeling as if they’ve been left the keys to daddy’s Porsche – Barack Obama continues to master the art of clueless charisma, showcasing his inability (or unwillingness) to grasp the real world, reprimanding his own country for the creation of terrorists elsewhere.

It’s not about the bad values or evil deeds of our enemies, because Lord knows if this country only gave in a little bit more, peace could actually become a reality.

No, it’s Gitmo’s fault – which translates into being George W. Bush’s fault – that the “underwear terrorist” was this close to carrying out his mission.

I assure you, I derive no great pleasure in saying that, as a Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama has earned a photograph next to the enty for “mortifying” in the Encyclopedia Do-Nothinga.

It’s as if the realities of terrorism have been annoyances to Obama, drawing attention away from his real work, temporarily derailing his Messianic train, throwing a monkey wrench into his Messianic machine, messing up his great Messianic plan. Such inconveniences, such pests these terrorists are.

As soon as he started talking yesterday, the stomach juices started gurgling in anger. My left eye began to jump.

How on Earth can the President look at his teleprompter with a straight face and effectively bend over like the noodleheaded wartime leader he is, grabbing his ankles for the throat-cutters and suicide bombers of radical Islam, and make the imbecilic claim that Gitmo’s existence is a “recruiting tool?”

How exactly?

This is an explanation I, for one, would love to hear.

Terrorist A: “Hold on, Mohammed. They’re going to be closing that Guantanamo Bay prison.”

Terrorist B: “Praise Allah. Do you think I can get my money back on these pipes, nails and fertilizer?”

Why the hell do liberals think they have the ability to transcend the space-time continuum and make terrorists see the evil of their ways and repent?

Wasn’t the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia a “recruiting tool” as well, according to Osama Bin Ladin?

How did that withdrawal work out for us?

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, Osama Bin Ladin issued a statement in which he specifically blamed the existence of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay for an increase in the number of recruits into the ranks of Al Qaeda. And let’s say that the Yemeni division of Al Qaeda came out with their own statement saying that because of Gitmo, they’re recruitment numbers are up eighty-seven percent in the last twelve months. And what if Al Jazeera hosted a round table of Al Qaeda terror cell representatives from sixteen nations, and among the resolutions agreed upon is one that says recruitment increases among aspiring terrorists are directly attributable to the existence of Guantanamo Bay? And what if a petition that read, “You are right, President Obama … Gitmo has been our greatest recruiting tool. Love, Al Qaeda” undersigned by twenty million terrorists were presented to the Commander-in-Chief, notarized and framed?

Even if all of those things actually happened – and even if Al Qaeda opened up a recruiting office in the heart of Times Square with posters all over the windows and doors saying, “Thank you, Gitmo!” – so what?

Who cares?

What difference should it make?

Does the United States now take its cues from the enemy?

Apparently so, because the sad reality is, the President of the United States is closing Gitmo because it agitates the terrorists.

And he is not kidding.

Welcome to “hope and change” national security.

what is with the big belt, Mrs. Obama?

One can only guess the Obamacratic response if, for instance, Al Qaeda claimed tomorrow that US battleships on the open seas are provoking them to murderous actions. Or that American aircraft carriers are making their otherwise disaffected males jump up to join the ranks of the terrorist class. What if they said they were angered because we don’t do enough in this country to make Ramadan more prominent? Or that MTV drives them to slaughter infidels? Will an emergency session of President Obama’s Cabinet be called to discuss “toning things down a bit” so we aren’t so provocative?

Does the United States now take into consideration that which may or may not offend those who are at war with her?

Seriously, since when does the President of the United States concern himself with the feelings, sensitivities and concerns of Al Qaeda? Since when does the President of the United States have the audacity to blame his own nation for the actions of those sworn to slaughter innocent Americans? Since when does this country acquiesce to the butchers who would slice the throats of our President’s daughters if given the chance?

Honestly, I don’t get it.

What happens once Gitmo closes? Does Al Qaeda finally calm down a bit? Like they did after American troops withdrew from Saudi Arabia?

And if Al Qaeda announced that NBA basketball caused recruitment to jump, would the President suspend play? If the terrorists said that Rachel Maddow was to blame for the boost in new recruits, would he move to have Rachel taken off the air? And what if Osama Bin Ladin said that Michelle Obama’s big black waist belts were to blame for Al Qaeda recruitment increases, would Bammy lay down the law and tell his wife she couldn’t wear them anymore?

Hmmm..

On second thought …

One last question … if the closing of Guantanamo Bay was so critical to national security, as professed by Obamacrats across the board, shouldn’t it have been closed immediately?

As it stands now, it could be two years (or more) before it actually shuts down. That’s a long time to compromise the security of the country.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Afghanistan, Evil, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, leftism, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

SOME QUICK THOUGHTS ON OBAMA AND WEAKNESS

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 30, 2009

I'm the President of the United States. See how I can bow?

If ever a President looked and sounded as detached, disconnected and disinterested in the events of the day as Barack Obama, I’m not aware of it. Jimmy Carter, for instance, never behaved as if the things he had to contend with were an annoyance, as Barack Obama does. He was simply an extraordinarily incompetent man who made appalling decisions. (And an anti-Semite to boot).

Bill Clinton, too, never made it seem like everything on his plate was as much of an inconvenience as Bammy does. While Slick Willie could charm the trousers off his frothing admirers, President Obama famously dismisses things in that eye-rolling, I’m-far-too-superior-for-this-kind-of-crap way that has become all too familiar. Obama always looks like he’d rather be talking about himself or nibbling on a waffle than tending to the real business of America.

For example, it was quite nice of the President to find the time, before hitting the links, to denounce the recent violence in Iran. For that, he gets a “credit where credit is due” sticker for his notebook. But he looked as if he had a thumbtack poking him in the roof of his mouth, or that he was wearing an over-starched pair of shorts. His apathy – body language, tone and overall demeanor – was as conspicuous as a piece of breakfast potato caught in Michael Moore’s beard. He didn’t even bother to wear a tie, looking as if he hastily grabbed the shirt Michelle had thrown over the top of the chair before he hit the podium.

Two days ago, in his initial statement after the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack, Barack Obama was as weak and pathetic as he has been at any time during his presidency. His response was, to say the least, frail and bungled; and in the aftermath of a terrorist attack that was essentially a success until the very last moment, seeing and hearing the leader of the free world sound as if the keystone cops wrote his remarks was feebleness at its finest. Within a half-hour of saying how “we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable,” he was teeing off at the Luana Hills Country Club.

Obama called the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack an “isolated incident.” His Homeland Security Chief said the “system worked.” Not once in his response did the President have the courage to identify radical Islam as the enemy. Never did the President use the word “terrorist.” Never did he summon the strength or show the necessary leadership in defining the evil that threatens America, as Ronald Reagan did when he called the “evil empire” exactly what it was.

These things matter.

It is simply not possible to develop a strategy against the enemy if one is not willing to identify it and understand it.

Oh yeah … yesterday, the President tried again, making another statement regarding the terror plot. Call it, “take two.” It was better than his first performance, but nothing more than a slice of “too little, too late.”

Leadership, thy name is Obama.

William McGurn, in a column published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, called Obama Puts the Dis in Dissonance,” writes:

Here’s a timely New Year’s resolution the president might do well to deliver to his National Security Council: “When it comes to nasty regimes that brutalize their people, we will never again forget that the most powerful weapon in a president’s arsenal is a White House photo-op.”

The December headlines remind us that we have no shortage of these nasty regimes. In China, the government sentences Liu Xiaobo to 11 years in prison for writing a letter calling for legal and political reforms. In Iran, security forces fire on citizens marching in the streets. In Cuba, pro-government goons intimidate a group of wives, mothers and sisters of jailed dissidents—with President Raul Castro characterizing these bullies as “people willing to protect, at any price, the conquests of the revolution.”

In all these cases, the cry goes up: Where is the president of the United States?

For a man whose whole appeal has been wrapped in powerful imagery, President Obama appears strikingly obtuse about the symbolism of his own actions … With every statement not backed up by action, with every refusal to meet a leader such as the Dalai Lama, with every handshake for a Chavez, Mr. Obama is defining himself to foreign leaders who are sizing him up and have only one question in mind: How much can we get away with?

All of that overseas apologizing for America has had an effect. Each and every bow to a foreign head of state (e.g., the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan) has had an impact. All of that coddling of America’s enemies does matter. All of the nose-thumbing at friends and allies does make a difference.

The world does pay attention.

These are the snapshots of Obama’s first year that will be forever burned in the brains of people across the globe, friends and enemies alike.

Weakness.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Foreign Policy, Islam, leftism, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

MAYBE THE UNDERWEAR BOMBER WAS LONELY

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 29, 2009

Indeed, this is sad.

I’m not suggesting that anyone in the mainstream media would ever claim that it is in any way acceptable to blow up nearly three-hundred innocents in an airplane with a crotch bomb. I’m not saying that Western journalists would ever condone stuffing one’s shorts with a groin blaster for the purposes of detonating it on a commercial aircraft. After all, even those who live left of center have to acknowledge that a terrorist is a terrorist, right? (Unless, of course, he is a freedom fighter, a Muslim holy warrior, or a jihadist). There are some, however, who may not be so quick to refer to the “Ding-A-Ling-Bomber” as the cold-blooded killer he is without trying to understand what drove him to commit the terrorist act he was about 85% successful in executing on Christmas Day.

You see, in the minds of those charged with reporting the news, it’s too simplistic – too monolithic – to suggest that Islam played the prominent role in this man’s evil deed.

It’s a dangerous trend. Americans are guaranteed to hear words like “alleged” and “suspected” long before they hear “terrorist.”

Think back to the Fort Hood terror attack. 

Recall how everything other than Islam was bandied about as the possible motivation behind the murder of thirteen innocents.

It’s no different this time.

It could have been anything that drove Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to his radical undertaking on Flight 253 four days ago.

Was he lonely, perhaps? Could this have been the trigger?

Jon Gambrell of the Associated Press says it appears that way:

Internet postings purportedly written by a Nigerian charged with trying to bomb a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day suggest a fervently religious and lonely young man who fantasized about becoming a Muslim holy warrior.

Throughout more than 300 posts, a user named “Farouk1986” reflects on a growing alienation from his family, his shame over sexual urges and his hopes that a “great jihad” will take place across the world.

Those posts, beginning in 2005, show a teenager looking for a new life outside his boarding school and wealthy Nigerian family.

Most of all, they paint a portrait of someone who seems lost and needs someone to hear him.

