Video Of Our Unsecure Border

We remembered 9/11. Some of us still remember the lessons. But the Dems, most leftists and a few RINOs have completely forgotten already.

View this video:

“Religion Of Peace” Worshippers Stone Couple To Death

Somehow, the appelation “Religion of Peace” doesn’t seem to stick when I read stories like this.

From the Telegraph UK:

A man and woman have been stoned to death in northern Afghanistan after being accused by the Taliban of having an affair.

The 23-year-old woman and 28-year-old man were killed because “they had an affair,” said Mohammad Ayob, the governor of Imam Sahib district in Kunduz province.

“Two people were stoned to death by Taliban in Mullah Quli village late yesterday,” he said. The village is under the control of the Taliban.

The couple had their hands bound behind their backs and were forced to stand in an empty field as their sentence was carried out, he said.

A local Taliban commander, who contacted media but refused to give his name, confirmed the killings.

Earlier this month, the Taliban publicly flogged and then killed a pregnant widow for alleged “adultery” in western Badghis province.

Where is the outrage from the so-called “moderate” Muslims? If this were a Christian or Jewish happening, the entire world would be screaming with rage (including the Muslims). Where was the courageous Islamic who stood up in front of the crowd and said, “Let him who is without sin amongst you cast the first stone!”

But then, I’m sure that the apologists for the Islamics will assert that the couple was violently stoned to death in the most peaceful manner possible.

Taliban Kill Couple In Public Stoning
Foreign Staff
Telegraph UK
August 16, 2010

Obama: Okay Hosting Muslim Function, Says No To “Christian Character” Of “God And Country” Rally

I said it before, and I’ll say it again: “If it weren’t for double standards, Democrats would have no standards at all.”

So, the Obama administration refuses to allow Flyovers for the “God and Country” rally in Nampa, Idaho because of the “Christian Character” of the rally.

Pentagon Denies Flyover of Patriotic ‘God and Country Rally’ in Nampa Idaho Because of its Christian Content
George Vogt
Metro Catholic
July 4, 2009

This marks the first time in the 42 year history of the event that a flyover request was denied by the Pentagon.

The event is held ever year to honor the spiritual foundations of our country with a special emphasis on the men and women who serve in the armed forces.

In past years, the “God and Country Rally” has focused on honoring and paying tribute to those veterans who have served our nation in the past and those who are currently on active duty.

At the rally this year, all five branches of the armed services were featured with over 60 new recruits sworn into the military at the event.

After a phone conversation and an e-mail response from the Pentagon, Rally Director Patti Syme says they were denied the request for a flyover this year because of the “Christian” nature of the event.

But, the Obama administration is perfectly fine with hosting a Muslim event right in the White House.

Statement by the President on the Occasion of Ramadan
White House Press Release
August 11, 2010

These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings. Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality. And here in the United States, Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country. And today, I want to extend my best wishes to the 1.5 billion Muslims around the world – and your families and friends – as you welcome the beginning of Ramadan.

I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.

So, it’s okay to say “no” because of “Christian Character” but then turn around and say yes to Muslims in the name of “justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

I wonder how dignified women feel when they are subjugated by Sharia law and what Barack Obama’s position on this is?

I know alot of you out there are going to say that Bush did the same thing at Ramadan, but Bush did not cancel flyovers for the God and Country rally saying the event was too “Christian.” Still, I’d also like to know Bush’s position on the subjugation of women under Sharia law.

Leftist Judge Susan Bolton Sides With Illegals And Drug Lords Against America

No, that’s not sour grapes in the title. It’s the bare truth. Essentially, Susan Bolton is saying that Arizona cannot enforce Federal Law and that the Feds do not have to enforce their own laws.

Think I’m kidding? Here is what Investor’s Business Daily notes:

Bolton blocked the main provisions of Arizona’s law requiring state lawmen to ask people they come into legitimate contact with to show documentation if there’s reasonable suspicion they’re here illegally.

So now a van driver arrested by a state trooper for driving 120 miles per hour with 30 people stuffed under his floorboards will still get a speeding ticket, but the officer can’t ask about his immigration status. Nothing to see here; move along.

Bolton also blocked provisions requiring foreigners to carry papers at all times (as federal law already requires), as well as a section prohibiting public solicitation of work. Likewise, a section allowing warrantless arrests on probable cause was tossed.

Judging Arizona
Investor’s Business Daily
July 28, 2010

In essence, by tossing the Arizona law, Bolton also tossed Federal Law.

Now, we have nothing to contain the tide of illegals, drugs and other contraband that is coming across the Mexican border. Barack Obama has gotten his wish, as he expressed to Senator Kyl of Arizona:

Obama Won’t Secure Border Until Lawmakers Move on Immigration Package
Fox News
June 21, 2010

So, what we have here is a situation where the Federal Government is refusing to carry out its responsibility to protect the citizens of the United States and it is prohibiting the citizens from protecting themselves. That is a volatile combination, one that will either have mildly serious consequences or majorly serious consequences down the road.

