May 31, 2009
Scott Roeder (allegedly) kills Doctor George Tiller at his church in Kansas.
Google hits on the killer's name: 285,000
Coupled with "right wing": 42,600
June 1, 2009
Abdulhakim Hakim Mujahaid Muhammad (allegedly) kills Private William Long outside a recruiting station in Arkansas.
Google hits on the killer's name: 4070
Coupled with "left wing": 696
June 10, 2009
James von Brunn (allegedly) kills security guard Stephen Johns at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC.
Google hits with the killer's name: 33,100
Coupled with "right wing": 9,280
Something is not right. Or fair. Or objective. Just review those numbers again.
There is a deliberate cover-up or selective negligence by the news agencies. How can a domestic terrorist attack on our military go virtually ignored while other, more politically profitable crimes, are reported on the front page.
To be clear- all of these crimes are equally heinous, immoral and vile. All should be equally condemned and measures should be taken to punnish the guilty and ensure repeat crimes do not occur.
But in the words of Rahm Emmanuel, never let a crisis go to waste.
These awful crimes are being exploited by the media, by the left, by the administration to further their political interests. Obama is vehemently pro-abortion. Any chance he has to "criminalize" the pro-life movement, the better.
A case could be made to "criminalize" the pro-peace movement. Cindy Sheehan is as guilty in the death of Private Long as Bill O'Reilly is in the death of George Tiller or Rev. Wright is in the death of Officer Johns. "Dem jews ain't gonna let me talk to Obama" Rev Wright reminds us just a few days ago.
Keep eating the anti-semite sandwich, Revered.
Let's review some things: Letterman, Leno, Stewart, Colbert, 'Lil Bush, SNL, You're Welcome America! with Will Ferrell, Farenheit 9-11, W the movie, et al ALL contributed to the anti-Bush, anti-Republican, partisan angry politics that envelope this nation. Yes, it still envelopes the nation and Obama is only exacerbating it to his advantge (never let a crisis go to waste, right?). Yet how often did the media talk about "left wing" anger and hostility? I can't remember.
The rhetoric coming out of the media these days is comical. Protecting the President and the left and the democrat party, they speak of a "growing trend" of anti-American, anti-Obama, racist behavior. Remember Jeanne Garafolo (who's political credentials include reading from an Aaron Sorkin script on The West Wing) called the Tea Party's "racist". And the CNN reporter who spoke of the tea party's as anti-government? (I wrote about that briefly ).
I don't recall any shock or frustration at the hatred spewed at President Bush. And N.O.W. was virtually silent when Sarah Palin was mocked over and over again. had dave Lettermen made a joke about Sasha Obama as cruel and gross as the joke he made about 14 year old Willow Palin, I bet there would be some reaction from the media. I guess you can make rape jokes about the children of Republicans.
A few years ago, Mrs. Alito left the Senate chamber in tears because of the line of questioning her husband was facing during his confirmation hearings. Yet we are told by the White House to tred lightly on Mrs. Sotomayor because of her hispanic heritage. (BTW- she was born in the Bronx to Puerto Rican parents who were Americans since birth. My mom was born in Brooklyn to immigrant parents who because naturalized Americans. My mom, however, is not a minority. Go figure.)
I apologize- these comments have been a little all over the place. But I think you understand my point. The left uses every moment, every crime, every crisis to improve their image and bash their opponents. They never silenced the 9-11 conspirators, they never apologized for their treatment of our former President, they never distanced themselves from "General Betray-us" and other such attacks. And they never have to. Because we don't make them.
These three shootings are sad commentaries on our life in America. There are crazy people out there from the Unabomber to Richard Reid. How sad that groups use their evil actions to improve their polling numbers and election chances.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Campaigning in the Middle East
I can hardly recall a time when a sitting US President spoke ill of his country and his predecessor on foreign soil more often than Obama has done in his first few months in office. And so much of this "hope and change- Obama '08" rhetoric has spilled over into the executive methods of our 44th President that the line between campaigning and governing are mixed into a dizzying and dangerous hodgepodge of weak actions and strong words.
"Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible", said President Obama in his address to muslims this earlier today in Cairo.
I ask, as a follow-up, the sort of follow-up no reporter asked President Obama during the campaign season, a 2-part question that will never be answered"
1. What types of diplomacy were not used before the Iraq war that could have prevented it? Were not the countless UN resolutions and sanction sufficient? Was snubbing the IAEA and international inspectors properly responded to? Have you read resolution 1441?