After reading that, I can’t help but blame the non-Islamic portion of the planet for what Abdulmutallab did .

After all, it takes a village to build a terrorist.

Why couldn’t someone – anyone – take time out of his or her busy life to simply hear him? I’m sure he was a great guy otherwise. (Where’s Dr. Phil when you need him?)

If only there were more licensed therapists assigned to terror cells, perhaps through a central planning office, people like Abdulmutallab wouldn’t have felt so isolated, so alone, so prone to mass murdering people on a plane with an underwear bomb.

People think it’s all virgins and salvation, but it’s no picnic being a terrorist.

In another posting, Farouk1986 describes how alone he feels and acknowledges feeling lust, chastising himself for not lowering his gaze around unveiled women. At another point, he warns how “the hair of a woman can easily arouse a man.” He writes that he was considering getting married at 18, as his family “could help me financially.” Abdulmutallab’s father is a prominent Nigerian banker, but nothing apparently came of his marriage wishes.

No wonder he brought an underpants blaster onto an America-bound airplane. It all makes sense now.

*cough*

I need to stop being so amazed at the level of inanity that exists in so many of the things I read.

Honestly, why in hell is this AP story necessary?

What is its purpose?

To make human excrement more palatable? To take us on a fascinating journey into the mind of a murderous thug? To tug on our heart strings?

And where is the word “terrorist” in this story?

Just asking.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Media Bias, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

OH YEAH … AND THERE WERE NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ BEFORE WE GOT THERE

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 29, 2009

CNN's Rick Sanchez

From the “If I Say It Enough, It Will Magically Become True” file …

Perhaps more germane than the age-old question, “How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie-roll center of a tootsie pop?” is the ever-perplexing, “How many times does one have to say something before it becomes true?”

Admittedly, it isn’t easy adding ingredients to the stew of conventional wisdom, but once they hit the pot, it is nearly impossible to flush them out.

These days, a compliant media complex is essential in giving credence to falsehoods, frauds and other fairy tales. (See “Global Warming.”)

Mike Bates at NewsBusters reports on a delicious quote from CNN’s Rick Sanchez illustrating this point. Sanchez was speaking with Octavia Nasr, CNN senior editor for Arab Affairs, about terrorism.

Nasr was commenting on how much of a “hot zone” the border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia is. She talked about how the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack on Northwest Flight 253 was a response to what terrorists believe is ongoing United States assistance to the Yemeni government in fighting Al Qaeda and the Houthis.

Rich Sanchez, in his most matter-of-fact demeanor, seized the opportunity to reinforce his “article of faith”:

SANCHEZ: And good, good, good, good, good, good. You see, this is a point that I’m trying to make, Octavia.

The terrorists weren’t in Iraq. We know that now. There was really a small band of them along with the mujahedeen which became al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as we know. But we have known for 10 years now that these really bad terrorists, the guys we really should have been going after a long time ago, are in Yemen. We knew that a long time ago.

So, the fact that we are now seemingly or the U.S. government seemingly now is putting an emphasis on there and that some of these folks are mad at us for putting an emphasis there, I can’t help but see that finally as the United States maybe going militarily in the right direction in this war on terror.

NASR: You’re right about al Qaeda being everywhere, Rick. It’s very true.

Let’s think about what Sanchez is saying here. (It is the default position of the vast majority of the mainstream media).

His claim is the nation of Iraq, headed by the murderous dictator, Saddam Hussein, was essentially a terrorist-free zone until the United States came along. Terrorism existed in every corner of the world except Iraq. Hussein was minding his own business, bothering no one, until the war mongers from the West swooped in to turn that nation into a terrorist breeding ground. Iraq was a wonderland of fuzzy bunnies, swaying daisies and frolicking kittens until Uncle Sam’s baby-killing machine came a-callin’. If not for the United States, the nation of Iraq would have been free to pursue a life of peace and religious fulfillment.

The problem with the Sanchez argument is … there is not a stitch of evidence anywhere to suggest that Iraq was not a terrorist state. The evidence is overwhelming that Iraq was a steadfast supporter of terrorist activity and a protector of terrorist groups.

Bates quotes from the Clinton State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism 1999 report:

Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused primarily on the anti-regime opposition both at home and abroad, it continued to provide safehaven and support to various terrorist groups. . .

Iraq continued to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front(ALF), and the former head of the now defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of US aircraft. Iraq provided bases, weapons, and protection to the MEK, an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. In 1999, MEK cadre based in Iraq assassinated or attempted to assassinate several high-ranking Iranian Government officials, including Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, Deputy Chief of Iran’s Joint Staff, who was killed in Tehran on 10 April.

Let’s not forget every Democrat who went on record declaring Hussein’s Iraq as a genuine threat:

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” -President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” – Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” – Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

The invasion happened because following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Iraq was considered, at the time, by almost everyone on both sides of the political aisle, to be the greatest threat to national security as well as to peace in the Middle East and around the world. There is simply no doubt that Saddam Hussein was linked to a host of terrorist organizations. His nation was an undeniable sponsor of terrorism. How could any of that be ignored?

This is not to say that he or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. No one has ever made such a claim. It was never the position of the Bush administration. But this was a country that violated seventeen UN resolutions. It was a country that had used weapons of mass destruction before. It was a country that repeatedly fired upon American military aircraft. It was a country that had already harbored known terrorists. On those grounds alone, an attack was completely justified.

Think of all things that didn’t work up to that point (the crown jewels of the liberal foreign policy playbook): negotiations, no-fly zones, UN sanctions, pat-a-cake, etc.

The United States no longer had the luxury of simply reacting to Saddam Hussein. Iraq was a nation deemed by both Republicans and Democrats to be a genuine threat – and rightly so. President Bush could not just sit idly by and wait. He warned Hussein. He gave Hussein opportunity after opportunity to comply with the UN resolutions. Hussein scoffed. America took action.

No Commander-In-Chief worth his weight in gold, with his nation at war, presented with the very same intelligence and evidence President Bush was, could do nothing.

President Bush was smart enough to realize that “safe haven” was not just an Afghani phenomenon.

Six years later, our success in Iraq has, indeed, made America safer.

(H/T to Weasel Zippers)

wordpress statistics

Posted in 9/11, Iraq, Media Bias, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

BLAME BUSH, TAKE ONE-MILLION

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 28, 2009

It’s always an adventure of sorts to try and make some semblance of sense out of liberal thinking. Whether one finds himself (or herself) genuinely fascinated at the childlike cognitions that underlie liberal idealism, or aggravated at the disgustingly simplistic – and often destructive – “stage-one” notions that define modern liberal thought, it is often too tedious and far too bumper-stickery to be considered seriously substantive.

Unfortunately for this country and lovers of liberty, Democrats are in power.

Therefore, modern liberal thought must be taken seriously … for now.

Liberals, for instance, were dead wrong about the War in Iraq – on every level. From the moment they decided it was politically expedient for them to be opposed to it, the wrong side of history was theirs for the keeping – a trend for libs. Despite the overwhelming majority of Democrats voting in favor of military action against Iraq, opposition to the war became their “default” position once the invasion began. (Remember, Dems weren’t opposed to Bush because of the war. They were against the war because of Bush).

Indeed, libs still nosh on the dusty nuggets that fill up their ever-stale snack platters, blaming “Bush’s War” on everything from starving children in America’s inner cities to post nasal drip.

The fact is, Democrats don’t want to remember how the post-9/11 climate in America demanded a nation as terrorist-friendly as Iraq – with a ruthless dictator constantly violating Gulf War resolutions and firing on American war planes – be taken down for repeated failures to comply to the terms of those resolutions. To this day, Dems call the Iraqi War pointless, saying Bush should never have gone in. But had a terrorist attack on America been planned from the ever-accomodating confines of Hussein’s Iraq – or if training camps for terrorists had been allowed to thrive there (like under the Taliban in Afghanistan) – given the intelligence at the time, President Bush would have been hung from the village square for doing nothing – and rightfully so.

It’s likely “Bush’s War” will continue to be the beacon of blame for every malady that will befall America in the foreseeable future. One won’t be able to swing a dead mongoose without hitting an Obamacrat finding some way to blame the current state of affairs on “Bush’s War.” From unemployment to terrorist threats, from migraine headaches to anal fissures, it will all be Bush’s fault.

It’s how they think.

It’s their “default” position.

Take, for example, this commentary from Deputy White House Press Secretary, Bill Burton, traveling with the President in Hawaii, as he “recapped” the Sunday talk shows:

Robert Gibbs and Secretary Napolitano made clear that we are pressing ahead with securing our nation against threats and our aggressive posture in the war with al Qaeda. We are winding down a war in Iraq that took our eye off of the terrorists that attacked us, and have dramatically increased our resources in Afghanistan and Pakistan where those terrorists are.

Right on cue – the obligatory Iraq refrence.

So, if I am to understand … it was the Iraq War that led to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day? America’s eye was “off the ball” because of George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq? Conditions were such that if there was no invasion of Iraq, Abdulmutallab would never have been able to board that plane with explosive materials?

Yeah, okay.

But it gets better.

On Sunday morning, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, “One thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked.” And yet, both she and Gibbs announced that the President has asked for all procedures and policies at the Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security be reviewed. Bush-era policies will, in effect, need to be dissected with a fine-tooth comb … but somehow, the system worked?

How could it have worked when it took passengers and members of the flight crew to thwart the attempted attack? And if it really did work, why the need to suddenly “review” everything?

The terrorist Abdulmutallab got on the plane, didn’t he? What worked exactly?

What are these people talking about?

Do they ever pull their heads out long enough to observe the happenings of the real world?

Again, note the instinct to laud themselves and blame everyone else. “It worked” because we are living in the Messianic Age. Whatever went wrong must be the fault of the other guy – the previous guy. Otherwise, all went quite well … even though a review of Bush-era implementations will be necessary … even though it worked … even though it will have to be looked at … even though it went like clockwork … blah, blah, blah..

Napolitano was forced to do an about-face this morning, admitting that after further review of the painfully obvious, the system actually did not work, saying, “”Here, clearly, something went awry. We want to fix that problem.”

Nothing escapes her.

Meanwhile, expect the “Blame Bush” brigades to keep it up. 

As [President Obama] said in West Point, we must put aside petty politics and recapture the unity that we had after 9/11.

Enough with the “unity” blather, okay? It is this administration that, at every turn, finds some way to place the blame for every blight and blemish on George W. Bush. No matter what the issue is, poor poor Obama constantly reminds the American people that he has been saddled with a host of inherited complications, so extensive and so problematic, that he may or may not be able to rectify them.