I don’t know who, but someone once said: “When the government fails in its responsibility to protect its citizens, it is the duty of the citizen to take up that responsibility for himself.” That is going to come into play here very soon. It will come in two phases.

First, the November elections are coming up fast. The mood across the United States is clear. The Obama Administration is in the toilet and this ruling against a state law that enjoyed broad support across the United States is only going to make that worse. There were several Democrat Governors visiting the White House who expressed their concern that the actions against Arizona are “toxic” to the election and re-election hopes of Democrats.

Governors Voice Grave Concerns On Immigration
Abby Goodnough
New York Times
July 11, 2010

After the November elections, if the Federal Government doesn’t get the message from the American people, then the people will begin taking matters into their own hands. A nation that is truly free must have laws and those laws must be enforced by the government entrusted to enforce them. If the government decided to pick and choose which laws it will enforce and which laws it will ignore, it will destroy the confidence of the people and the people will respond accordingly.

We may very likely begin seeing a violent backlash against illegals in the country with a concurrent attempt by the government to stem this backlash. But that will only fuel the fire. People will see a government cracking down on its own citizens while ignoring the threat coming across the border. That will, in turn, result in more violence.

Think that’s exaggerating? Consider this:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer put on a brave face, saying the battle was “far from over” and her state would fight all the way to the Supreme Court. But this will take decades, giving Mexico’s murderous cartels many years of people-smuggling profits.

So the delay itself amounts to a victory for the law’s foes. In addition to paying for the expensive litigation, Arizona can look forward to a growing bill for housing, schooling, jailing and providing “free” health care for the illegals who will now flow into the state.

And it can’t say no. Isn’t that taxation without representation?

Some 15,000 Arizona state officers could be helping the federal government enforce the laws it isn’t enforcing now. Now, they’ll do other things instead. By the logic of Bolton’s ruling, the state trooper who arrested Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh on a speeding violation in 1995 would now be prohibited from arresting him for the federal crime of the bombing, too.

If it wasn’t clear before, it is now: The federal government has no intent of enforcing the laws against rampant and brazen illegal immigration. Indeed, it will punish those states that try, leaving them at the mercy of the kidnappers, terrorists, gangsters, drug dealers and human traffickers that now freely cross our southern border.

Once that level has been achieved, the Federal government will have no way of controlling it. Think law enforcement agencies will be able to handle what is coming? No, it will be too big. Think using the military will work? No, most members of the military will refuse to take action against American citizens and will openly question why the illegal invasion was allowed to go unchecked in the first place.

Susan Bolton may very well have written the modern day Uncle Tom’s Cabin that will spark a modern civil war, a war that the Federal Government will not be able to win this time.

Reuters Doctors Photos Again In Overt Attempt To Discredit Israel

It happened before. Back in 2006, Reuters doctored several photos taken by Adnan Hajj to make the damage in Beirut appear more severe than it really was. Now, Reuters has doctored more photos to make the terrorists and militants aboard a Turkish ship that ran the Gaza blockade to appear like “peaceful passengers.”


According to the New York Post:

The camera never lies, they say — but what if the photos are sent out by the Reuters news agency?

And especially what if they make Israel look bad?

Which is precisely what happened after IHH, the Turkish “humanitarian” group with longstanding terrorist ties, released photos of the bloody clash between its activists and Israeli commandos who boarded a ship trying to break the Gaza blockade.

One photo shows an Israeli surrounded by IHH “peace” activists, one of whom is holding a knife.

The second shows another Israeli lying under a bloodstained railing as a second IHH activist also holds a knife.

At least that’s what appears in the images distributed by The Associated Press.

In the photos distributed by Reuters, there were no knives. And no blood.

The impact being to make it look more like an Israeli massacre of innocent civilians and less like an act of self-defense against armed thugs masquerading as humanitarian workers.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Lying With Photos
New York Post
June 9, 2010

Iran Laughing At Obama’s Nuclear Retaliation Policy

The announcements made yesterday were beyond belief. Obama has actually come out and said that he will not retaliate against anyone who uses chemical or biological weapons against American citiziens. Whatever happened to the man who claimed that he had “no patience or tolerance” for those who would attack innocent civilians?

Now, the Iranians are laughing at us. From the Associated Press via Google:

Iran’s hard-line president has ridiculed President Barack Obama’s new strategy aimed at reducing the likelihood of nuclear conflict.

Obama on Tuesday announced new rules constraining the use of America’s nuclear arsenal, vowing not use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them. However, Iran and North Korea were not included in that pledge because they do not cooperate with other countries on nonproliferation standards.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, addressing thousands in northwestern Iran on Wednesday, likened Obama to a “cowboy” and called him an inexperienced newcomer who follows the will of Israel. Ahmadinejad said the U.S. president “can’t do a damn thing.”