2. What countries were missing from the international consensus that could have lead credibility and gravitas to the US efforts? To refresh your memory: Canada, UK, Australia, Spain, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Colombia, Poland, etc were just a few of the dozens of nations that formed the "international consensus". Absent, notably, were Russia, France and Germany. Communists, wimps and nazis. I think we did OK.
Obama still talks abot the Iraq war thinking he has to outflank Clinton and Edwards who voted for the War Powers Act. Newsflash Mr. President: you are the President. What you think about the war's inception is now moot- moreso, it is precarious. It is now your war. Will you handle it thus?
"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."
The magnificent platitude of a campaign speech. More precisely, a straw man campaign speech. If you seek a "new beginning...based on mutual interest and mutual respect" then you are, indeed, saying that America's past was based on self interest and lack of respect. Now, to be even more precise, is that America's relationship with muslims or muslim nations?
America has no relationships with "people" around the world- be they communities of religion or creed or race. To talk about the "United States and Muslims around the world" means we have policies with "Buddhists" around the world. And "Methodists" around the world. What are those relationships? And where are they defined? In Presidential order of acts of Congress?
The US does not enter into relationships with communities or people. It has relationships with nations, as America is a nation. How can a government have a relationship with a people? Are laws and policies going to be created specifically targeted towards one people?
In Obama's mind, yes, there should be such laws. And more of them. Affirmative action, hate crimes, any form of legislation that favors a minority or victim class is a good and necessary action because it helps achieve "fairness". And fairness, in the mind of a liberal, is tantamount to "equality".
Funny- the US Constitution should prevent such favoritism based on race, religion, ethnicity, etc. But with liberals like Sonia Sotomayor who denies Ricci his promotion because he's white and triumphs her own wisdom because she is latina headed towards to Supreme Court, Obama is ensuring that his beliefs will be upheld at the highest level.
This same logic is what prompts our Campaigner in chief to launch a new beginning with muslims around the world. We elected a Saul Alinsky community organizer as President. His community is now the world. But his methods are the same.
"The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam".
Mr. Obama, you call yourself "a student of history" in this speech. If only your speechwriter and teleprompter were students of history, too. Based on this, tension in muslim countries are derived from:
a. religious wars (medieval Europe)
b. colonialism (modern Europe)
c. the cold war (Reagan)
d. modernity and globalization (Bill Gates)
In summary: tension in muslim countries is, again, our fault. Despite the fact that other parts of the world had "religious wars", all of America was colonized, no one was more a proxy than Poland in the cold war and globalization is global... it is all our fault. Had the Czech responded to the Internet with terrorism, we should have been more empathetic. Had the Latvians responded to SALT talks with suicides bombers in the town square, we should have looked inward at our own culpability.
When you treat everyone as a victim, you need to blame the victimizer. On the world stage, muslims are victims and the President places all the blame on us.
"The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights".
Not all priests are pedophiles. Yet all priests suffer because of the 3% of scum who commit crimes in a roman collar. Until they clean up their own, police their own and turn over their own to criminal prosecutions, there should be a high level of scrutiny and even moderate distrust towards priests. Anything less would be irresponsible.
There is still a man outside the vatican embassy on Observatory Circle with the sign "The Vatican hides criminals".
Cannot the same be said for Islam? Can it not be said about muslims in America? Until they clean up their own, police their own and turn over their own to criminal prosecutions, there should be a high level of scrutiny and even moderate distrust. Anything less would be irresponsible.
Where is the man in NW outside the islamic center with a sign "Iran hides criminals"?
The same goes for muslim nations. Nations that do not police their own, turn over their own, should be dealt with under a premise of scrutiny and moderate distrust. Nations that harbor men who behead journalists, who plant bombs in market places and inflict terror on innocent civilians cannot be trusted. That means Iran. And Syria. And Saudi Arabia.
That is your responsibility, Mr. President. Your job is not one of fostering a new beginning with any peoples- especially not one group over another. Your job is to foster relationships with nations. And in your words, relationships that are "based upon mutual interest and mutual respect".
Go to France and talk to the French people. Typical sentiment: they hate America. They love Americans. Sure they think our culture is disposable and superficial and they mock our cuisine and wine. But they don't shower daily, they dress like the Thompson Twins and and pay 70% in taxes. But all this is pointless because the relationship that the country of US and the country of France has is strong. Whether or nor the people get along is gravy. We don't make relationships with the French people. We build relationships with the French government.
Whether or not muslims and Americans get along will not be decided by President Obama or any politician. But creating a national policy that protects and defends our interests will foster an atmosphere where such niceties can flourish in time.
President Obama has a messiah complex because he wants a messiah complex. We wants to heal the world because he believes he can. Call it confidence or arrogance, the man believes his own press releases and his campaign has not ended. Too bad that in the process he is doing more damage than good and the relationships he hopes to create will only lead to greater international discord and danger.