Convenient.

That’s how you get a B+. (Or an “A,” if you’re Arnold Schwarzenegger looking in).

wordpress statistics

 

Posted in terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

POWDER ON A PLANE – IT’S NOT PART OF A BROADER EFFORT, THEY SAY

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 26, 2009

Not that this necessarily has anything whatsoever to do with religion. It could be that he had a nasty headache. Maybe he was suffering from painful rectal itch. Perhaps a particularly aggressive strain of head lice was causing him a great deal of discomfort. It could be his chick told him that she just wanted to be friends. Who knows what possibilities will be explored by the ever-vigilant mainstream media as they report on Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the man who yesterday brought “a powdery substance” onto a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight and tried to ignite it.

To be perfectly fair, yesterday’s incident is being called “an attempted terrorist attack” by Washington lawmakers and the White House.

Wonders never cease.

From Fox News:

An airline passenger, who claimed to have ties to Al Qaeda, was subdued Friday after he tried to ignite a powdery substance just before landing in Detroit, sources told FOX News.

Reflecting the severity of the incident, a number of lawmakers were tracked down on Christmas Day to be briefed on the incident. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., House Minority Leader John Boehner and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, were among them.

Collins, ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, released a written statement questioning how the passenger was allowed on board and what the TSA can do to prevent such an incident from reoccurring.

It should be noted that the concerns of the entire nation were put to rest when it was announced that West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller – Democrat – Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, will hold some hearings next month.

(That”ll show those powder igniters!)

Meanwhile, Congressman Peter King from New York says Mutallab was on a terrorist connections list.

From The Hill:

The suspect in an alleged attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas was on a list “indicating significant terrorist connections,” Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said Friday.

King, the top Republican member of the House Homeland Security Committee, described the suspect in the attempted bombing of a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit as a 23-year-old Nigerian national with potential ties to al-Qaeda.

“He is a 23 year old Nigerian who is also – it’s been confirmed to me – while he was not on a no fly list, his name was on a list for having terrorist connections,” King said during an interview Christmas evening on CNN.

Keep in mind that just four days ago, the always-aggravating and never-interesting Congressman from Pennsylvania, John Murtha, said that he isn’t convinced that Al-Qaeda is a threat to this country.

An Obama administration official went on to say that he doesn’t believe yesterday’s incident was part of a “broader effort.”

Well, that’s a relief.

Thank God it isn’t a broader effort.

That would be … well, terrifying.

It’s much more reassuring – and far less menacing – when terrorist attacks occur as a continuous series of non-related “independent” incidents,  perpetrated by individuals or small groups tied together only by their evil perceptions of the tenets of one religion.

One has to wonder how many “individual” incidents have to occur before the brainpans who run things in Washington are willing to call the murderous actions of all islamo-fascists hell-bent on our destruction part of a “broader effort.”

Idiots.

wordpress statistics

Posted in terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

SEPARATING DEMS FROM THE ADULTS

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 18, 2009

Terrorists are coming to Illinois – yet one more shining example of why national security needs to be left to the grown-ups.

I’ve yet to hear an explanation as to how the United States is better off having these murderous thugs on American soil instead of in an off-shore detention facility. I’ve yet to hear a coherent argument as to how creating government jobs to man the Thomson Correctional Center (i.e., taking money out of the economy through taxation just to redistribute it back to others in the form of paychecks) is a plus for Illinois. How does granting Constitutional rights to terrorists help America? How is this country more secure with these examples of human excrement under lock and key in the American Midwest?

The American electorate knew (or certainly should have known) exactly what they were getting when they voted President Obama into office last year. The preponderance of evidence indicating that Obama was, indeed, a hard-core leftist was hard to miss. And yet, 52.7% of us elected a man ill-equipped to run a bingo game, let alone prosecute the ongoing war against Islamo-facist terrorists.

Now, eleven months later, poll numbers are showing a whole lot of people suffering from good old fashioned buyer’s remorse.

The fact is, if the President of the United States hasn’t the courage to unambiguously identify that which is evil, and then stand up to it, the White House is without an adult at the helm.

As Eric at the great Vocal Minority blog often says, “Welcome to the future, suckers.”

An insight into the President’s “maturity” level in dealing with evil can be found by going back to the campaign (among other instances). In one of his most critical responses from the famed Saddleback Presidential Forum in August, 2008, when asked directly if he believed in the existence of evil, Obama responded that evil did exist and that it had to be confronted. (Notice his choice of words then – to confront evil rather than defeat it).

Obama said:

We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children.

Whereas his opponent, Senator John McCain, unmistakably identified the evil of Islamo-facist terrorism as the “transcendant challenge of the twenty-first century,” and said that it needed to be defeated rather than confronted, then-Senator Obama went on to say that evil had to be met with humility.

What?

This is precisely why Democrats cannot be trusted or taken seriously on so many of the critical issues of our time – particularly the War on Terror (or whatever they call it now). They reflexively respond to critical realities with quixotic, romantic, feel-good, college-campus adolescent poppycock. They advocate childish solutions to adult real-world situations. Their perceptions are dangerously awry. To Obama, inner-city violence exists on the same plane as terrorism. This thinking, tragically, is common in liberal-land … and it’s infuriating.

It’s manifested itself in having five terrorists – including the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks – stand trial in a civilian court in New York City.

In a now infamous article penned by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in the Los Angeles Times last year, this thinking was taken a step further:

If most Muslims truly reject terrorism, why does it continue to flourish in Muslim lands? What these results indicate is that terrorism is much like other violent crime. Violent crimes occur throughout U.S. cities, but that is no indication of Americans’ general acceptance of murder or assault. Likewise, continued terrorist violence is not proof that Muslims tolerate it. Indeed, they are its primary victims.

Intellectual dishonesty and out-of-context assertions are aggravating.

Terrorism is much like other violent crime?”

How?

Is Mother Teresa much like Adolf Hitler because they breathed air, required water to live and were both homo sapiens? Yes, a rapist in St. Louis, for example, is an abysmal excuse for a human being. A murderer of innocents in Louisville is a horrible person and should be put to death (if applicable) … but neither of these pieces of human debris is a national security risk, are they?

Context!

The fact is, people in this country get up and rally openly against violent crime in the form of neighborhood watches all the time. Folks commonly gather in public places in America and openly take positions against what they perceive as injustices. If anyone can show me the last Muslim rally anywhere openly denouncing those who use Islam to justify terrorism and ghastly violence, I’d like to be directed to the article or video that reported on it.

Equally, police all over this country fight the good fight to keep streets on a daily basis, precisely because crime is something that must be kept under control as much as humanly possible. Does anyone claim the “threat” of violence in our cities is overrated?

We keep hearing from the left that only a small percentage of people in the Muslim world are sympathetic to the likes of Osama Bin Ladin.

So what? What does that mean exactly?

If the percentage were, say, two points higher, then the threat should be taken more seriously? How about six points higher? How about that big hole in Manhattan to illustrate what a small percentage of killers can sccomplish? That “small percentage” of people ultimately make up a huge grand total, don’t they? It’s certainly a number that eclipses the amount of violent criminals in the entire Western World.

And just think … 9/11 conspirators (i.e., enemy combatants) get to hide under the protections of our Constitution as they stand trial in civilian court not too far from that big hole in the ground.

Another thank you to President Obama.

If you believe the greatest threats to mankind include the liquefying icecaps of the northlands, gluttonous phramecutical companies, and national bankruptcy unless America spends an additional two trillion dollars (as Obama suggested), then saddle up the donkey, slap an “Obama is Love” bumper sticker on its backside and head for 2010.

I’ll stick with the grown-ups, thank you.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

SENATOR CONRAD PLAYS THE “LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT” CARD

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 25, 2009

Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota – who, by the way, is not up for election next year (as astutely pointed out by Rob at Say Anything) – says that if any of us don’t believe in our system (as he does), we might want to consider going elsewhere; a kind of twenty-first century variation of “America, love it or leave it.” Of course, he is referring to those of us who are enraged that enemy combatants who waged war on the United States are being tried in a civilian court in New York City. He is talking about those of us who despise the fact that terrorists captured on the battle field have been granted the Constitutional protection of American citizens. In his mind, American “civilian courts are well-suited to prosecute Al-Qaeda terrorists.”

Matt Cover of CNS News writes:

On Capitol Hill on Nov. 19, CNSNews.com asked Conrad: “We’re going to have a civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. If our troops–the evidence against him is going to be found in Afghanistan, there on the battlefield–if our troops need to enter a house and they think that there’s evidence there, should they have to establish probable cause and get a search warrant from a judge first?”

Conrad said: “You’re not being serious about these questions, are you?”

CNSNews.com: “[Yes], in a civilian trial. If I was on trial or you were on trial, that would have to be [done].”

Conrad responded, “We have tried terrorists in our courts and done so very successfully in the past and that is our system. So if people don’t believe in our system, maybe they ought to go somewhere else. I believe in America.”

There are two points to make here.

First, as Rob at Say Anything explains, the terrorists that have been tried in civilian court in the past, like Timothy McVeigh and the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, were apprehended “domestically by domestic law enforcement officials.” By contrast, the 9/11 co-conspirators who will stand trial in New York were captured by military forces on the field of battle or in the prosecution of war. Therefore, they were not subject to the guidelines and procedures of “civilian judicial standards.”  It’s difficult to imagine that there will not a host of legal issues to contend with when those captured as enemy combatants are tried as civilians.

Second, this is a matter of national security. These “defendants,” with the same protections afforded American civilian criminals, will have access to intelligence that cannot be denied them. Thus, by definition, civilian courts are not well-suited to prosecuting war criminals.

Sorry, Kent.

Conrad also dismissed a question about the rights of terrorists captured on foreign battlefields and the rules of evidence in terms of a civilian court trial as not serious.

Talk show host Larry Elder pointed out on Monday (while substituting for Dennis Prager) that the “rules of evidence” in the 1993 World Trace Center bombing trials resulted in security compromises:

“You know, in the trial of the first bombing of the World Trade Center, and the trial of blind Sheikh, people don’t realize how much information was given to the bad guys because of those trials, because in a civilian trial you have a right to have everything the prosecution has.

And so, because of those two trials, Osama Bin Ladin found out he was an unindicted co-conspirator – that we were after his butt – and he moved from Sudan to Afghanistan because of that. Because of those trials, Al-Qaeda found out that we tracking their whereabouts via their cell phones. They stopped using their cell phones.”