Weren’t countries like Iran supposed to start liking us after Obama got elected? Seems like the rhetoric coming out of Tehran is worse than it ever was under George W. Bush.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Iran Ridcules Obama’s Nuclear Strategy
Associated Press via Google
April 7, 2010

Obama Administration: Hydrocarbon-Deniers

There’s a new term for you: Hydrocarbon-Deniers. Those are people who think that we can magically walk away from fossil fuels and everything will be a-okay and all Americans will have good jobs as a result.

That is, until reality kicks in and we see what really happens. The truth is that oil and other fossil fuels are what we need to get our economy back on track. Why the Obama Administration and other leftists are stuck in some fantasy world, I can’t even begin to guess.

Investor’s Business Daily notes the following:

With an economy struggling to regain sound footing, Chu advocated a starvation diet devoid of additional fossil fuels that are to remain under the ground and seabed. Instead, he supports 53% more funding for wind research and a 22% jump for solar research.

Subsidizing alternative energy fits the classic definition of insanity. Despite huge subsidies, it has proved to be neither cost-effective nor a reliable, significant contributor to our national power grid. Yet we keep subsidizing it, expecting a different result.

“Oil is an ideal transportation fuel, so it will be with us for decades,” Chu conceded, even as the administration forbids us from getting more of it here, creating energy jobs, lowering energy costs and cutting our trade deficit. Instead we’ll rely increasingly on foreign and often unfriendly suppliers.

How much more money are we going to waste a) researching energy sources that won’t fulfill our needs and b) buying oil from Islamic nations so those governments can turn around and give that money to terrorist groups to attack us?

If the left keeps getting its way, we will waste that money forever.

More:

Equally unimpressed with Chu’s presentation was another speaker. “Gas is more than a bridge fuel,” said James Mulva, CEO of Houston-based ConocoPhillips, noting that huge gas discoveries in recent years in North America in shale and other unconventional rock formations could provide more than a century of supply. “It is part of the long-term energy solution.”

“We must overcome the opposition of the ‘hydrocarbon deniers,'” Mulva said, playing off Al Gore’s term for climate-change skeptics. Hydrocarbon deniers, he said, are those who “believe that renewable energy will quickly and easily replace hydrocarbons and cure all that ails us.”

The headline above a story in the New York Times read, “Oil Execs Chortle as Obama Admin Promotes Renewables.” Except that it’s not funny; it’s tragic. To leave vast stores of domestic energy untapped while Americans are looking for cheap energy and jobs is irresponsible. Unfortunately, this administration has no long-term energy solution, other than hoping for a lot of cloudless and windy days.

But the Obama Administration is set to put a 3 year ban in place for offshore drilling. Such bans will only serve to keep the cost of energy high and the prospect of economic recovery low.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Chortling At Chu
IBD Editorial
March 15, 2010

10th Amendment Issue: Texas Sends Rangers To Border Because Federal Government Failed To Address Problems

Count on this happening more and more often in the coming months and years. As the Federal Government over-reaches its powers in some areas (i.e. health care, financial institutions, auto industry, etc.) and fails in its responsibilities in other areas (i.e. border control, anti-terrorism policies, etc.) the several states will begin invoking the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and begin taking action of their own.

This story, from MSNBC of all places, is one example of it:

Special teams of Texas Rangers will be deployed to the Texas-Mexico border to deal with increasing violence because the federal government has failed to address growing problems there, Gov. Rick Perry said Thursday.

“It is an expansive effort with the Rangers playing a more high-profile role than they’ve ever played before,” Perry said of the Department of Public Safety’s elite investigative unit.

The forces, dubbed “Ranger recon” teams, are the latest effort “to fill the gap that’s been left by the federal government’s ongoing failure to adequately secure our international border with Mexico,” he said.

This action brings with it several implications, not the least of which is that if Washington D.C. does anything to try and stop the State of Texas from continuing this action, it will highlight the fact that Federal Government did fail in one of its greatest responsibilities and ignoring it will produce the same exact result.

More:

“They’ll be deployed to high-traffic, high-crime areas along the border,” he said. “They’ll give us boots on the ground, put people in these hot spots no matter what or where they may exist.”

Perry said the effort also would focus on remote areas where farmers and ranchers have complained of being overrun by smugglers and gangs from Mexico in numbers that also overwhelm local law enforcement and border patrol officers.

“Washington is shortchanging them, not giving them the support they need,” Perry said. “As a result, we’re having to dedicate our resources to deal with the challenges we have along the Texas-Mexico border and ensuing issues that porous border has created all across state of Texas.”

If the Obama administration wishes to bring any type of legal action against the State of Texas for this, I say bring it on. We need debates like this to help educate the American people as to exactly what kind of person Obama really is.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Texas Governor Sends Rangers To Mexico Border
Associated Press via MSNBC
September 11, 2009

Waterboarding Works! Detainee Cooperated After ‘Enhanced Interrogation Techniques’ Were Used

You certainly won’t hear Eric Holder or Barack Obama ever make this admission. In fact, I’m stunned that the leftist-leaning Washington Post even allowed this to go to print.