I wish I were wrong. But I too am a student of history. And I know where we are headed. It is not pretty.
"Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible", said President Obama in his address to muslims this earlier today in Cairo.
I ask, as a follow-up, the sort of follow-up no reporter asked President Obama during the campaign season, a 2-part question that will never be answered"
1. What types of diplomacy were not used before the Iraq war that could have prevented it? Were not the countless UN resolutions and sanction sufficient? Was snubbing the IAEA and international inspectors properly responded to? Have you read resolution 1441?
2. What countries were missing from the international consensus that could have lead credibility and gravitas to the US efforts? To refresh your memory: Canada, UK, Australia, Spain, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Colombia, Poland, etc were just a few of the dozens of nations that formed the "international consensus". Absent, notably, were Russia, France and Germany. Communists, wimps and nazis. I think we did OK.
Obama still talks abot the Iraq war thinking he has to outflank Clinton and Edwards who voted for the War Powers Act. Newsflash Mr. President: you are the President. What you think about the war's inception is now moot- moreso, it is precarious. It is now your war. Will you handle it thus?
"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."
The magnificent platitude of a campaign speech. More precisely, a straw man campaign speech. If you seek a "new beginning...based on mutual interest and mutual respect" then you are, indeed, saying that America's past was based on self interest and lack of respect. Now, to be even more precise, is that America's relationship with muslims or muslim nations?
America has no relationships with "people" around the world- be they communities of religion or creed or race. To talk about the "United States and Muslims around the world" means we have policies with "Buddhists" around the world. And "Methodists" around the world. What are those relationships? And where are they defined? In Presidential order of acts of Congress?
The US does not enter into relationships with communities or people. It has relationships with nations, as America is a nation. How can a government have a relationship with a people? Are laws and policies going to be created specifically targeted towards one people?
In Obama's mind, yes, there should be such laws. And more of them. Affirmative action, hate crimes, any form of legislation that favors a minority or victim class is a good and necessary action because it helps achieve "fairness". And fairness, in the mind of a liberal, is tantamount to "equality".
Funny- the US Constitution should prevent such favoritism based on race, religion, ethnicity, etc. But with liberals like Sonia Sotomayor who denies Ricci his promotion because he's white and triumphs her own wisdom because she is latina headed towards to Supreme Court, Obama is ensuring that his beliefs will be upheld at the highest level.
This same logic is what prompts our Campaigner in chief to launch a new beginning with muslims around the world. We elected a Saul Alinsky community organizer as President. His community is now the world. But his methods are the same.
"The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam".
Mr. Obama, you call yourself "a student of history" in this speech. If only your speechwriter and teleprompter were students of history, too. Based on this, tension in muslim countries are derived from:
a. religious wars (medieval Europe)
b. colonialism (modern Europe)
c. the cold war (Reagan)
d. modernity and globalization (Bill Gates)
In summary: tension in muslim countries is, again, our fault. Despite the fact that other parts of the world had "religious wars", all of America was colonized, no one was more a proxy than Poland in the cold war and globalization is global... it is all our fault. Had the Czech responded to the Internet with terrorism, we should have been more empathetic. Had the Latvians responded to SALT talks with suicides bombers in the town square, we should have looked inward at our own culpability.
When you treat everyone as a victim, you need to blame the victimizer. On the world stage, muslims are victims and the President places all the blame on us.
"The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights".
Not all priests are pedophiles. Yet all priests suffer because of the 3% of scum who commit crimes in a roman collar. Until they clean up their own, police their own and turn over their own to criminal prosecutions, there should be a high level of scrutiny and even moderate distrust towards priests. Anything less would be irresponsible.
There is still a man outside the vatican embassy on Observatory Circle with the sign "The Vatican hides criminals".
Cannot the same be said for Islam? Can it not be said about muslims in America? Until they clean up their own, police their own and turn over their own to criminal prosecutions, there should be a high level of scrutiny and even moderate distrust. Anything less would be irresponsible.
Where is the man in NW outside the islamic center with a sign "Iran hides criminals"?
The same goes for muslim nations. Nations that do not police their own, turn over their own, should be dealt with under a premise of scrutiny and moderate distrust. Nations that harbor men who behead journalists, who plant bombs in market places and inflict terror on innocent civilians cannot be trusted. That means Iran. And Syria. And Saudi Arabia.
That is your responsibility, Mr. President. Your job is not one of fostering a new beginning with any peoples- especially not one group over another. Your job is to foster relationships with nations. And in your words, relationships that are "based upon mutual interest and mutual respect".