Believing in America, Mr. Conrad, has nothing to do with having to accept asinine political plays that literally put the security of the nation at risk.

It’s about keeping America safe.

Jackass.

wordpress statistics

Posted in 9/11, Justice System, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

THREE NAVY SEALS AND A TERRORIST’S BLOODY LIP

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 25, 2009

From the “You’ve Got To Be Goddamn Kidding Me” file…

The cuckoo clock that is my transforming nation seems to be tolling its bell louder all the time – and I damn well don’t like it.

What the hell is happening to my country?

Whether it is the Commander-in-Chief’s modus operandi of weakening his own country through apologetic confessionals, or his determination to close a perfectly functioning terrorist detention facility so that America’s enemies will love her more, or his incapacity to come to a decision concerning his “war of necessity” in Afghanistan, or his conferring of Constitutional rights on enemy combatants who waged war on America, or his Army Chief of Staff who said that diversity among the troops is more vital than protecting innocent lives, or a media so raped of its ability to be objective by political correctness that it could not (or would not) call the Ft. Hood mass murder an Islamist terrorist attack, this country is on a dangerous path.

This reality manifests itself in what seems like a perpetual advance of negative stories from the mainstream media about the United States military. Ever since the New York Times turned military misconduct at Abu Grahib into the most deplorable and unspeakable human abuses ever committed, there has hardly been a positive word to be found about those who defend America, save for in the conservative media.

For a time, it even became fashionable among elected anti-Bushies to speak ill of this nation’s defenders. Recall that Senator Dick Durbin compared American treatment of prisoners at Abu Grahib to the Nazis and Pol Pot. Recall that Senator Ted Kennedy declared the Saddam Hussein torture chambers re-opened under new American management. Recall Congressman John Murtha called American Marines cold-blooded murderers.

Isn’t it curious how everyone seems to get the benefit of the doubt except the fighting men and women of the American military?

At one time, Congressional Medal of Honor winners would secure the front pages of newspapers across the country. Stories of valor and courage on the battle field were, in a long ago and far away age, headline makers. These were America’s heroes, cherished and revered. It was understood that a nation incapable – or unwilling – to pay tribute to its fighting men could never be worthy of the liberty it enjoyed.

These days, America’s warriors are regularly portrayed as broken and confused, weak and frightened. Tales about rising suicide rates and substance abuse among soldiers make up a good portion of the stories published about America’s military. Exposes on exhausted fighting men, declining morale, and misbehaving soldiers take up far more space than successes on the battle field.

It is sickening.

This disturbing anti-military trend – this ongoing impulse among the politically correct and the cowardly to cast America’s heroes in a negative light – is, sadly, gaining ghoulish momentum.

Last evening, the story of three Navy SEALS being brought up on assault charges in the case of the capture of Ahmed Hashim Abed – one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq – made my stomach turn. For those unaware, Abed was the ringleader behind the murder of four Blackwater USA security agents back in 2004. You’ll recall the grisly details of how the four were ambushed, murdered, and their bodies burned and dragged through the streets of Fallujah. Two of them were even hanged off a Euphrates River bridge for a photo op.

In September of this year, Navy SEALS captured the murderous vermin. Such a momentous and heroic event should have made headlines across the country, but the likelihood that even twenty percent of America knew about it is a generous estimate.

Now, three of those heroes – SO-2 Matthew McCabe, SO-2 Jonathan Keefe and SO-1 Julio Huertas – are facing court martial.

Why?

Because of a bloody lip.

Rowan Scarborough at Fox News writes:

The three, all members of the Navy’s elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral’s mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named “Objective Amber,” told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

The poor little terrorist, responsible for the brutal murders of four men transporting supplies for a catering company (of all things), is apparently now having to deal with the terrifying memory of a bloody lip, not to mention the post-traumatic stress associated with the scar. Indeed, a bloody lip it may not be as appalling (or tortuous) as having Christina Aguilera music blaring, or having smoke blown in one’s face, or having the thermostat cranked low (or any of the other horrifying abuses some of Gitmo detainees were made to suffer through), but it is bad enough to have three of America’s most courageous fighting men ready to be arraigned on December 7th, with a court martial to follow in January.

United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued.

What the Fort Hood massacre did was shine a much needed light on the twisted mentality that seems to be prevalent among the higher echelons of the American military these days (as well as government) – namely, a now lethal strain of political correctness that places more of an importance on showing the world that America is not anti-Muslim than in protecting the United States of America.

But this new predilection for convincing everyone that America really is a good nation full of good people, sensitive to Islam, is exasperating and wrong-headed. Much of the world, despite leftist cacklings to the contrary, wants to see a strong America. They look to America for leadership. They look to America to do what’s right. And when America is quick to accuse its own defenders of abusing terrorists in a time of war, with innocent lives hanging in the balance, in desperate and dangerous situations that are not even conceivable to most, for something as insignificant as a bloody lip, it not only creates international uneasiness, it emboldens the enemies of freedom everywhere.

Indeed, there may be more to come of this story, but I’m inclined to think not.

Hence, the court martial instead of the non-judical punishment (NJP) of an admiral’s mast.

The three accused Navy SEALS want their story told. They want all of the details of this heroic operation out in the open.

Good for them.

Still, questions come to mind …

How on earth can three American heroes be facing a court martial for giving a piece of walking fecal matter a bloody lip? Would it really take three of the most well-trained fighting men in the American military to do it? Wouldn’t one have been sufficient to the task? Even in his sleep? And who’s to say the “bloody lip” didn’t happen during Abed’s take down? Adrenalin does tend to run high in combat situations.

Unbelievable.

I thought we were in this thing to win.

If so, why the hell does it seem that there is so much effort, so much determination from so many sectors, to keep our side from doing their jobs?

For what it’s worth, I am with you one-hundred percent, Navy Seals.

Always.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Iraq, military, Moral Clarity, Political Correctness, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

IT’S CONSERVATISM’S FAULT?

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 24, 2009

Nidal Malik Hasan, terrorist

In all of their self-serving delusional grandeur, the mainstream media remains dogmatically determined to cite reasons other than Nidal Malik Hasan’s religion for the November 5th terrorist attack that killed thirteen at Fort Hood.

Believe it or not, they may have actually hit upon one, thanks to New York Times columnist Robert Wright .

It’s American conservatism.

In a piece published on Saturday, Wright blamed Hasan’s shooting spree on being “pushed over the edge by his perception of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.” (both of which were initiated by a Republican president).

And while Wright cedes that Hasan also “drew inspiration” from radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, now in Yemen, the Fort Hood shooting was, according to him, “an example of Islamist terrorism being spread partly by the war on terrorism — or, actually, by two wars on terrorism, in Iraq and Afghanistan.” 

He went on to say that “Fort Hood is the biggest data point we have — the most lethal Islamist terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. It’s only one piece of evidence, but it’s a salient piece, and it supports the liberal, not the conservative, war-on-terrorism paradigm.” (Not that thousands of Islamic terrorist attacks all over the world over the course of many years are especially salient in understanding Hasan’s motivations, mind you).

In fact, Wright believes that Hasan’s actions are mostly the  result of a noxious combination of conservative war-mongering and bats flapping around in his belfry:

It’s true that Major Hasan was unbalanced and alienated — and, by my lights, crazy. But what kind of people did conservatives think were susceptible to the terrorism meme?

These may be the two most asinine lines I’ve yet come across on the Hasan matter.

What is he talking about?

Hasan was isolated because he chose to be. Strange as it may seem to Wright, Hasan’s radical Islamic yammerings probably didn’t appeal to too many of his fellow soldiers. Talking jihad is not a great little ice-breaker.

Note how Wright initially classifies Hasan as “unbalanced and alienated.” By Wright’s reckoning, Hasan is crazy. Yet, in the next sentence, he appears to explain away the bulk of, if not all, Islamic terrorists, by suggesting that anyone “susceptible” to jihad must be, by default, “unbalanced and alienated.” In other words, terrorists, while bad, are prone to be frail mental flowers teetering on the edge of self-control, driven over the cliff by outside forces – in this case, two Muslim-erradicating wars waged by George W. Bush.

unbalanced?

Seriously, this is how liberals think.

America – or rather, conservative America, with its propensity toward hawkish, unnuanced solutions to the most complex problems of the human condition – is to blame (at least in part) for driving Hasan to kill. Safe to say, if the United States were not involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, people like Hasan, while still unbalanced, would probably have never been pushed to blow away innocents.

If not for America, so the thinking goes, recruiting numbers at suicide-bombing re-up centers would plummet. (It’s one of the reasons President Obama gave for closing Guantanamo Bay, you’ll recall – because of its function as an Al-Qaeda recruiting tool). By such logic, America shouldn’t bother fighting against terrorists at all, thus ensuring zero recruitment among the murdering class. Only the unhinged and easily-provoked are “susceptible to the terrorism meme.”

How would such an approach work in the civilian world, I wonder, in dealing with criminals such as serial rapists? Or child molesters? Or murderers? Would societal conditions improve or deteriorate if law enforcement officials decided to stop being so “aggressive” in pursuing evil-doers? Does it make sense for law enforcement to back off for fear of creating more rapists? Or bank robbers?

Or are common criminals not as “crazy” or as easily provoked as jihadists?

Wright continues:

Central to the debate over Afghanistan is the question of whether terrorists need a “safe haven” from which to threaten America. If so, it is said, then we must work to keep every acre of Afghanistan (and Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, etc.) out of the hands of groups like the Taliban. If not — if terrorists can orchestrate a 9/11 about as easily from apartments in Germany as from camps in Afghanistan — then maybe never-ending war isn’t essential.

However you come out on that argument, the case of Nidal Hasan shows one thing for sure: Homegrown American terrorists don’t need a safe haven. All they need is a place to buy a gun.

Liberals are funny when they try to think things through.

Take a moment to ask yourself this …

How many homegrown Islamist terrorist attacks have there been on American soil over the years?

Perhaps a better question is … how many homegrown Islamist terrorist attacks have there been on American soil over the course of time that did not involve a United States Army Officer (who most likely would not have had not too many problems acquiring a firearm anyway)?

It is precisely because America is not a safe haven that so many terrorist attacks have been thwarted over the years.

And why is it not a safe haven?

Because of the presence (both overtly and covertly) of those men and women charged with the task of defending the United States against all foes, foreign and domestic.