Khalid Shieik Mohammed, who refers to himself as the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, began to reveal a great deal of valuable information after CIA interrogators began using the technique known as “waterboarding” on him. Before that, he managed to resist interrogation quite effectively.

From Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate:

“KSM, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete,” according to newly unclassified portions of a 2004 report by the CIA’s then-inspector general released Monday by the Justice Department.

The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result. But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general’s report and other documents released this week indicate.

Over a few weeks, he was subjected to an escalating series of coercive methods, culminating in 7 1/2 days of sleep deprivation, while diapered and shackled, and 183 instances of waterboarding. After the month-long torment, he was never waterboarded again.

But here is what the interrogations yielded:

Mohammed provided $1,000 to Ramzi Yousef, a nephew, to help him carry out the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In 1994, he worked in the Philippines with Yousef, now serving a life sentence at the federal “supermax” prison in Colorado, on a failed plot to down 12 U.S. commercial aircraft over the Pacific.

Mohammed told interrogators it was in the Philippines that he first considered using planes as missiles to strike the United States. He took the idea to Osama bin Laden, who “at first demurred but changed his mind in late 1999,” according to the summary.

Mohammed described plans to strike targets in Saudi Arabia, East Asia and the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks, including using a network of Pakistanis “to target gas stations, railroad tracks, and the Brooklyn bridge in New York.” Cross-referencing material from different detainees, and leveraging information from one to extract more detail from another, the CIA and FBI went on to round up operatives both in the United States and abroad.

“Detainees in mid-2003 helped us build a list of 70 individuals — many of who we had never heard of before — that al-Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations,” according to the CIA summary.

Mohammed told interrogators that after the Sept. 11 attacks, his “overriding priority” was to strike the United States, but that he “realized that a follow-on attack would be difficult because of security measures.” Most of the plots, as a result, were “opportunistic and limited,” according to the summary.

How many American lives were saved because of that information? How many attacks were thwarted because of the techniques used?

The average lib Democrat would rather see thousands of Americans killed than to see one terrorist suffer the least little bit. It would be nice if the Dems actually rooted for our side for once.

EITs work and we should continue using them. Holder and Obama should get out of the way and let the people charged with defending America do their jobs.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

How A Detainee Became An Asset
Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate
Washington Post
August 29, 2009

A Spy ‘Outing’ Game For Real

So, where are all the libs who were rallying around Valerie Plame a few years ago? They were all screaming about how horrible it was that Plame got “outed” as a CIA agent.

For some reason, all those same libs are now silent (I would say shamefully silent) about John Adams Project defense lawyers for the terrorists who will truly “out” current CIA operatives and expose their families as well. Whereas Valerie Plame showed how much her privacy had been violated by posing for the cover of Vanity Fair, a nationally circulated magazine, the current outings will put agents and their families in danger of reprisals from the terrorists themselves.

(I wonder if Barack Obama realizes this and if so, does he even care? He seems to care more about the terrorists than he does about American lives.)

Writing for the Washington Times, John Armor has the following:

First, the Plame Affair. According to the mainstream media, that was about the “outing” of a CIA “covert operative” in violation of federal law.

But that law applies only to people who had been a covert operative “within five years.” The only person who identified her as a CIA covert operative within five years of her service was her husband, who let the cat out of the bag in a Who’s Who entry. Mrs. Plame was not outed by anyone, per the law.

That’s right. Even Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald admitted that there was no violation of Federal law in the Plame case. But, he overstepped his bounds when he went after Scooter Libby on what were obviously trumped-up charges.

Read on:

However, the fraud of the Plame blame game does not detract from the real purpose of the CIA-protective law. It’s designed to protect covert CIA agents from being killed by enemies who would do so in a heartbeat if they knew who these agents are. That brings us to the current situation.

The defense counsel for certain Guantanamo Bay detainees is receiving help from the John Adams Project, a combined effort of the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

According to numerous accounts, these defense lawyers have John Adams Project researchers taking photos of CIA covert operatives. And these lawyers have already shown these photos to their clients in Guantanamo Bay and are now seeking the legal right to release the photos to the public.

If the Plame affair were so infuriating to the libs, then they should be surrounding the Justice Department right now demanding that these photos never get released. Because, unlike the Plame situation in which Valerie was never in any danger, the agents that will be outed by this investigation will most certainly be in danger as will their families.

Clearly, The ACLU couldn’t care less about the safety of these people! If anyone from the ACLU wishes to refute this, please feel free to leave a response.

Armor goes on to say:

More likely these photos were taken in the home communities of these agents, placing not only them, but their families and neighbors in the cross hairs of murderers. And that is precisely why the law that never actually applied in the Plame Affair, does apply today.

It may be that just showing the photos of the CIA agents to their clients turns the assistants who photographed them and the lawyers who passed them on, into criminals themselves. Beyond that, there is the matter of what happens if these photos are offered as evidence in a trial.