Go to France and talk to the French people. Typical sentiment: they hate America. They love Americans. Sure they think our culture is disposable and superficial and they mock our cuisine and wine. But they don't shower daily, they dress like the Thompson Twins and and pay 70% in taxes. But all this is pointless because the relationship that the country of US and the country of France has is strong. Whether or nor the people get along is gravy. We don't make relationships with the French people. We build relationships with the French government.
Whether or not muslims and Americans get along will not be decided by President Obama or any politician. But creating a national policy that protects and defends our interests will foster an atmosphere where such niceties can flourish in time.
President Obama has a messiah complex because he wants a messiah complex. We wants to heal the world because he believes he can. Call it confidence or arrogance, the man believes his own press releases and his campaign has not ended. Too bad that in the process he is doing more damage than good and the relationships he hopes to create will only lead to greater international discord and danger.
I wish I were wrong. But I too am a student of history. And I know where we are headed. It is not pretty.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Not briefed on the brief
There comes a time when lies, rolled in lies, get out of hand.
We've all done it. We told mom we had to work but when dad called your office you said it was a business trip but when sis called you answered the phone at home and the lies compounding the lies get out of hand.
Lying is not easy. It's an art. It requires not just a mischievous nature and willingness to deceive but a real talent for order, logic and miscalculation. And great acting.
Bill Clinton was a triumph in lying. Just recall his visit to Normandy.
Hillary was not as successful. Sniper fire in Bosnia, her own namesake- all proven to be lies. Hillary is not as good as Bill.
Nancy Pelosi is now proven to be a bad liar- which is not necessarily a bad thing. But Madam Speaker does find herself in a career damaging (and potentially a career ending) string of lies. I was at the brief but I wasn't briefed. I was informed about a briefing but was never told of the briefing. There were two briefings. The CIA is lying, not me. Bush did it.
When tricky Dick Nixon got caught in his web of lies finally the press asked the famous "what did the president know and when did he know it?". I am waiting for such bluntness from the press today.
When campaigning Senator Obama was stuck in his lies about Rev. Wright and David Ayers and Tony Rezko (and abortion and Jerusalem and Iran and, well, everything else...) he was able to skirt the issue assisted by an allied press and was never asked to fess up. But that was a campaign- and let's face it- the campaign is a glorified trailer compelling you to buy a ticket and see the movie.
Nancy Pelosi is in campaign mode but not in a campaign. Lambasting the Bush Administration and deriding the CIA may be popular in Merin County and win her support from the left, but this is Congress now and she is tempting fate with her poorly conceived lies.
What did the Speaker know and when did she know it?
The CIA will not bend over and take it. Not when they are claled liars, and not by a politically motivated politician.
nancy is in a pot of water and the gas was just turned up. Careful nancy- it could be boiling pretty quickly.
We've all done it. We told mom we had to work but when dad called your office you said it was a business trip but when sis called you answered the phone at home and the lies compounding the lies get out of hand.
Lying is not easy. It's an art. It requires not just a mischievous nature and willingness to deceive but a real talent for order, logic and miscalculation. And great acting.
Bill Clinton was a triumph in lying. Just recall his visit to Normandy.
Hillary was not as successful. Sniper fire in Bosnia, her own namesake- all proven to be lies. Hillary is not as good as Bill.
Nancy Pelosi is now proven to be a bad liar- which is not necessarily a bad thing. But Madam Speaker does find herself in a career damaging (and potentially a career ending) string of lies. I was at the brief but I wasn't briefed. I was informed about a briefing but was never told of the briefing. There were two briefings. The CIA is lying, not me. Bush did it.
When tricky Dick Nixon got caught in his web of lies finally the press asked the famous "what did the president know and when did he know it?". I am waiting for such bluntness from the press today.
When campaigning Senator Obama was stuck in his lies about Rev. Wright and David Ayers and Tony Rezko (and abortion and Jerusalem and Iran and, well, everything else...) he was able to skirt the issue assisted by an allied press and was never asked to fess up. But that was a campaign- and let's face it- the campaign is a glorified trailer compelling you to buy a ticket and see the movie.
Nancy Pelosi is in campaign mode but not in a campaign. Lambasting the Bush Administration and deriding the CIA may be popular in Merin County and win her support from the left, but this is Congress now and she is tempting fate with her poorly conceived lies.
What did the Speaker know and when did she know it?
The CIA will not bend over and take it. Not when they are claled liars, and not by a politically motivated politician.
nancy is in a pot of water and the gas was just turned up. Careful nancy- it could be boiling pretty quickly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)