In short, it’s just not very feasible for terrorists to train and prepare for 9/11 style attacks in the United States (or in most free nations, for that matter) the same way they would be able to do in nations sympathetic to their cause. Obviously, preparations can be undertaken to varying degrees in almost any location, as evidenced by the number of stateside plots that have been squashed in recent years;  but the notion that one can hatch, and train for, terrorist attacks with the same ease  – and with the same scope – from “apartments in Germany” as they can from Taliban-protected camps in Afghanistan is ridiculous.

Just because one believes that terrorism can potentially spring from almost everywhere does not mean nothing should be done anywhere.

This is about values, not the ability to acquire a gun.

This is about having the courage to label evil, not the willingness to protect diversity at the expense of innocent lives.

Presumably, in Wright’s world, if those external forces that so played havoc with Hasan would just back off and stop doing whatever they’re doing to provoke the susceptibly unhinged who have yet to snap, terrorism would drop like President Obama’s approval numbers.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Evil, Foreign Policy, religion, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

AND NOBODY BOTHERED TO TELL THE ARMY?

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 21, 2009

So, the FBI knew.

But the Army didn’t?

Perhaps my thinking is a bit unrefined, and I’m willing to concede that I am no authority on the finer points of national security, but I don’t find it particularly unreasonable to ask why the hell the Federal Bureau of Investigation didn’t bother notifying the United States Army that Ft. Hood mass-murderer Major Nidal Malik Hasan was in contact with radical imam Anwar al-Aulaqi through a series of e-mails prior to the murderous terrorist attack there. In fact, I find it absolutely remarkable that correspondence between a US Army Major and a radical Muslim cleric – as many as nineteen e-mails – wasn’t deemed at all noteworthy enough by the FBI to bring to the Army’s attention.

Call me crazy, but it seems like it might have been something worth mentioning.

What the hell is going on?

Carrie Johnson, Spencer S. Hsu and Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post write:

In the months before the deadly shootings at Fort Hood, Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan intensified his communications with a radical Yemeni American cleric and began to discuss surreptitious financial transfers and other steps that could translate his thoughts into action, according to two sources briefed on a collection of secret e-mails between the two.

The e-mails were obtained by an FBI-led task force in San Diego between late last year and June but were not forwarded to the military, according to government and congressional sources. Some were sent to the FBI’s Washington field office, triggering an assessment into whether they raised national security concerns, but those intercepted later were not, the sources said.

“He [Hasan] clearly became more radicalized toward the end, and was having discussions related to the transfer of money and finances . . .,” said the source, who spoke at length in part because he was concerned the public accounting of the events has been incomplete. “It became very clear toward the end of those e-mails he was interested in taking action.”

The kicker in all of this – with the mainstream media still reluctant to use the “t” word to describe the Ft. Hood attack – is that even Democrat Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is now having to face reality.

Levin told reporters after a briefing from Pentagon staff members that “there are some who are reluctant to call it terrorism, but there is significant evidence that it is.”

No kidding?

Terrorism?

Have migraines been ruled out yet?

I’m curious … under what circumstances would communication between an American serviceman and a known radical imam (and supporter of Al-Aqeada) not be anything the military should be made aware of?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Political Correctness, terrorism, Uncategorized, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

DAVID AND BARRY – NOT ON THE SAME PAGE

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 17, 2009

The Governor of New York and the President of the United States aren’t exactly tight. While they are both big time Democrats who hail from big blue states, they seem to have about as much affection for each other as a gaping flesh wound has for salt.

The President, for instance, has all but asked Paterson to bow out of the 2010 gubernatorial race, and the Governor has all but told him to take a flying leap off a high ledge.

That’s how they play together.

The decision by the Obama administration to bring terrorists to New York to stand trial has only widened the gap between them.

While most Democrats seem to be in favor of Attorney General Eric Holder’s (i.e., President Obama’s) disastrous decision to have 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, tried in a civilian court with four of his terrorist chums, the Governor of New York, David Paterson, doesn’t like the idea one bit.

For once, I agree with the otherwise useless governor of my state.

Marcia Kramer from WCBS-TV in New York writes:

Gov. David Paterson openly criticized the White House on Monday, saying he thought it was a terrible idea to move alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other suspected terrorists to New York for trial.

“This is not a decision that I would have made. I think terrorism isn’t just attack, it’s anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country,” he said.

Paterson’s comments break with Democrats, who generally support the President’s decision.

“Our country was attacked on its own soil on September 11, 2001 and New York was very much the epicenter of that attack. Over 2,700 lives were lost,” he said. “It’s very painful. We’re still having trouble getting over it. We still have been unable to rebuild that site and having those terrorists so close to the attack is gonna be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers.”

Paterson went on to say that “he will do everything in his power to make sure that the state’s Department of Homeland Security will keep New Yorkers as safe as possible.”

As difficult as this is to say definitively, considering the cavalcade of harm President Obama has already overseen since taking office ten months ago, this decision to bring war criminals to New York to be tried as civilians may very be the most disastrous of all.

More importantly, this is a very bad move for the United States. Treating war criminals like civilians, who will potentially have access to intelligence data and Bush-era policy information, is a calamity waiting to happen. It will also afford these examples of human excrement a forum from which to disgorge their hateful prattle.

As it stands right now, nearly two-thirds of all Americans believe this is a bad idea – that a military court is the place to try these war makers who have already asked to be put to death.

The first noise you hear is the gentle sound of terrorist laughter wafting across the oceans into New York, where that great big hole in the ground still sits.

That other sound you hear is Obama’s base collectively gnawing on that great big bone he threw them.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Evil, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

JOB CREATION, OBAMA-STYLE

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 16, 2009

ThomsonHow many misfiring synapses does it take to enable one to come to the conclusion that moving incarcerated terrorists from a detention facility in Cuba to the mainland United States is a good idea? Uprooting human debris hell-bent on destroying America from a perfectly functioning maximum security military installation so that they can be locked up in America is the embodiment of absurdity. Where else but from the muddled minds of liberals could such thinking come? Where else but from the left could such a plan be born?

President Obama has said that Gitmo’s mere existence has served as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Thus, in Obama-speak, it stands to reason that once these terrorists are transported to the American mainland, recruitment for the terrorist organization will begin to fall off, right? Those who would have thought nothing about strapping bombs across the chests of their children to kill infidels will rethink their positions if the enemies of America could actually be moved here. Osama bin Ladin’s heart will surely soften once these jihadists are living in the midwest.

Makes sense, no?

Setting aside whatever anti-Bush motivations there are concerning this obsessive need among Obamacrats to close Guantanamo Bay, proponents of the terrorist transplant plan claim that it will also be a huge economic boost.

Target: Illinois.

Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times writes:

If [the Thomson Correctional facility] is acquired by the federal government, [it] would be run as a supermax facility housing federal prisoners. A portion of it would be leased to the Defense Department for a “limited number” of Guantanamo detainees — about 100, according to Durbin. About 215 prisoners are now at Guantanamo.

[Senator Dick] Durbin’s office has been quarterbacking the potential sale of the prison through a series of meetings between the White House and [Governor Pat] Quinn, who is looking to generate revenues for the cash-strapped state.

According to an economic impact analysis by the Obama administration, the federal purchase and operation of Thomson could generate $1 billion for the local economy over four years and create between 2,340 and 3,250 jobs.

Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Everybody wins, yes?

Here’s the problem.

Every one of those jobs is a government job. That means every one of those employees’ salaries would come at the taxpayers’ expense. That means all of that money would be sucked out of the economy first before it is redistributed in the form of paychecks.

Stimulating.

Durbin and Quinn called the possibility of opening such a facility in their state “a dream come true.”

That’s three thousand new jobs that can be added to the billions and billions of new jobs that have already been created by this administration.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Economy, Liberalism, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

TERRORIST RIGHTS

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 14, 2009

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in reacting to the pathetic and irresponsible decision taken by the Obama administration to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other terrorists to civilian court, reminded us all, in an interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox News, what the 9/11 attacks really were:

This was an act of war. One of things I thought we learned from September 11th is that we were in a state of denial before September 11th. We went through this once before in 1993. We had terrorists attack the World Trade Center. We did not recognize it as an act of war. We tried them in the Southern District in New York. It did no good.

President Barack Obama is following through on his promise to undo everything Bush by gradually emptying out the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

What better way to do it than to yank terrorists from the security of Gitmo and send them to an American city to face a jury not comprised of their peers? And what better place to bestow rights onto those who are not entitled to them than in New York City?

As disgusting as this is – and, I assure you, it doesn’t get more reprehensible than conferring Constitutional rights on terrorists – it should come as no surprise to anyone.

52.7% of your fellow countrymen voted for this.

While he was still a candidate, then-Senator Barack Obama was talking constitutionality – which in itself was (and still is) enough to send the short hairs on the back of my neck to attention. He launched an attack against then-Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her position on the so-called rights of terrorist suspects, referencing Palin’s comments in her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last summer.

She said (referring to then-Senator Obama):

Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay … he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights?

Obama’s response:

First of all, you don’t even get to read them their rights until you catch ’em. They (the Republicans) should spend more time trying to catch Osama bin Laden and we can worry about the next steps later. My position has always been clear: If you’ve got a terrorist, take him out. Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take ’em out.”

Obama saw himself as defending the Constitution (in some sick, twisted way) as he went after Governor Palin, supporting the issuance of rights to terrorist suspects because, as he put is, “we don’t always have the right person.”

If this wasn’t the atomic alarm of all alarms, then nothing ever could have been.

How was Obama able to reach the conclusion that Osama bin Ladin was a terrorist without affording him access to the legal protections outlined in the Constitution? What criteria was he using to make that determination? How could Obama want to “take out” bin Ladin without granting him his Constitutional rights?

And if I am being obtuse here, then allow to me ask the question the other way. Wasn’t Sadam Hussein a terrorist? Or, at the very least, the leader of a state that sponsored terrorists? Didn’t we “take him out?”

Of course, it would have been interesting for someone at the time to point out that Obama supported the Washington, D.C. handgun ban, which is unconstitutional.

Kettle meet pot.

And now, more than a year later, the circus of all circuses – one that will needlessly cost the American taxpayer tens of millions of dollars – will begin only blocks from where the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center stood. The Attorney General, Eric Holder, will seek the death penalty against the five men who have already said – repeatedly –  they want to die. (At least they’re on the same page). The courtroom will serve as a stage from which these reprehensible terrorists – war criminals – will be given the opportunity to spew their hate, justify the murders of nearly three-thousand innocents, and hide behind the Constitutional protections afforded them by the Commander-in-Chief of the United States.