The choice here is clear. If you support protecting innocent Americans, you will be against letting the ACLU out these agents. If you support the terrorists, you will agree with putting these agents and their families at risk by releasing these photos.

I will always go with protecting Americans. It’s clear that the ACLU and other libs want the opposite.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

A Spy ‘Outing’ Game For Real
John Armor
Washington Times
August 26, 2009

Obama Administration To Give Terrorists More Fodder For Propaganda

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder decided to move forward with prosecutions against CIA interrogators who protected American lives by extracting information from terrorists. Apparently, Obama doesn’t think it was right for those CIA interrogators to get that information.

So, Eric Holder has appointed John Durham, a Justice Department prosecutor, to go after those interrogators and bring them to trial.

From CBS News:

Holder has appointed John Durham, a Justice Department prosecutor, to determine whether or not any laws were broken during the interrogations.

First, let us remember the Valerie Plame affair in which Plame (a CIA analyst who was not in a covert status at the time) was allegedly “outed” by someone in the Bush Administration. The libs and Dems went crazy screaming about how Plame and her husband were having their privacy violated, even as they both posed for the cover of Vanity Fair magazine.

Now, this investigation will most certainly “out” several CIA agents who are not only covert, but will now have their families exposed as well. That is a treasure trove of information for a terrorist to have. While some CIA interrogators may have threatened to kill a terrorist’s children, terrorists actually go out and kill innocent children.

So, to all you liberal Dems, why is it okay to “out” these interrogators and expose their families to terrorist reprisals but you came to the defense of Valerie Plame who wasn’t even in a covert status? I don’t think any amount of hypocritical reasoning will ever be able to justify that.

But even more far reaching is how the terrorists are going to use this as propaganda against us and stir-up even more anti-American sentiment in order to bring more fanatical recruits to their cause of killing as many innocent Americans as possible.

And here is something interesting:

President Obama has said that he does not want to prosecute the former Bush administration officials who created the interrogation policies. But Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, has added that the Attorney General’s investigation into the legality of the interrogations is independent of the administration.

Didn’t Obama say that we should look forward and not back? Apparently, Holder didn’t get that memo. And given Gibbs’ response to the whole thing, it looks as though Obama doesn’t have any idea of what is going on over at Justice or how that department is forcing him to break one of his own pledges. Or Obama is pushing for these prosecutions while trying to keep his hands clean at the same time. I think this last possibility is most likely.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Bush Admin. Official Criticizes CIA Probe
Dana Chivvis
CBS News
August 25, 2009

Obama Rewrites Cold War History To Appease Our Enemies

Appeasement only works in the fantasy world of leftist minds. Out here in reality, it has never worked and only resulted in more devasting conflicts.

Read the following Liz Cheney column from the Wall Street Journal:

There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.

Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: “The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.”

The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not “competition in astrophysics and athletics.” It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet “sphere of influence” was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.

It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push “reset” — or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.

Mr. Obama’s method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.

The approach was evident in his speech in Moscow and in his speech in Cairo last month. In Cairo, he asserted there was some sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the evil that the Iranian mullahs have done in the world since 1979. On an earlier trip to Mexico City, the president listened to an extended anti-American screed by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and then let the lies stand by responding only with, “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was 3 months old.”

Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, “I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In other words, not so much.

The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism — Obama exceptionalism. “We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand,” one Obama handler has said. What they don’t seem to realize is that once you’re president, your brand is America, and the American people expect you to defend us against lies, not embrace or ignore them. We also expect you to know your history.

Mr. Obama has become fond of saying, as he did in Russia again last week, that American nuclear disarmament will encourage the North Koreans and the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions. Does he really believe that the North Koreans and the Iranians are simply waiting for America to cut funds for missile defense and reduce our strategic nuclear stockpile before they halt their weapons programs?

The White House ought to take a lesson from President Harry Truman. In April, 1950, Truman signed National Security Council report 68 (NSC-68). One of the foundational documents of America’s Cold War strategy, NSC-68 explains the danger of disarming America in the hope of appeasing our enemies. “No people in history,” it reads, “have preserved their freedom who thought that by not being strong enough to protect themselves they might prove inoffensive to their enemies.”

Perhaps Mr. Obama thinks he is making America inoffensive to our enemies. In reality, he is emboldening them and weakening us. America can be disarmed literally — by cutting our weapons systems and our defensive capabilities — as Mr. Obama has agreed to do. We can also be disarmed morally by a president who spreads false narratives about our history or who accepts, even if by his silence, our enemies’ lies about us.

That column hits the nail right on the head.

You can access the orginal column on-line here:

Obama Rewrites The Cold War
Liz Cheney
Wall Street Journal
July 13, 2009

Holy War In Virginia: Islamic School Wants To Expand

Right in our backyard in Fairfax County. A Saudi-owned Islamic school is trying to expand its campus and a group of local residents are trying to stop it.

From Fox News:

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing Monday night to consider a proposal to expand the campus of the Islamic Saudi Academy, a Saudi-owned college preparatory school.

Critics of the plan point to former students of the school who have been convicted in a plot to assassinate former President Bush, and more recently, arrested for trying to board an airplane with a seven-inch kitchen knife.

That is the end result of Wahabbism: young terrorists. And this is a Wahabbi school.

Don’t forget to brush up on terrorist training camps right here in America.

But, there are other issues here as well:

“We’re opposed to the operation of the Islamic Saudi Academy because it teaches and practices Shariah law,” said James Lafferty, chairman of the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force (VAST).

Lafferty said his organization is a coalition with roughly 10 other groups that oppose the land-use expansion. By teaching Shariah law, Lafferty says, the school replaces the U.S. Constitution with a “very backward and barbaric” rule of law.

“Shariah law advocates rights via gender and religion,” Lafferty told FOXNews.com. “They allocate rights by gender and religion. If you are a male who is Islamic, you have rights. If you’re not, you have no rights.”

That alone is reason enough for this school to lose any accreditation at the very least.

But, I wonder how the government would respond if this were a Catholic School, or a Protestant Christian Academy, or a Jewish School. Would there even have been a debate? Or would the government simply have told the school “No” and be done with it?

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Coalition Fights Expansion Of Islamic Saudi Academy In Virginia
Joshua Rhett Miller
Fox News
July 13, 2009

Essay From A Retired Army Command Sergeant Major

Got this in an email. One thing about this CSM (Command Sergeant Major), he does not waste time getting to the point! This essay has been around for a long while, but the points made are still extremely valid.

(I checked this out on snopes.com but didn’t find anything to indicate that this wasn’t written by J.D. Pendry, US Army, Retired.)

“The Axis of Idiots”

Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the runner-in-chief.

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and our embassy bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You’ve accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You’re a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam , is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can’t win militarily in Iraq . You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You’re not a Marine, sir. You wouldn’t amount to a good pimple on a real Marine’s butt. You’re a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi’s torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news, Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated another beheading for you. If you truly supported our troops, you’d show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a Communist victory there. You’re a bloated, drunken fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers – the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers – cause to think that we’ll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.

It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic Jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.

American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are all America ‘s ‘AXIS OF IDIOTS.’ Your collective stupidity will destroy us. self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don’t ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.

J. D. Pendry – Command Sergeant Major, USA (Retired)

You’ve got to admit, nothing was served cold in that essay!

J.D. Pendry is the author of The Three Meter Zone: Common Sense Leadership For NCOs available at Amazon.com

Political Humor: Divorce Agreement

I got this in an email from my sister today:

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950’s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up this country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We’ll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.

When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.

We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volkswagon you can find.

We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute Imagine, I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

The sad part is that if the Dems succeed in inflicting socialism on the United States in such a way that it become irreverisble through the electoral process, what you just read above may actually happen and the U.S. will split into to distinctly separate nations with one nation embracing the disaster known as socialism and the other going back to the roots of our Founding Fathers. You can already see the beginnings of it from the states that are declaring their sovereignty from the Federal government.

North Korea Nuclear Crisis Raises Tensions

Just a week or so ago, Barack Obama pledged to begin a unilateral scrapping of our nuclear weapons. Since then, North Korea has been taking some very provocative steps. Again, I have to wonder if North Korea’s actions were calculated based based on Obama’s stance and words.

Now, the situation has become worse. North Korea announced that it was pulling out of the treaty that ended the Korean War more than 50 years ago. This has lead to heightened tensions in the region and U.S. and South Korean troops have gone on high alert.

Apparently, North Korea sees our efforts at controlling nuclear proliferation and preventing terrorists from getting their hands on a nuclear weapon as an “act of war.”

From BBC News:

Pyongyang has blamed its decision on South Korea’s decision to join a US-led initiative to search ships for nuclear weapons, calling it a “declaration of war”.

“Any hostile act against our peaceful vessels, including search and seizure, will be considered an unpardonable infringement on our sovereignty,” said a spokesman for the North’s army.

“We will immediately respond with a powerful military strike.”

So, how does the Obama administration respond to this? Read what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the North’s violation of Security Council resolutions, but also held out hope that North Korea would return to six-nation disarmament talks.

I’m sure that the communists in Pyongyang are quaking with fear over Clinton’s statement. The truth is that with a President who is weak on national security and even weaker on dealing with rogue nations seeking nuclear weapons, North Korea and Iran have become emboldened in their actions.

The longer Obama and company maintain a weak dispostition towards DPRK and the Islamic Republic, the closer we will come to having a nuke snuck into our country and detonated.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Alert Level Raised On North Korea
BBC News
May 28, 2009

North Korea Tests Nukes And Iran Deploys Bluewater Navy

I’d bet my next paycheck that back during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, when Barack Obama pledged to sit down with Iran without any pre-condidtions, that the governments of Iran and North Korea were listening very intently even if the voters who voted for Barack Obama were not.

In fact, recent developments lead me to believe that the governments of Iran and North Korea took their current actions precisely because of what Obama promised.

First, North Korea tested more nukes and the missiles necessary to deliver them, most likely as a test of the how strongly the Obama administration would respond. From Reuters:

The nuclear test was a major diplomatic challenge to Obama at a time when he is facing a global economic crisis and working to curb Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, which the West fears is aimed at producing nuclear arms but Tehran says is for energy.

Obama vowed when he took office to extend a hand to troublesome countries “willing to unclench your fist” but so far he has had little success with North Korea or Iran, which have continued to advance their nuclear programs and showed little interest in renewed dialogue.

And then the Iranians decided to flex their naval “muscle” in the Gulf of Aden, yet another test of Obama’s resolve to stand-up to regimes that oppose the goals of the United States. From Fox News:

The deployment is “a signal of military strength, resolve and continued defiance to U.S. and U.N. Security Council efforts to end the impasse over Iran’s nuclear program,” said Jim Phillips, senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Heritage Institute.

“What’s very important here is the timing of this move — and this naval muscle flexing comes after Iran’s missile test earlier this week, which was saber rattling that was meant to send the same signal as this naval dispatch.”

Phillips said Ahmadinejad was using the opportunity to thumb his nose at the U.S. and U.N. to advance his own popularity in Iran ahead of the country’s hotly contested June 12 election.

A coincidence that these things are happening on the watch of an American President whose international policies are soft on terror? I think not. These were calculated moves. It now remains to be seen whether or not Obama has his nation’s best interests at heart, or the interests of those who want to see the U.S. weakened and even attacked again.

I’m willing to bet that Obama will put politics above the national interest.

You can access both articles on-line here:

Obama Says North Korea Nuclear Test A “Grave Concern”
David Alexander
Reuters
May 25, 2009

Iran Sends 6 Warships To International Waters In ‘Saber Rattling’ Move
Fox News (from Reuters)
May 25, 2009

Former Gitmo Inmates Returning To Terrorism; Obama Administration Supresses Report

Here is something that every American should be aware of when it comes to the issue of releasing terrorists back in the world. A report describing how these former detainees are going back to militant and radical terrorist groups was supposed to be released back on February 2, 2009. It has not yet been released and according to the New York Times, Obama administration officials were the ones behind keeping the report under wraps:

The Pentagon promised in January that the latest report would be released soon, but Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said this week that the findings were still “under review.”

Two administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said the report was being held up by Defense Department employees fearful of upsetting the White House, at a time when even Congressional Democrats have begun to show misgivings over Mr. Obama’s plan to close Guantánamo.

And writing for the Weekly Standard, Thomas Joscelyn has this:

But the contents of the report deal with a hotly contested issue–one that is being debated throughout the media and is not going away any time soon. Therefore, the public has a right to know the facts and evidence accumulated by the DOD regardless of the implications for the Obama administration.

This is especially true because the Pentagon had previously released a similar report on June 13, 2008. The report we’ve been expecting since earlier this year, and which only the New York Times now has a copy, is merely an update of that June 2008 report, which is freely available online. There is no good reason the updated report, as well as further updates, cannot be released in a similar fashion.

Indeed, the differences between the June 2008 report and its successors are especially troubling. Perhaps those differences explain why an updated version of the June 2008 report would be especially problematic for the Obama administration as it attempts to close Gitmo.

The June 13, 2008, report noted that 37 former detainees were “confirmed or suspected” of returning to terrorism. On January 13, 2009, seven months later, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said that number had climbed to 61. Now, according to the Times, the DOD has found that same metric has risen further to 74–exactly double the Pentagon’s estimate just 11 months ago.

Critics point out that even with 74 recidivists the total number of former detainees who have returned to terrorism is “only” 14 percent of the 534 total detainees who have been released from Guantanamo. But this ignores the fact, as explained above, that the recidivism rate is continuously increasing.

And what would be the main reason for this recidivism rate increase? Simple. Terrorists no longer fear what the American government will do to them if captured. No, this didn’t start with the Obama administration.

Democrats had been working to undermine the anti-terrorism efforts of the Bush administration long before Obama got elected. Those efforts are now paying off for the terrorists who see a Democrat-controlled U.S. government that is weak on terrorists, but hard on those who would protect us from terrorists.

Not only have the Democrats been undermining those would who protect us from terrorists, but they are also undermining our security by pretending that such terrorists are not that big of a threat to us. Hence, the supressed report.

Any Democrats reading this blog can feel free to defend their party by commenting on this post.

You can access the original Weekly Standard article on-line here:

See No Evil
Thomas Joscelyn
The Weekly Standard
May 20, 2009

And you can access the original New York Times article on-line here:

Later Terror Link Cited for 1 in 7 Freed Detainees
Elizabeth Bumiller
New York Times
May 20, 2009

John Boehner: Pelosi Should Show Proof Or Apologize

Remember during the Valerie Plame non-scandal when the Dems thought that the CIA was the best thing since sliced bread? Well, it looks like the CIA is back in the Dem dog-house. How does a government agency gain and then fall out of favor so quickly? Well, when dealing with liberals Dems like Nancy Pelosi, it is all about political advantage. During the Plame case, it was politically advantageous to embrace the CIA. Now, the politcal wind in Washington D.C. is such that the CIA is to be shunned.

But, people who are intelligent and clear thinking can see what is really going on here. Pelosi told some rather large untruths and falsehoods about what the CIA breifed her on concerning enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT) including waterboarding, the technique that yielded information which in turn may have saved thousands of American lives.

And now, she is being called on those lies. According to CNN:

A key Republican leader demanded Sunday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi produce evidence to back up her assertion that she was misled by the CIA on the use of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

“Lying to the Congress of the United States is a crime,” House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“If the speaker is accusing the CIA and other intelligence officials of lying or misleading the Congress, then she should come forward with evidence and turn that over to the Justice Department so they be prosecuted. And if that’s not the case, I think she ought to apologize to our intelligence professionals around the world.”

It has already been established that Pelosi and some of her aides knew exactly what was going on. But, none of them ever spoke out against these EITs back in 2002 and 2003. No, instead they waited seven years for the issue to become politcally favorable for them.

It should also be noted that Jane Harmon (D-CA) has not to come to Nancy Pelosi’s defense. Harmon did protest the use of waterboarding back in 2003.

More:

On Thursday, Pelosi said the briefing she received from the CIA was incomplete and inaccurate, and she called on the agency to release a full transcript of the briefing. She also accused Republicans of jumping on reports of the briefings to cause a distraction.

The speaker’s comments prompted CIA Director Leon Panetta to stand up for the agency on Friday and challenge Pelosi on her assertion that the CIA had misled her.

“There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I’m gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.” Panetta said in a letter to agency employees.

When faced with such a scathing backlash from the CIA, Pelosi simply switched her criticism from the CIA to the Bush Administration.

Cleary, Pelosi is in a tail-spin and can no longer hide the fact that she has been lying all along. Now that so many people have called her on her lies, she is getting desperate to save whatever is left of her face.

And this little tidbit shows how deeply into the lie Pelosi is willing to go:

Pelosi wants the classified notes of her 2002 briefing on waterboarding declassified because, she has said, they will show that she wasn’t told that harsh techniques such as waterboarding were being used.

The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee said he has read the notes from Pelosi’s disputed 2002 briefing and insists to CNN that she’s wrong.

“The record shows Speaker Pelosi was briefed that the techniques were used on Abu Zubaydah,” Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, said in a written statement.

That appears to back up CIA records declassified last week, which say that on September 4, 2002, Pelosi and Republican Rep. Porter Goss of Florida were briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques.

My personal view? If it is a choice between saving thousands of American lives or worrying about the comfort level of one worthless, waste of flesh terrorist, then I choose saving American lives. It seems as though the average Democrat is more concerned for the terrorist.

Pelosi should not only apologize, but she should at the very least step down as Speaker of the House for lying to the American people. I understand that Democrats would normally call for a politician to step down when caught lying. I wonder if they would apply that same standard to one of their own.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

GOP Leader: Pelosi Should Show Proof Or Apologize
CNN
May 17, 2009

View From The British Media: Why Does Obama Hate America?

I’ve got to give the Brits credit for one thing. Their mass media isn’t afraid to tell it like it is. Whereas here in America our mass media is acting like Obama’s cheerleading squad, the Brits are not afraid to bring hard facts to the forefront and ask questions that would surely embarrass Obama.

Gerald Warner is one such journalist and penned the following column for the Telegraph back on April 24:

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people – not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama’s problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

That is why he opened Pandora’s Box by publishing the Justice Department’s legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.

“Don’t be discouraged by what’s happened the last few weeks,” he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them – or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.

So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers.

Obama promised his CIA audience that nobody would be prosecuted for past actions. That has already been contradicted by leftist groups with a revanchist ambition to put Republicans, headed if possible by Condoleezza Rice, in the dock. Talk about playing party politics with national security. Martin Scheinin, the United Nations special investigator for human rights, claims that senior figures, including former vice president Dick Cheney, could face prosecution overseas. Ponder that – once you have got over the difficulty of locating the United Nations and human rights within the same dimension.

President Pantywaist Obama should have thought twice before sitting down to play poker with Dick Cheney. The former vice president believes documents have been selectively published and that releasing more will prove how effective the interrogation techniques were. Under Dubya’s administration, there was no further atrocity on American soil after 9/11.

President Pantywaist’s recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America’s enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

If only American reporters had such courage and fortitude to stand up to the socialist Obama like that. But, they will never ask hard, reality-based questions of The One.

You can access the original column on-line here:

Barack Obama And The CIA: Why Does President Pantywaist Hate America So Badly?
Gerald Warner
Telegraph UK
April 24, 2009