Absolutely disgraceful.

If undoing the endless malignancies of the Bush era means putting American lives in danger, so be it.

It isn’t Obama’s fault he inherited such a mess.

wordpress statistics

Posted in 9/11, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

I DON’T GIVE A DAMN WHO GETS OFFENDED – ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 11, 2009

islam will dominateThe destructive, lethal idiocy that has deluged this country in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on Fort Hood last week is beyond repugnant. For almost a week now, from every corner of the fainthearted, bend-over-and-take-it mass media complex there has come an astonishingly embarrassing exhibition of weak-minded, namby-pamby, Lucy Van Pelt pop-psychology rationalizations as to why Nidal Malik Hasan might have opened fire on innocents, murdering thirteen.

It is confounding.

Hasan could have had a neon sign plastered to his forehead that read, “This is a terrorist attack!” and the mainstream media would have a panel of analysts discussing what Hasan meant by the word “is.”

If ever there has been such a ubiquitously loathsome display of weakness from Americans in recent times, I am not aware of it.

Courage – and dare I say, truth – clearly has no place in the mainstream media.

With an ever-growing profusion of evidence making it abundantly clear that the murderous rampage undertaken by Hasan was a genuine act of Islamic jihad, the ever-tender, overly-feminized, feelings-obsessed American media chooses to travel the road of the least offensive. In the name of objectivity, they continues to explore a host of alternate possibilities that might have led Hasan to kill.

It’s that “let’s keep an open mind” approach to reporting the news that will, presumably, keep angry Muslims from coming after journalists.

The “religion” angle is just too easy – merely a construct of Jesus-loving, xenophobic, gun-obsessed anti-Muslim types.

killer Hasan

the terrorist, Hasan

Despite the fact that every arrow, every indicator, every investigation, every report, every stitch of evidence, everything that has been uncovered relating to the killer Hasan suggests – nay, dictates – that terrorism is the correct way to describe the Fort Hood attack, the alphabet and cable channels, along with the liberal print media, continue to maintain their fairness (i.e., gutlessness).

This fatalistic need to obscure the realities of the world in order to safeguard the feelings of others – all in the name of political correctness – will, undoubetdly, be the undoing of this country. The enemy will come from within. Expect many more than the thirteen who were murdered at Fort Hood to die as our most important and sacred institutions (e.g., the military, the free press) are crippled by those who do all they can, at the expense of what is right and just, to ensure Muslims are not offended.

Personally, I don’t give a damn how many Muslims get offended.

I don’t.

In matters of national security, I don’t give rat’s nipple who gets insulted. I’m only interested in making sure this nation is secure from her enemies, foreign or domestic.

Period.

If, as leftists and other children want us to believe, Muslims are so incapable of understanding that no one on my side of the aisle thinks that all practitioners of Islam are terrorists, then that’s just too bad. If, in the view of the Left and other terrified puppies, Muslims are ill-equipped to comprehend that those of us willing to speak the truth do not – and never have – lumped all Muslims together, then there’s nothing more that can be said or done to change it. Time and time again, to the point of utter frustration and intellectual exhaustion, conservatives have bent over backward to explain to the world that we are not anti-Muslim. We have done back flips to prove that no one on the right believes the entirety of Islam supports terrorism.

We are anti-evil, no matter where it comes from.

But it’s not been good enough.

The fact is, the greatest threat to freedom in the world today is radical Islam – and all indications are that Hasan was a radical islamist. 

There simply is no movement of radical Baptists commiting thousands upon thousands of acts of terrorism across the globe in the name of Jesus Christ. Or Methodists. Or Catholics.

That the incredibly obvious is now being expelled and disregarded so that the feelings of a few may be potentially spared – at the expense of human lives – is deplorable and unforgivable.

jihad-is-our-wayI, for one, am not willing to see the security of this nation compromised, or the safety and well-being of those who defend her imperiled, for the sake of not affronting a group of people.

I am sick to death of hearing from the Left how intolerant Americans are. I am fed up with having to read and hear from ungracious, spineless pensmiths and pundits how much they fear reprisals and retribution from angry Americans (i.e., the right wing).

It is all complete, unsubstantiated nonsense.

Where was the anti-Islam uprising after September 11, 2001? Where were the anti-Muslim reprisals after the London attacks? Or the Madrid bombing? How many acts of revenge against mosques took place in America after the first World Trade Center attack in 1993? How many bodies littered the streets in retaliation to any number of jihadist terrorist plots uncovered here in the United States?

Do leftists ever think beyond the initial “feel good” fix that defines their approach to the world? Is there solace among leftists in knowing that even though thirteen were murdered at Fort Hood, they can at least rest well knowing that they’ve not offended a single Muslim?

 

wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Evil, Islam, Liberalism, Media Bias, Moral Clarity, national security, religion, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

NOAM CHOMSKY – ANTI-AMERICAN, ANTI-ISRAELI, MORAL OAF, IDIOT

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 1, 2009

if only israel leaves

if only israel leaves

To speak ill of Noam Chomsky in Manhattan (or any other liberal enclave where liberalism rests like an angry tumor) is akin to taking a cinderblock to the face of a beloved grandmother or drop kicking kittens with steel-tipped boots. It just isn’t done – not without outraging a whole bunch of people.

I tried it once.

I had no idea that I was both a Nazi and an evil money-grubbing Capitalist. My versatility astounded me.

Indeed, there are more of Chomsky’s books on any given bookstore shelf in New York City than there are happy mosquitoes at a nudist convention – or peace symbols in Greenwich Village.

Well, I’d like to take a few paragraphs to speak ill of him – and then some – if I may.

Call me a nasty kitten-kicker, if you will. Tag me with a “grandma-smacking” label if it suits you, but I must go on record as saying that Chomsky is a bona-fide moral oaf. To believe what he believes, he would have to be, by definition, a moral idiot.

Period.

(I am aware that I have spiked heavily into the red on the “Incredibly Obvious” meter, but this one requires a response).

Late last week, Chomsky gave an interview to Amy Goodman, host of liberal tea-time’s favorite radio noise “Democracy Now.” In it, Chomsky said that President Obama’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is “approximately the Bush position” and said that a solution can be found if Israel simply “leaves.”

In response to Obama’s comments on the Middle-East conflict on Thursday, Mr. Chomsky said:

(Obama) began by saying that Israel, like any democracy, has a right to defend itself. That’s true, but there’s a gap in the reasoning.

It has a right to defend itself. It doesn’t follow that it has a right to defend itself by force. So we might agree, say, that, you know, the British army in the United States in the colonies in 1776 had a right to defend itself from the terror of George Washington’s armies, which was quite real, but it didn’t follow they had a right to defend themselves by force, because they had no right to be here.

So, yes, they had a right to defend themselves, and they had a way to do it—namely, leave. Same with the Nazis defending themselves against the terror of the partisans. They have no right to do it by force. In the case of Israel, it’s exactly the same. They have a right to defend themselves, and they can easily do it.

One, in a narrow sense, they could have done it by accepting the ceasefire that Hamas proposed right before the invasion—I won’t go through the details—a ceasefire that had been in place and that Israel violated and broke.

With all due respect, the gap exists between Mr. Chomsky’s ears.

There is egregious moral impotence in pacifism, and that is precisely what Chomsky advocates. Pacifism is, indeed, his answer to conflict – but his position is more sinister than just that. (Yes, pacifism is sinister when evil is allowed to subsist). He advocates pacifism only when practiced by the United States or Israel. Terrorists, totalitarians, fascists and despots get passes – or at the very least, a whole host of “reasons” and “excuses” for why they have been forced to fire missiles at civilians or strap bombs across their chests.

I invite anyone to summon the creative forces of their imagination to create a scenario of conflict where the likes of Mr. Chomsky would not find some way to squeeze in a denunciation of America.

For example, given a horrific terrorist attack in, say, Washington, D.C., Chomsky might admit it was a terrible thing, but would immediately begin asking what America had done to provoke it. The only correct response, according to Mr. C, would be to do nothing. Condemnations against those who perpetrated the act would be short-lived and fleeting to Chomsky and his self-loathing disciples.

But pacifism is not only a moral failing, it is, literally, a sickness – an act given to self-destruction – because it defies the natural instinct of humans to defend themselves when confronted with attack.

The age old question, “How exactly does one defend itself without force when the enemy exists in a different moral reality?” has yet to be sufficiently answered by Leftocrats. Better yet, “How is retreating from evil a sound defense?” cuts to it with a bit more verve. Mr. Chomsky is so tragically inept on the realities of the world that he truly believes that those who perpetrate evil – like the Nazis or Islamo-fascist terrorists – will cease their aggressions if the other side simply “leaves.”

Thus, in Chomskyville, goodness could never prevail.

How sad that our universities are filled with professors who own this worldview.

Leftists like Chomsky live in cartoon constructs of how they wish things to be. Some of them may, indeed, be wonderful people, but they possess no wisdom and cannot be trusted on matters of survival.

Besides, Israel did leave Gaza, remember? It was in all the papers.

And exactly who lobbed thousands of indiscriminate missiles into Israel on a daily basis? Exactly who violated the ceasefire agreement the moment it expired?

Mr. Chomsky subscribes to his own set of facts here.

Does it not trouble Mr. Chomsky that Hamas fighters use the innocent as shields, use civilian dwellings to harbor their weapons and fire upon Israelis from deep within ordinary neighborhoods?

No need to answer that.

It doesn’t trouble him because Israel has the temerity to fight back … and to him (and other moral cowards like him), that’s where the abomination lies.

But in a broader sense—and this is a crucial omission in everything Obama said, and if you know who his advisers are, you understand why—Israel can defend itself by stopping its crimes. Gaza and the West Bank are a unit.

Israel, with US backing, is carrying out constant crimes, not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank, where it is moving systematically with US support to take over the parts of the West Bank that it wants and to leave Palestinians isolated in unviable cantons, Bantustans, as Sharon called them. Well, stop those crimes, and resistance to them will stop.

Note the phrase: “Israel can defend itself by stopping its crimes.”

we're so proud of junior

we're so proud of junior

As unsporting of me as it may be to fire back at the intellectually frail with pesky facts, I’ll take the risk … It was Hamas – a terrorist organization that exists, by their own admission, with the goal of eliminating the State of Israel – that fired missiles into Israel by the thousands. It was Hamas who broke the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire. And yet the criminals are the Israelis for defending themselves?

If I may ask directly … Mr. Chomsky, if Israel stopped defending itself in the conventional way – by force – and did so your way – the roll over, bend over and take it method – what is your best educated guess as to what would happen to Israel?

There is not a single Israeli leader who does not agree that there should be, in some form, a two state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians. (Keep in mind, the sizeable Arab and Palestinian populations that live peacefully in Israel proper, with the full rights of citizenship). Yet, Hamas doesn’t want a two-state solution. They want Israel destroyed.

Where exactly is the moral equivalence?

For those who claim that the Middle East conflict is complicated, they are dead wrong. It is simple.

One side wants Israel to go away forever. Israel doesn’t want to.

That the solution may be complicated is a separate issue.

Many thanks to Little Green Footballs for bringing this story to my attention.

Posted in Liberalism, Middle East | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

NO TO “THE ROCK,” SAYS PELOSI

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 25, 2009

but it's a park

but it's a park

The entire problem could be taken care of if Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania simply switched districts with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi – that way, Murtha’s offer to bring the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay to his district could mean the re-opening of Alcatraz (currently located in Pelosi’s district). Pelosi, however, is not exactly warm to the idea of bringing terrorists to her district, no matter who represents it – not necessarily because they are cold-blooded murdering pond scum, or because they might have to be wrongly afforded the rights of Americans – but because it is a tourist attraction … and a park, sort of.

That this “odd suggestion” is even a matter of discussion at all can be credited – at least in part – to House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, who appeared on Meet The Press Sunday. Boehner was echoing earlier suggestions that “The Rock” be used an alternative prison for the Gitmo detainees now that President Obama has signed an Executive Order closing the facility in Cuba.

From Fox News:

Republican Rep. Bill Young … suggested to White House counsel Greg Craig that the prisoners who could not be released back to their home countries or sent to a third country be put up in “the Rock,” the famous military installation and prison that closed down in 1963 and is now part of the National Park Service.

Asked whether that was a serious proposal, (Nancy) Pelosi said, “It is — no.”

“Perhaps he’s not visited Alcatraz,” Pelosi said of Young while displaying little sense of humor. “Alcatraz is a tourist attraction. It’s a prison that is now sort of like a — it’s a national park.”

That explanation didn’t stop House Minority Leader John Boehner from repeating the suggestion on Sunday, making that point that closing down Guantanamo by year’s end may not be the best plan considering the recidivism rate of terrorist detainees is about 12 percent.

“If liberals believe they ought to go, maybe we ought to open Alcatraz,” Boehner, R-Ohio, told NBC “Meet the Press.” Being reminded that Alcatraz is a national park, Boehner responded, “It’s very secure.”

Recall that John Murtha, who sang the praises of the decision to close Gitmo, extended an invitation to have the terrorists of Guantanamo Bay jailed in his district in Pennsylvania. Bob Layo, President of the Greater Johnstown/Cambria County Chamber of Commerce, agreed that Murtha’s suggestion was a stone cold groove, saying:

“I don’t see any downside. There has to be an added level of security for those types of prisoners, so they would probably build new facilities and add staff.”

Yeah, okay.

Here’s a fair follow-up question …

What the hell are you talking about?

Can someone – anyone -answer this simple question: If there already exists a more-than-sufficient, extremely-secure facility in which to house these extremely dangerous individuals – namely Guantanamo Bay – why on earth would anyone in their right mind think that the best thing to do is move them out?

Listen up, Dems … I’ll keep it as monosyllabic as I can … This is not Abu-Grahib.

Honestly, I do not know if the suggestion to re-open Alcatraz is a realistic one, or if it is just an attempt by Republicans to goad the majority party a bit (which is a good thing), or even a way of attempting to illustrate the absolute absurdity – and blatant irresponsibility – of closing Guantanamo Bay.

But whatever it is, I’m okay with it.

In other news, Democrats cannot be trusted with national security.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

COME ON, MR. PRESIDENT … WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 24, 2009

Obama and GuantanamoThis is utterly burlesque.

No propaganda. No partisan smoke screens. Just cold hard reality.

The President of the United States is not sure what will be happening with the detainees who currently reside at the detention center in Guanatanamo Bay once it closes next year.

He said so.

He just doesn’t know.

There is no plan.

He’ll figure it out.

Pinch me, Mabel, I’m dreaming, right?

He knows enough to be able to say with certitude that the closing of Gitmo is the right thing to do – just as he knew that “a woman’s right to choose” an abortion was the correct position to take, despite not being able to say when human life actually begins – but other than that, he’s just not able to speculate with any confidence where these examples of societal excrement will wind up.

How is it possible that the Commander-In-Chief of the United States of America in good conscience, in the midst of a war against barbaric murderers who will stop at nothing to destroy us, can shut down the prison that houses the very scum that would think nothing of slicing the throats of his own children if given the opportunity without a definitive plan in place? And in the name of what??

(If it helps, Mr. President, pretend the prisoners at Gitmo are Rush Limbaugh).

Not surprisingly, this does not appear to disturb the dazed and confused giddy Obamacrats who are still smoking their post orgasmic inauguration cigarettes one bit. As long as President Obama implements policies that  run contrary to anything undertaken under George W. Bush, the planet is better off.

These are the same people, of course, who screamed, “What’s the exit strategy?!” at the Bush administration following the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Indeed, if there’s another attack against the United States, perpetrated by anyone released from Gitmo as a result of “preserving American ideals and decency,” there’ll be a whole new round of screaming going on.

As it turns out, some of the former graduates of “Club Gitmo” (as Rush Limbaugh calls it) have, in fact, moved on to bigger things.

Two ex-prisoners in particular are especially making their moms proud.

From the AFP:

Two men released from the US “war on terror” prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website, the SITE monitoring service reported.

One of the two former inmates, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner number 372, has been elevated to the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP.

Three other men appear in the video, including Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an Al-Qaeda field commander. SITE later said he was prisoner No. 333.

A Pentagon spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, on Saturday declined to confirm the SITE information.

“We remain concerned about ex-Guantanamo detainees who have re-affiliated with terrorist organizations after their departure,” said Gordon.

“We will continue to work with the international community to mitigate the threat they pose,” he said.

On the video, al-Shihri is seen sitting with three other men before a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq, the front for Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

“By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for,” al-Shihri was quoted as saying.

The Pentagon estimates that a little more than ten percent of the 521 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to “the fight.”

To those who find this number too small to be of real concern, consider that even if ten percent of the world’s one billion Muslims sympathize with the “fight” waged by these Islamo-fascist murderers – and even if only ten percent of those sympathizers consider themselves active and enthusiastic supporters of “the cause” – that is, by any measure, substantial.

Said the President on Thursday:

“The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals.”

Wrong, Mr. President.

The message this sends, not unlike the message sent by those opposed to capital punishment, is that the lives of the innocent have equal worth to the lives of murderers … and they most certainly do not. The naivety in the President’s position is the assumption that the enemy holds the same value set we do. Remember, aggressive interrogation methods are not standard-fare in this country. No one advocates that they should be. By contrast, torture is as normal a cultural devise to our enemies as outdoor barbecues on Memorial Day are to Americans.

American values and ideals are altogether consistent with the protection innocent life, rewarding those who do good, and fighting those who would inflict evil on the innocent. This is precisely the charge of the United States.

Obama further said:

“We intend to win this fight. We’re going to win it on our terms.”

How about defining them first, sir?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

OBAMA’S BUSY DAY TODAY

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 22, 2009

Guantanamo

Guantanamo

He’s already frozen the pay of the White House staff.

For those keeping score at home, Barack Obama’s second full day as President looks to be at least as eventful.

This is, indeed, the portion of the program where the new President not only starts to rearrange the furniture and hang up vacation plates in his new Pennsylvania Avenue diggs, but where he begins putting his own stamp on the Presidency.

Today, if he sticks to the docket, he’ll be slipping on his “Executive Order” shoes early, breaking out his ball point pen and signing the death warrant of the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, granting it one more year of feeble existence before it closes forever.

According to Fox News:

Under a scenario foreshadowed in the draft orders, some detainees being held at Guantanamo would be released, while others would be transferred elsewhere and later put on trial under terms to be determined. Closing Guantanamo could potentially mean moving the remaining detainees to federal prisons in the U.S., such as the Leavenworth prison in Kansas.

That’s no misprint.

The scenario prescribes that “some detainees at Guantanamo would be released.”

How’s that for a warm and fuzzy thought?

The President’s decision to slice the throat of the Guantanamo Bay facility (ugly pun most definitely intended) means that the options for the remaining vermin being held there include bringing them to the United States for trial (thus granting them the rights of citizens), releasing them to “other nations” to incarcerate, or sending them back where they came from so that they might return to the peaceful lives they were leading before being dragged to Gitmo.

Offering them discounted out-of-state college tuition hasn’t been officially proposed yet, but that, too, may be forthcoming.

It is no wonder the families of 9/11 victims are outraged.

“To me it’s beyond comprehension that they would take the side of the terrorists,” said Peter Gadiel, whose son, James, was killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11. “Many of these people have been released and been right back killing, right back at their terrorist work again.”

Back on January 14th, in an article called “Life After Gitmo,” I wrote:

” … a new revelation from the Pentagon has come to light – namely, that as many as 61 former detainees have returned to terrorist activity after being released.

(jaw hits floor)

I don’t know about you, but I would have guessed the existence of Santa Claus – or clear thinking liberals – to be more of a likely prospect.

Who’d have guessed that upon discharge, the human dregs that made up the population of Gitmo would have returned to the cesspool from whence they came.”

Former Commander Kirk Lippold, who saw seventeen of his sailors murdered when the USS Cole was bombed by suicide terrorists in 2000 said:

“There is no need to suspend [the military tribunals]. There is no reason why [Obama] can’t conduct a concurrent review at the same time that the military commission process is moving forward to render justice for the terrorists that have murdered thousands of people. It demeans their deaths because we seem to be more concerned with the rights of detainees than we are with the justice that is being denied to my sailors that were killed.”

Precisely.

As a side note, Representative Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania says he’d have no problem letting Guantanamo Bay detainees occupy jails in his district if it should come to that.

Of course, if all this Gitmo talk has you bored to tears, don’t fret.

President Obama also intends to reverse what is known as the “Mexico City Policy” – a ban on funding for groups overseas that provide abortions.

From Fox News:

President Obama will issue an executive order on Thursday reversing the Bush administration policy that bans the use of federal dollars by non-governmental organizations that discuss or provide abortions outside of the United States.

Obama will sign the executive order on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states.

The policy, known in governmental circles as the “Mexico City policy,” requires any non-governmental organization to agree before receiving U.S. funds that they will “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.”

Yes he can.

And just think … The Freedom of Choice Act is still to come.

Posted in Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

A BUSH MOMENT TO REMEMBER NO. 2 – WE WILL MAKE NO DISTINCTION (VIDEO CLIP)

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 18, 2009

With less than two days before Barack Obama takes the oath of office, and with seemingly every square inch of American humanity and culture consumed with all things messianic, I wanted to recall a few memorable moments of the George W. Bush presidency.

I ‘ve already posted one – a powerful moment from George W. Bush’s speech before a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

Not surprisingly, for me, they all center around 9/11.

This is the second of those three.

It comes from the night of September 11, 2001 – just about twelve hours after the North Tower of the World Trade Center was attacked.

The clip is only :22 seconds in length, but it is the very essence of how the President chose to approach the war against Islamo-fascist terrorists.

It is, for me, one the most memorable moments from the Bush Presidency.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

LIFE AFTER GITMO?

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 14, 2009

camp_delta_guantanamo_bay_cuba1From the “No Way” file …

With talk radio, op-ed columns and spinning-head television all abuzz in recent days with conjecture of what the future holds for the military prison installation at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, a new revelation from the Pentagon has come to light – namely, that as many as 61 former detainees have returned to terrorist activity after being released.

(jaw hits floor)

I don’t know about you, but I would have guessed the existence of Santa Claus – or clear thinking liberals – to be more of a likely prospect.

Who’d have guessed that upon discharge, the human dregs that made up the population of Gitmo would have returned to the cesspool from whence they came.

There’s just no telling what people will do.

From Reuters:

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed as “returning to the fight” and 43 are suspected of having done in a report issued late in December by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Morrell declined to provide details such as the identity of the former detainees, why and where they were released or what actions they have taken since leaving U.S. custody.

“This is acts of terrorism. It could be Iraq, Afghanistan, it could be acts of terrorism around the world,” he told reporters.

Morrell said the latest figures, current through December 24, showed an 11 percent recidivism rate, up from 7 percent in a March 2008 report that counted 37 former detainees as suspected or confirmed active militants.

As egregiously academic as it to have to make this point (but I do so knowing that I am dealing with the morally bankrupt), to allow just one of these killers – who, incidentally are not afforded the same rights as American citizens, nor should they be – to blend back into the murderous community of lowlifes that look to do as much harm to this country as possible is one person too many.

If, indeed, the closing of Gitmo is on The One’s agenda – and it almost certainly seems like it is – who can argue, with any degree of reasonability, that doing so is anything more than an act of vacuous symbolism? That to “undo” anything that is directly tied to the Bush administration carries far more weight with Big Bam than the actual practicality of keeping these dangerous killers under wraps?

Mr. Obama, what happens to these terrorists once Gitmo goes away?

Where do they go?

Are they sent to “better” facilities? Are they shipped to prisons with better human rights records?

Portugal, perhaps?

Rights advocates said the lack of details should call the Pentagon’s assertions into question.

“Until enough information is provided to allow the press and the public to verify these claims, they need to be viewed with a healthy degree of skepticism,” said Jennifer Daskal, a Washington-based lawyer for Human Rights Watch.

Rights advocates contend that many Guantanamo detainees have never taken up arms against the United States and say the Defense Department in the past has described former detainees as rejoining “the fight” because they spoke out against the U.S. government.

“The Defense Department sees that the Guantanamo detention operation has failed and they are trying to launch another fear mongering campaign to justify the indefinite detention of detainees there,” said Jamil Dakwar, human rights director at the American Civil Liberties Union.

obama-and-gitmoAn important Rule of Thumb for Americans to follow is that anytime Human Rights Watch or the American Civil Liberties Union is involved, it is prudent to find out what positions they take and then support the opposite.

I find the use of the term “rights advocates” as laughable as having Cuba on the Human Right Council of the United Nations (which they are).  These organizations foster victimhood of the undeserving while ignoring those who truly are victims.

As talk show host Dennis Prager often says, “Those who are kind to the cruel will often be cruel to the kind.”

Over at the Vocal Minority blog – one of my favorites – they comment on these so-called “rights advocates”:

You’re not rights advocates, OK. You’re aiders and abettors of terrorists. Of murderers. Of thugs. What about the rights of the innocents these animals have slaughtered all over the world? When have you advocated for their rights, huh?

You’re on the wrong side of morality and history, a’ight? And you’re an enemy of this country.

Verify these claims? Easy! Just read the paper! Gateway Pundit has done the courtesy of compiling a list of reports for you:

Gitmo Detainees Re-Arrested in Russia

Former Gitmo Prisoner Arrested for Terrorism in Moscow

Three Former Gitmo Detainees Held in Morocco

Former Gitmo Inmate Involved in Russian Terror Attack on Nalchik

Camel-Riding Former Gitmo Detainee Blows Himself Up

Former Gitmo Detainee Re-Arrested in Pakistan

Seven Percent of Gitmo Detainees Return to Battlefield.

Former Club Gitmo Detainee Carries Out Suicide Mission in Iraq

Say it with me: Leftists cannot be trusted with matters of national security.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

NO MORE ROOM FOR THE DEAD

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 13, 2009

Golda Meir famously said, “We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours.”

I am not sure I could ever beckon whatever it would take to forgive someone who murdered my children, but the point is well taken.

In Gaza, so the story goes, the ground is full. There is no more room in the cemeteries there to bury the dead. It is a story both unsettling and tragic – assuming it is true.

For me, not being moved by the death of innocents would be – in my humble opinion – less than human.

However, allow me to be as clear as possible.

Each and every death of an innocent in the ongoing battle between Israel and Hamas rests completely – unequivocally – with the murderous terrorist organization, Hamas. Indeed, the majority of the dead in Gaza are military personnel. However, where innocents have been killed – particularly as a result of the dastardly and disgusting practice of using people as shields, or civilian residences as weapons storage facilities – the blame in totality belongs with the vermin who sparked the current conflict by firing thousands of missiles into Israel.

And yet, somehow, most of the world continues to excoriate the tiny little Jewish state by the Mediterranean for defending itself. There can be no better example of how backward a large portion of humanity is than the planet-wide condemnation of Israel. Much of the world press – with its inherent anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, and unwillingness to not only confront evil but its inability to  identify it – eagerly broadcasts and publishes endless images of bloodied Palestinian civilians and pulverized buildings in Gaza, complete with soul-wrenching, heart-stomping tales of destroyed families and missing children.

One caption under a picture of dead bodies in Gaza, posted at the Times Online reads:

Gaza FuneralSeven members of the Salha family were killed in an Israeli airstrike on their home. Many families are unable to bury their dead properly because of the hostilities.

Just for good measure, on the right side of the Times Online webpage, there is a frightening picture a man running with a bloody infant in his arms.

Nope. No bias there.

Here’s my news flash …

Save for the genuinely innocent, I have not a scintilla of compassion for the dead in Gaza.

The article reads:

To the traumatised Palestinians of the Gaza Strip it is bad enough that their friends and relatives are being killed in such numbers – more than 900 at the last count. What is worse is that they can no longer give them proper funerals. In northern Gaza, because the Eastern cemetery is no longer accessible, the bereaved are having to search for plots between the existing graves in the older, full-up cemeteries to bury their loved ones, or to reopen and reuse the graves of their forebears.

There is no mention in this particular article (nor in hundreds like it) – not one – of the reason why Israel is attacking the Gaza Strip. (Surprise, surprise) There is not even a passing reference to the thousands of missiles fired into Israel from Gaza that initiated this latest round of kick-ass.

Not that I expected there would be.

A blogger called Ozzy at the Times Online typifies the cancer that is moral equivalency with this brilliant comment:

war is terrible, but i guess in order for there to be peace there has to be war… that’s what history says, human are always going to repeat the same pattern if they don’t ever try to learn from their mistakes. sadly there are plenty of people who would ignore that for the sake of their cult.

I agree that peace is achieved through victory.

But this oatmeal-spine way of thinking – like most liberal thought on matters of security – is embarrassingly childish. Victory does not ensure that all evil is defeated – and because that is the case, it does not automatically negate the necessity of fighting when it is called for. Winning a war does not mean there will be no more wars. Rather, victory ensures that a specific evil is defeated at a given time, e.g., defeating the Nazis in World War II (but still needing to fight the Communists in Korea or the Islamo-Fascists in the current “War on Terror.”)

That war is “terrible,” does not mean it is unnecessary.

Naivety, thy name is liberalism.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

OBAMA, MEET OSAMA

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 9, 2008

395617 01_osamaThe terrorist threat to the United States is either a Bush-concoted exageration, or an unintended consequence of imperialist war-mongering – according to much of the American leftorcay. After all, the human fecal matter who fly planes into buildings and strap bombs to the guts of their children were just minding their own business, planting radish gardens, baking Dome of the Rock shaped fig cookies until we came along.

The “fundamental transformers” of America – i.e. the Democrats – are probably not taking too much notice of this one, but I’ll waste my time with it, being one of the brainwashed Bush monkeys.

According to a Yemeni al-Qaeda operative, in a story published on the front page of an Arabic newspaper in London – Al-Quds Al-Arabi – “the terrorist organisation (al-Qaeda) has entered a ‘positive phase’, reinforcing specific training camps around the world that will lead the next “wave of action” against the West.”

(Osama) bin Laden is himself closely following preparations for an attack against the US and aims to “change the face of world politics and economics”. The operative is quoted as saying that “this will be shown by the fact that we now control a major part of the south of Somalia“.

The source also said that during the next few days the terrorist organisation may send a sign of its violent intentions.

The warning has emerged at the same time as publication of a report leaked to The Telegraph newspaper which reveals that a document drawn up by the intelligence branch of the Ministry of Defence says that thousands of extremists are active in the UK.

Security officials, The Telegraph reports, are convinced al-Qaeda cells will attempt another “spectacular” inside the UK with major transport centres, such as airports and train stations, the most likely targets. Other targets include the Houses of Parliament, Whitehall and Buckingham and St James’ palaces, with the threat level described as “severe”.

Let’s hope this “change” that President-elect Obama keeps talking about isn’t the seven-years the United States has been free of terrorist attacks.

Hey Obamacrats …. Do America a favor, okay? Just pretend the terrorists are greehouse gases, or free enterprise.

Go after them. Yeah, it’s that serious, lefties.

Posted in Foreign Policy, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »