Obama Is Not An American!!! - Obama Is A Fraud!!! - Obama Is A Muslim!!!

Obama Is An Embarrassment To The Presidency, and To AMERICA!

Scroll Down And Check Out The Links List On The Lower Right Side of The Page

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Ann Knows How To Protect America... Search ALL Muslims!



In response to a Nigerian Muslim trying to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day, the government will now prohibit international travelers from going to the bathroom in the last hour before the plane lands.

Terrorists who plan to bomb planes during the first seven hours of the eight-hour flight, however, should face no difficulties, provided they wait until after the complimentary beverage service has been concluded.

How do they know Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab didn't wait until the end of the flight to try to detonate explosives because he heard the stewardess announce that the food service was over and seats would have to be placed in their upright position?

I can't finish my snack? This plane is going down!

Also prohibited in the last hour of international flights will be: blankets, pillows, computers and in-flight entertainment. Another triumph in Janet Napolitano's "Let's stay one step behind the terrorists" policy!

For the past eight years, approximately 2 million Americans a day have been subjected to humiliating searches at airport security checkpoints, forced to remove their shoes and jackets, to open their computers, and to remove all liquids from their carry-on bags, except minuscule amounts in marked 3-ounce containers placed in Ziploc plastic bags -- folding sandwich bags are verboten -- among other indignities.

This, allegedly, was the price we had to pay for safe airplanes. The one security precaution the government refused to consider was to require extra screening for passengers who looked like the last three-dozen terrorists to attack airplanes.

Since Muslims took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, every attack on a commercial airliner has been committed by foreign-born Muslim men with the same hair color, eye color and skin color. Half of them have been named Mohammed.

An alien from the planet "Not Politically Correct" would have surveyed the situation after 9/11 and said: "You are at war with an enemy without uniforms, without morals, without a country and without a leader -- but the one advantage you have is they all look alike. ... What? ... What did I say?"

The only advantage we have in a war with stateless terrorists was ruled out of order ab initio by political correctness.

And so, despite 5 trillion Americans opening laptops, surrendering lip gloss and drinking breast milk in airports day after day for the past eight years, the government still couldn't stop a Nigerian Muslim from nearly blowing up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day.

The "warning signs" exhibited by this particular passenger included the following:

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

He's Nigerian.

He's a Muslim.

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

He boarded a plane in Lagos, Nigeria.

He paid nearly $3,000 in cash for his ticket.

He had no luggage.

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Two months ago, his father warned the U.S. that he was a radical Muslim and possibly dangerous.

If our security procedures can't stop this guy, can't we just dispense with those procedures altogether? What's the point exactly?

(To be fair, the father's warning might have been taken more seriously if he had not simultaneously asked for the U.S. Embassy's Social Security number and bank routing number in order to convey a $28 million inheritance that was trapped in a Nigerian bank account.)

The warning from Abdulmutallab's father put his son on some list, but not the "no fly" list. Apparently, it's tougher to get on the "no fly" list than it was to get into Studio 54 in the '70s. Currently, the only people on the "no fly" list" are the Blind Sheik and Sean Penn.

The government is like the drunk looking for his keys under a lamppost. Someone stops to help, and asks, "Is this where you lost them?" No, the drunk answers, but the light's better here.

The government refuses to perform the only possibly effective security check -- search Muslims -- so instead it harasses infinitely compliant Americans. Will that help avert a terrorist attack? No, but the Americans don't complain.

The only reason Abdulmutallab didn't succeed in bringing down an airplane with 278 passengers was that: (1) A brave Dutchman leapt from his seat and extinguished the smoldering Nigerian; and (2) the Nigerian apparently didn't have enough detonating fluid to cause a powerful explosion.

In addition to the no blanket, no computer, no bathroom rule, perhaps the airlines could add this to their preflight announcement about seat belts and emergency exits: "Should a passenger sitting near you attempt to detonate an explosive device, you may be called upon to render emergency assistance.

Would you be willing to do so under those circumstances?
If not we will assign you another seat ..."

Monday, December 28, 2009

Obama: Administration 'Will Not Rest' Until All Suspects in Terror Plot Found

By now nearly everyone has had their Christmas Holiday and celebrations ruined by the news that a terrorist tried and failed to blow up an airplane in Detroit on Christmas day.

He nearly succeeded.

Our commander in chief says that he will not rest until all the suspects are found... HAH! That's a HUGE joke! On US!

Here's the story from FOX...

Obama: Administration 'Will Not Rest' Until All Suspects in Terror Plot Found
President Obama declared Monday that his administration "will not rest" until it tracks down everyone involved in the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas, and pledged to do "everything in our power" to ensure security in the thick of the holiday travel season.

In his first public remarks on the incident, the president said Americans should be "confident," but also stay "vigilant."

Obama, who is on vacation in Hawaii, called the Detroit incident a "serious reminder" of the threat posed by terrorism abroad.

"A full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism and we will not rest until we find all who are involved and hold them accountable," Obama said. "Had the suspect succeeded in bringing down that plane, it could have killed nearly 300 passengers and crew, innocent civilians preparing to celebrate the holidays with their family and friends."

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has claimed to be behind the attempted strike. Suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is now in custody -- he allegedly tried to set off an explosive mixture, but the chemicals did not detonate and he was subdued by other passengers.

The president said Monday that he's taken several steps in response to the incident. He ordered immediate added security measures at airports and ordered a review of terror watch lists and security protocols at airports. The suspect was on a broad federal database of people with known or suspected ties to terrorists but was not on a "no-fly" list.

"It's absolutely critical that we learn from this incident, take the necessary measures to prevent future acts of terrorism," Obama said.

At the same time, the president pledged to sustain his administration's expanded war on terrorism and made clear that he does not consider that front limited to Afghanistan.

"We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us, whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia or anywhere, where they are plotting attacks against the U.S. homeland," he said.

Several critics have questioned why the president took three days to speak to the public on the nearly successful terror attack.

"We're now, what, 72 hours into this and the president has not spoken, the vice president has not spoken, the attorney general has not spoken and (Homeland Security Secretary) Janet Napolitano has now told two different stories in two days," Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said Monday morning.

He compared the administration's communications effort to an "iron curtain."

"It's very hard, even for me being on the Homeland Security Committee and the intelligence committee, to get any information out of this administration," King said.

I heard this guys speech today... it was maybe 2 minutes long... If that!

Then he spent nearly 10 minutes talking about the poor Iranian protestors and that Iran should stop killing these kind folks and so on and so on...

Obama doesn't give a hoot about America! Wake Up!

Obama is a MUSLIM! - He's one of THEM!

You know... Those folks that have sworn to kill us all?

He Admits it!!!

Stupid Democrats... Elected A Muslim!

Friday, December 25, 2009

National Organization for Irresponsible Women

From The National Review Online

National Organization for Irresponsible Women
It’s not sexist for a general to tell soldiers to avoid pregnancy.
By Mona Charen

Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo is in command of 22,000 American combat forces in northern Iraq. Unlike some high-ranking military men who demonstrate exemplary courage in the face of the enemy but collapse like paper umbrellas in the face of political pressure, Cucolo seemed ready for the political firefight he precipitated.

At least at first.

General Cucolo’s provocation was as follows: Pursuant to his powers as a general officer, he issued regulations for soldiers under his command. Some dealt with Iraqi sensibilities (soldiers were forbidden to enter mosques except in cases of “military necessity”), and others with good order and discipline (no gambling or drug use).

Additionally, the general directed that soldiers who become pregnant or impregnate others while deployed would be subject to courts martial.

Cue the feminists.

“How dare any government say we’re going to impose any kind of punishment on women for getting pregnant,” fumed Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women.

“This is not the 1800s.” Four Democratic senators dashed off a public letter. “We can think of no greater deterrent to women contemplating a military career than the image of a pregnant woman being severely punished simply for conceiving a child,” protested Sens. Barbara Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, and Kirsten Gillibrand. “This defies comprehension. As such, we urge you to immediately rescind this policy.”

But General Cucolo was prepared.

Asked about the critical reaction, he said, “I appreciate the inflamed — I got it.
Here’s the deal.
I’m the one responsible, and I mean this sincerely, and I mean this with — I hope I’m not sounding — it doesn’t matter. I am the one responsible and accountable for these 22,000 soldiers.

The National Organization for Women is not.
Critics are not.
I appreciate — I will listen to critics, and they add thought.
But they actually don’t have to do anything.
I have to accomplish a very complex mission, very complex.”

Don’t you particularly like the “I hope I’m not sounding — it doesn’t matter”?

It’s true that United States senators don’t really have to do anything. But it would be nice if they thought of themselves as representing the interests of the nation from time to time, and not just as compliant mouthpieces for interest groups.

Do any of these liberal senators ever lift their sights enough to recognize that an army is not a social-welfare agency?

Feminists, above all, should recognize that when a woman takes an oath as a soldier, she has freely undertaken extraordinary responsibilities.

If she becomes undeployable and has to be sent home (the unavoidable consequence of becoming pregnant), someone else must serve in her place.

The Army loses a valuable investment, and the unit is left vulnerable.

As General Cucolo explained, “I need every soldier I’ve got, especially since we are facing a drawdown of forces during our mission. Anyone who leaves this fight earlier than the expected twelve-month deployment creates a burden on their teammates.

Anyone who leaves this fight early because they made a personal choice that changed their medical status — or contributes to doing that to another — is not in keeping with a key element of our ethos.”

That ethos — and forgetful senators can look it up — includes the following creed: “I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States, and live the Army Values. I will always place the mission first.”

The general’s order was evenhanded.

The same punishment applied to men who impregnated others (though clearly it is easier for a man to escape detection if the woman conceals his identity) as to women who became pregnant. It would not apply to pregnancies that were the result of rape.

Though knee-jerk-liberal senators and professional feminists would probably faint at the suggestion, there are actually women soldiers who purposely get pregnant to escape service (with an accompanying depressing effect on unit morale).

And there are others who are a little careless. Their commanding officer was reminding them (and their boyfriends) to behave as responsible adults and loyal soldiers.

After taking fire, General Cucolo clarified that he couldn’t imagine putting a woman in prison for getting pregnant. But let’s hope the headlines calling this a climb down are overblown.

His order was sensible — and in a saner world would have been utterly uncontroversial.
AMEN, Sister!

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Democrat's Christmas Present to All Of Us!

We've known for some time now that the Democrats were 'out of their minds', and that Obama promised to 'fundamentally change America'.

Well Merry Christmas America, from The Democrats...
Corrupt, Socialist, Anti-American Health Care 'reform' is your present this year!

From TownHall

ObamaCare: Freedom on Life Support
By Larry Elder

Ignore, for the moment, the ludicrous claim that giving 30 million Americans health insurance actually lowers the cost of health care. What happened to freedom, to the opposition to an intrusive federal government?

Ask a liberal what he most dislikes about the "right"?

"I resent the attempt to tell me how to live my life," he'll say. He'll mention abortion and say that the decision belongs to a woman and her doctor. He'll mention same-sex marriage and say that government should not prevent two people of the same sex from marrying, especially if one objects based upon religious grounds. He'll argue that a Supreme Court "stacked" with right-wingers threatens his liberty.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gives liberals hot flashes. He is religious. He calls the Constitution a "contract," not a "living, breathing" document on which one can discover or project nonexistent rights. He is a "strict constructionist," or an "originalist," who believes that the literal words in the Constitution have meaning. He thinks his job is to figure out what the original Framers meant, not what he would like them to have meant.

Ask a liberal how Scalia and those who share his "conservative" philosophy think the Supreme Court should decide issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and doctor-assisted suicide? He'll say, "Scalia would impose his religiously based worldview on society -- anti-same-sex marriage and anti-abortion -- because the federal government should always preserve life."

No, Scalia would not. In fact, Scalia has publicly said these issues are none of the Court's business. He's said that however he feels personally about these contentious matters, the Constitution gives the Court neither the authority nor the expertise to decide them -- and such matters are ideally left to the states.

This brings us to ObamaCare.

What words in the U.S. Constitution allow the federal government to compel every American to purchase health insurance?

Where does the Constitution allow the federal government to take money from some Americans and give it to others so that they may purchase health insurance?

Recall the anger at former President George W. Bush, who, to fight the war on terror, "trashed" and "shredded" the Constitution.

The same people who railed against the Patriot Act, the terror surveillance program and "illegal" torture happily unleash the power of the federal government to redistribute wealth for ObamaCare, a socially desirable objective.
Never mind the absence of authority in the Constitution.

The left tells us that "health care is a right, not a privilege." Surely the Constitution says so. No, it does not.

Article I, Section 8 details the limited power, duties and responsibilities of the federal government. Extracting money from your paycheck and giving it back to you when you retire -- Social Security? Not there. Taxing workers to pay for the health care of seniors -- Medicare? Not there. Mandating that employers pay workers a minimum wage? Not there.

This is not hypothetical.

During the Great Depression, the Supreme Court struck down much of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal on constitutional grounds. No, said the Court, the federal government cannot use the Constitution's commerce clause to regulate virtually all economic activity.

No, said the Court, the federal government cannot use the welfare clause to redistribute wealth, whether or not it accomplishes a socially or economically desirable objective.

The Court asserted that the Constitution meant what it said and said what it meant. This infuriated FDR. He threatened to expand the number of Court justices, adding jurists who saw the Constitution the way he did until he got the kind of decisions he wanted. Intimidated, the Court blinked. Actions by the federal government that the Court once had deemed illegal suddenly became permissible.

A liberal once asked me: "What should society do about the poor? Is your attitude 'just (expletive) them'?"

I said: "Allow me to rephrase your question. Because of someone's plight, is he entitled to money from you?"
"No," he said, "but it's the right thing to do."

Yes, a moral, compassionate society cares for those who cannot care for themselves.

This is, however, an entirely different matter from using the power of government to take from someone who has, to give to someone who doesn't.

The Constitution does not provide that authority.
Nor has it been amended to do so.

What about the poor? Through economic freedom and competition, we make goods and services cheaper, better and more accessible. Health care is less affordable because of well-intentioned rules and regulations. When government officials go beyond passing laws to protect us against force or fraud, they raise costs and hurt the poor.

Finally, what of charity?

Americans are the most generous people on earth. The religious and those who believe in limited government are the most generous of all.

By design, the federal government plays a limited role.
The rest is up to us.
Our country was founded in opposition to tyranny by government.

Today we submit to it.

This is just the beginning folks... We now have a real fight on our hands. We MUST throw ALL the bums out! Not just ALL the Democrats, but the RINOs too!

We MUST take back our country!
This monstrosity... This Obamination...


Begin today! Re-Take America!

Obama is preparing for a revolution, maybe it's time we began to prepare as well?
Stock up, prepare, get involved...

We need to take our country back!

Yeah, it sure is a MERRY Christmas, isn't it?
Bah... Humbug!

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Friday, December 18, 2009

Sunday, December 13, 2009

America, They're After Our Guns!

O'Reilly slams 'Law & Order,' calls Wolf 'despicable'

From The Live Feed

O'Reilly slams 'Law & Order,' calls Wolf 'despicable'
Bill O'Reilly went after "Law & Order" franchise creator Dick Wolf on Thursday night's "O'Reilly Factor" telecast, calling the producer a "despicable human being" whose veteran TV drama is "out of control."

O'Reilly can certainly say that "L&O" threw the first punch.

This week's episode of "Law & Order: SVU" featured a character played by John Larroquette talking to a detective and saying, "Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, all of 'em, they are like a cancer spreading ignorance and hate...They've convinced folks that immigrants are the problem, not corporations that fail to pay a living wage or a broken health care system..."

O'Reilly said the clip was "defamatory and outrageous" and played clips from past episodes of his Fox News program that showed the host defending "poor people who only want a better life."

Wolf declined to comment.

Here's the segment:

I watched that episode of L&O.
It was offensive and unnecessary.
Attaching the illegal immigration issue to Conservative idealogy is just a cheap liberal trick.
Simply hateful and cheap.

Illegal immigration is a VERY big issue that MUST be dealt with ASAP. It's not a Republican or a Democrat issue.
It affects us all.

But that is just they way Liberals always behave. They'll do anything, say anything to put Conservatives in a bad light. We Conservatives should always expect this from them, and be prepared to 'fight back' with every means available to us.

Liberals are people too, and just as vulnurable to this kind of emotional blackmail. If you're so inclined, use the same techniques to hurt them. Just don't let their nonsense get under your skin.

Liberals are very mean people. They are extremely afraid that they will be overrun by SUV driving, gun-toteing, pro-life, anti-gay, small government, free market Conservatives, so they MUST try to hurt us as often as they can. It's in their very nature to be mean to people that disagree with them.

But, as they grow older, they often see the stupidity of their ideaology and become aware that 'liberalism is a mental disorder', and they begin to understand that they need to reexamine thier belief system... Their world stops making sense and they begin to change.
With help and understanding we can re-habilitate liberals and open their eyes.

We must be patient... and forgiving.
One day they will wake up...

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Army Gen.: Ft. Hood Worst Terrorism Since 9/11

From CBN

Army Gen.: Ft. Hood Worst Terrorism Since 9/11
By Lee Webb

One of the questions that continues to surround the Fort Hood shooting rampage is why the U.S. Army didn't recognize the potential risk of leaving Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan in his position before it was too late.

CBN News put that question to retired Army three-star Gen. Jerry Boykin, who said the answer is simple.

"Nobody wanted to deal with the fact that this guy was a terrorist," Boykin said. "His behavior and his rhetoric were both indications that he was subscribing to a Jihadist ideology and nobody wanted to deal with that issue. He was a terrorist. That was a terrorist act."

Boykin said the Fort Hood massacre was the worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

"The mere fact that this guy was counseling and dealing with our soldiers who have been through the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is atrocious," he added. "It was a leadership failure and it's the fact that the leadership did not want to deal with his Islamic theology; the fact that he was a Muslim is why no one would deal with this guy."

Gen. Boykin spoke from personal experience after spending 36 years in the military.

He was one of the original members of the Army's elite Delta Force and commanded the unit during the Battle of Mogadishu, which was depicted in the movie "Blackhawk Down."

He is also a Christian who spoke openly in uniform about his faith and his Christian world view.

The secular media's coverage of his speeches stirred up a controversy that brought an end to his career. But the double-standard is not lost on Boykin.

"I think everybody in America realizes that the persecution of Christians is acceptable in our society today by both the leadership and the media, but no one wants to offend a Muslim," said Boykin. " The fact of the matter is that this guy was an extremist."

"He was a terrorist and somebody needs to stand up and not only deal with these kind of issues in our society as well as our military," he added. "But they need to deal with the fact that we are infiltrated from within by people who want to destroy the Constitution of our nation and replace it with Sharia Law and we can't appease these people. We must deal with the issue and it starts with calling it what it is. . .Terrorism."

Gen. Boykin doesn't pull any punches.

He said the Army needs to start dealing with the problem before another tragedy happens.

Sean Hannity Sets Caller Straight About BC Issue...

From The Post & Mail

Sean Hannity says Obama should show real Birth Certificate
by John Charlton

(Dec. 9, 2009) — Last night Sean Hannity affirmed that the desire of millions of U.S. Citizens to see the real birth certification of Barack Hussein Obama was legitimate.

His argument was, that if Obama was bold enough to vaunt an electronic image to “prove” anything, that he should not be cowardly to hide the real mcoy.

Hannity’s actual comments were quoted by World Net Daily, in an article published nearly 4 hours ago:

“What was so wrong in saying that, ‘Can we see your birth certificate?’ … We were told early on that, in fact, somebody else had looked at it and confirmed that it was legitimate. So, I mean, what was wrong with people saying, ‘Wait a minute. You know what? In light of the fact of where your, your father came from, et cetera, uh, let’s just make sure that this is a legitimate birth certificate’? … It was not asked by the mainstream media. It was asked by places like WorldNetDaily, who, I think, were just doing due diligence considering it’s a constitutional mandate. … I think a lot of people were just afraid to ask the question.”

Hannity’s Comments are revealing
Hannity’s comments are not just significant, because of his exposure as a television personality, but revealing because of what they say and do not say. The Post & Email will therefore comment on them in turn:

“What was so wrong in saying that, ‘Can we see your birth certificate?’ …”

Evidently, this is made in the context of a reporter who has been consistently told by his editors not to mention the topic, and badgered by colleagues who disdain its discussion. It reflects a work environment which is nothing like one in which freedom of speech and the freedom of the press flourish.

It also reflects a professional environment where political correctness has replaced ethical standards and the common sense notions of duty and loyalty to the nation, first and foremost.

“We were told early on that, in fact, somebody else had looked at it and confirmed that it was legitimate.“

Evidently, Hannity admits that he recognized from the beginning the difference between the claim made by the image of the online COLB, published by Obama’s campaign, and the actual document.

Obama’s supporters, however, seem politically obligated or at least mentally afflicted, to such an extent as to deny this distinction.

“So, I mean, what was wrong with people saying, ‘Wait a minute. You know what? In light of the fact of where your, your father came from, et cetera, uh, let’s just make sure that this is a legitimate birth certificate’?”

There is, however, a fundamental error or erroneous concept of the issue, presented here — promoted by World Net Daily too — that the birth certificate alone will resolve the controversy. If the birth certificate proved that his father was another person — say Frank Marshall Davis — a known U.S. citizen, then it would; but as Obama claimed a British subject as his father, if original vital records, whose authenticity were established in court, confirmed this, even if they did also confirm his birth in U.S. territory, then Obama would still be ineligible to hold and exercise the office of President, because he would not be a natural born citizen.

“It was not asked by the mainstream media.”

The understatement of the year.

“It was asked by places like WorldNetDaily, who, I think, were just doing due diligence considering it’s a constitutional mandate.”

Here is the only time Hannity comes close to indicating that he is thinking of the natural born citizen issue, because the Constitution no where requires that a candidate for President be a U.S. citizen, rather it requires that he be a natural born U.S. citizen.

“I think a lot of people were just afraid to ask the question.”

People are only afraid if they:

1) Stand to lose something by asking,

2) Are threatened with adverse action against them if they asked.

3) Or both, such as in the termination of their contract as media personality, or journalist,etc..

One commentator at Free Republic mentioned that in a subsequent interview with Mark Levin, Hannity danced around the issue. Another mentioned that the Main Stream Media have gone into full disinformation mode, by emphasizing the doubts that Trig is the natural son of Sarah Palin.

There is one documented and official reason why Obama won’t show his original birth certificate: he ain’t got one.

This was affirmed by Dr. Fukino of the Hawaiian Department of Health in late July of this year, when she stated that the Vital Records office of the State has on file “original vital records”; a detailed analysis of Hawaiian laws shows that only where there is some doubt as to the authenticity of the original filing, or in the case of an adoption or amendment, do there exist more than one original vital record.

Why Obama has more than one, lies at the heart of the reason why he won’t reveal them.

See the tags at the end of this article for many more reports on these issues.

Remember America...

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Don’t Court Martial the SEAL Three

From Human Events 12/7/09

Don’t Court Martial the SEAL Three
By Jed Babin

December 7th is usually a day we remember the brave men who died at Pearl Harbor. Many of them died fighting, responding instantly to the cowardly Japanese attack that came without warning.

This is a day to honor bravery, resolve and sacrifice. But this December 7th is different. Today -- because lawyers are far too involved in running this war and commanders are deferring to them far more than they should -- two Navy SEALs are being arraigned on charges they abused an Iraqi terrorist after they captured him three months ago. A third will be arraigned at a later date and their courts martial could occur next month.

As Rowan Scarborough reported two weeks ago, the three SEALs -- Julio Huertas, Jonathan Keefe and Matthew McCabe -- were part of a platoon from SEAL Team 10 that captured one of the most-wanted terrorists in Iraq, Ahmed Hashim Abed, in a nighttime raid on or about September 1. Abed is believed to be the man behind the barbaric March 2004 ambush of Blackwater security guards in which four were murdered, their bodies mutilated and then hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

The facts of the case are a bit muddy. According to a source close to the case who requested anonymity the SEALs captured Abed and transported him to a place where they surrendered him to Iraqi custody. He made no complaint of abuse before being turned over to the Iraqis. At some point after that, the SEALs reclaimed Abed who -- though still technically in Iraqi custody -- was taken back for further questioning, complaining of mistreatment. There was some blood on his clothing but it’s not clear when it appeared.

There is every reason to believe the SEALs are innocent. Chapter 18 of the Al Qaeda training manual released by the US Justice Department says that members must complain of torture and mistreatment inflicted on them.

American investigators became involved and, from that point, it’s apparent that lawyers were making decisions, and the commander at the top of the local food chain -- MGen. Charles T. Cleveland -- at first misunderstood his options and then pushed the matter far beyond the point at which it should have ended.

The charges signed by Cleveland accuse McCabe of illegally hitting Abed in the midsection and then denying he did it. Huertas is accused of making false statements that he didn’t see anyone strike Abed and trying to suborn the testimony of another sailor to back his claim. Keefe is also charged with lying to investigators.

As that list of charges makes clear Cleveland -- for reasons best known to him and his lawyer -- has chosen to throw the book at the three SEALs. These men -- if their special courts martial go ahead -- can be convicted just as if they were in US District Court. They face a federal conviction that could result in up to one year’s imprisonment, bad conduct discharges, fines and reduction in rank. Those punishments would be grossly disproportionate to the offense of punching a terrorist in the stomach. How did this get so far?

According to my source, Gen. Cleveland first misunderstood the difference between the Army and Navy’s disciplinary systems and then pushed the matter to this point.

Under the Army system, a commander can issue a non-permanent letter of reprimand to anyone he commands. Cleveland was ready to do this to the SEALs before he was told by his lawyer that the Navy demands more due process for its people, and that he could either let it go or push the matter up a notch to “non-judicial punishment” under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

And this is where Cleveland went wrong. Instead of just telling a lower-level commander to bring the three in for a royal chewing out -- the maximum punishment these guys deserve if they deserve any at all -- Cleveland went along with the lawyer and ordered that they be brought before a naval “mast”, the equivalent of an Army or Air Force Article 15 hearing. Under the UCMJ, as is their right, the sailors refused to accept that.

You have to understand their rejection of Article 15 punishment. These three -- like most SEALs -- are the ultimate in elite warriors. They have worked enormously hard to earn SEAL status and are proud to risk their lives in the service of our nation.

My source told me that their ambition is to compete for spots on the most elite of the SEAL teams (the one that has a name, not a number, and whose members call themselves “the Jedi.” Which isn’t much of an exaggeration). They don’t think they did anything wrong and turned down the Article 15 because if they accepted it, their ambition to continue to serve their country -- at an even higher level -- would be quashed.

The three -- all career SEALs, not ticket-punchers -- would probably be removed from duty and not permitted to re-enlist as SEALs.

Here again, Cleveland could have brought the matter to an end, but -- at the advice of his lawyers -- he chose to push the matter to the next step, the “special court martial,” which all three now face unless Cleveland changes his mind or a higher-level commander intervenes.

Which is precisely what should happen. It is entirely legal under the UCMJ for one of Cleveland’s superiors to order the charges dismissed. (This is the opposite of illegal “command influence” in which a commander interferes in a military justice case to insist on charges being brought or elevated to a higher charge.)

Which one will? Which Cleveland’s superiors will have the courage to take a tougher path than to just let the trial play out? Who will disregard his lawyers’ caution to “just let the military justice system work”?

Those superiors’ duty is to exercise the judgment Cleveland didn’t. They have to balance the interests of keeping good order and discipline with the morale and effectiveness of the forces they command, and all the others who will be affected.

Putting these SEALs through a court martial for an offense that deserves -- at worst -- a good chewing out and a sentence to do a few hundred pushups will send a devastating message throughout all the special forces.

To intervene now, and stop this court martial from proceeding, will send the right message, one of real leadership.
Anyone in the chain of command above Cleveland could perform that duty.
Even President Obama.

Fat chance of ANYBODY in this administration doing 'the right thing'!!!
Selfish Socialists, ALL!

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Soros Eyes Secretaries

From The American Spectator

Soros Eyes Secretaries
By Matthew Vadum

History's most notorious Georgian-turned-Russian, the politically astute Joseph Stalin once remarked, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

The lesson has not been lost on the increasingly notorious Hungarian-cum-American George Soros.

A group backed by Soros is gearing up to steal the 2012 election for President Obama and congressional Democrats by installing left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state across the nation. From such posts, secretaries of state can help tilt the electoral playing field.

This is, of course, the same Soros, the same hyperpolitical left-wing philanthropist who makes no secret of his intention to destroy capitalism.

In an interview with Der Spiegel last year, Soros said European-style socialism "is exactly what we need now. I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful -- but also very harmful to our society."

The vehicle for this planned hijacking of democracy is a below-the-radar non-federal "527" group called the Secretary of State Project. The entity can accept unlimited financial contributions and doesn't have to disclose them publicly until well after the election.

It was revealed during a panel discussion at the Democratic Party's convention last year that the Democracy Alliance, a financial clearinghouse created by Soros and Progressive insurance magnate Peter B. Lewis, approved the Secretary of State Project as a grantee.

The Democracy Alliance aspires to create a permanent political infrastructure of nonprofits, think tanks, media outlets, leadership schools, and activist groups -- a kind of "vast left-wing conspiracy" to compete with the conservative movement. It has brokered more than $100 million in grants to liberal nonprofits, including ACORN.

The latest fundraising appeal from the SoS Project warns:

In the 2000 and 2004 elections, we saw the results of extreme Republican tactics to intimidate voters and steal the presidential election -- the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush.

Today, we watch as Republicans go to even greater extremes -- even carrying guns to town hall meetings. If they are willing to go to such extremes now, how far will they go on November 6, 2012 to steal the election from President Barack Obama? [emphasis added]

At the top of the SoS Project's slate of candidates for state-level secretary of state positions in 2010 is Minnesota's radically left-wing Mark Ritchie, a former community organizer whose cavalier attitude toward electoral fraud and whose shamelessly partisan conduct during the recount process cleared the way for Al Franken to steal last year's U.S. Senate election from then-Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.). Ritchie was first elected Minnesota secretary of state in 2006.

Franken and Obama, by the way, were endorsed last year by ACORN Votes, ACORN's federal political action committee.

In 2006, the Minnesota ACORN PAC endorsed Ritchie, a longtime ACORN ally, and donated to his campaign. According to the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, contributors to Ritchie's campaign included liberal philanthropists Soros, Drummond Pike, and Deborah Rappaport, along with veteran community organizer Heather Booth, a Saul Alinsky disciple who co-founded the Midwest Academy, a radical ACORN clone that breeds Marxist agitators.

One article on Ritchie's 2006 campaign website brags about the fine work ACORN did in Florida to pass a constitutional amendment to raise that state's minimum wage.

The 2010 slate also includes California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, whom the group describes as "one of the most progressive Secretaries of State in the nation." Bowen was endorsed in her previous run by California ACORN PAC.

SoS Project is also endorsing Jocelyn Benson, candidate for secretary of state in Michigan, whom it lauds as an "[e]lection law scholar and community organizer."

Benson is a candidate ACORN would love.

The bio SoS Project provides credits Benson with running a 2004 "voter protection campaign in 21 states, deploying 17,000 trained election law lawyers." Last year in Michigan, she helped to lead the fight to stop the Republican secretary of state "from disenfranchising voters who were victims of home foreclosures."

Assuming the desperately mismanaged Michigan continues to exist through Election Day next year, count on the desperately evil ACORN endorsing Benson.

To the Secretary of State Project, Republican secretaries of state are always Snidely Whiplashes trying to undermine progressive Dudley Do-Rights. SoS claims to advance "election protection" but only backs Democrats, religiously believe that right-leaning secretaries of state helped the GOP steal the presidential elections in Florida in 2000 (Katherine Harris) and in Ohio in 2004 (Ken Blackwell).

Harris in particular is presented as the poster child for GOP election-stealing and vote suppression as the left tries to keep alive its fantasy that George W. Bush stole the 2000 election in Florida with the creative collaboration of Bull Connor, the Ku Klux Klan, Diebold, Blackwater, and the CIA.

The secretary of state candidates the group endorses all sing the same familiar song about electoral integrity issues that we routinely hear from ACORN: Voter fraud is largely a myth, vote suppression is used widely by Republicans, cleansing the dead and fictional characters from voter rolls should be avoided until embarrassing media reports emerge, and anyone who demands that a voter produce photo identification before pulling the lever is a racist, democracy-hating fascist.

The group was co-founded in July 2006 by James Rucker, formerly director of grassroots mobilization for MoveOn.org Political Action and Moveon.org Civic Action. Rucker is also a co-founder of Color of Change, a race-baiting left-wing hate group.

Its website claims, "A modest political investment in electing clean candidates to critical Secretary of State offices is an efficient way to protect the election." Indeed. Political observers know that a relatively small amount of money can help swing a little-watched race for a state office few people understand or care about.

The strategic targeting of the SoS Project yielded astounding results in 2008 and 2006.

In 2008, SoS Project-backed Democrats Linda McCulloch (Montana), Natalie Tennant (West Virginia), Robin Carnahan (Missouri), and Kate Brown (Oregon) won their races. Only Carnahan was an incumbent.

The Center for Public Integrity reported that the group performed this electoral feat in the 2008 election cycle with a mere $280,000.

In 2006, along with Minnesota's Ritchie, SoS Project-endorsed Jennifer Brunner (Ohio), who defied federal law last year by refusing to take steps to verify 200,000 questionable voter registrations, trounced her opponent, 55% to 41%.

Democrats supported by the group also won that year in New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa. The group claims it spent about $500,000 in that election cycle.

Talk about return on investment! Stalin would be impressed.

I Would Be Proud To Call This Man A Friend... Alfonzo Rachel

This guy makes more sense than anybody I've heard yet!
Have a listen...

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Cop Killer Hailed As 'Muslim Martyr'

From American Thinker

Cop killer hailed as 'Muslim martyr'
James Simpson

Maurice Clemmons, the alleged shooter in the
Sunday murder of four Lakewood, Washington police officers, was killed early yesterday morning by a Seattle police officer.

The blogsite
Fire Andrea Mitchell reported that a radical black Muslim group called National Black Foot Soldiers held a protest today outside the Parkland, Washington coffee shop where the murders occurred. The protesters allegedly gathered to celebrate Clemmons as a "Crowned BOW (Black on White) Martyr," calling his attack a "preemptive strike on terrorists..."

The substance of this story was originally announced by a blog called the
Last Crusade, which has also claimed that Clemmons converted to Islam while imprisoned in Arkansas. Gateway Pundit picked up the story as well, noting however, that Last Crusade's claim of Clemmons' conversion is unsubstantiated.

A black militant site called "Black Male Felon" seemingly described the protest:
The rally came after a reported emergency meeting held by the [Black Foot Soldiers] movement to to map out plans for a street penitentiary protest and street party that will be held to disrespect tributes, memorials and funerals whites are expected to have for the terrorists.

Whatever the Black Foot Soldiers may be planning, there actually was no "rally." Spokesmen for both the Lakewood and Tacoma, Washington police departments said they had not heard of anything like that going on.

The Pierce County Sheriff's office, which is handling the coffee shop shooting investigation, stated unequivocally that there was no such protest.

The truth is actually worse.

The Black Foot Soldiers were not protesting, except perhaps online, but they were referring to Clemmons' attack as a protest: Seattle Black Foot Soldiers say the four people slain in a daring demonstration at the Steele Street Forza Coffee House in Parkland were racist terrorists who caused black citizens to live in fear. (Emphasis added.)

What these groups say is that any killing of whites, including in this case Clemmons' cold-blooded murder of officers Renninger, Owens, Griswald, and Richards, is "a legitimate protest".

Black Male Felon celebrates the killings as "Brother Maurice Clemmons' daring stand against white police terrorism."

The theme of National Black Foot Soldiers is captured in the slogan: "When whites pay reparations there will be no more black on white crime."

The vitriolic hatred on these sites is enough to turn a person's stomach.

The bit of writing contained on these sites is essentially a collage of run-on sentences spewing foul language interspersed liberally with admonitions to kill whitey.

They blatantly advocate murder and defend other recent cases of seemingly senseless black on white killings, like the four Oakland police officers killed by Lovelle Mixon, and many, many others.

Many who voted for Barack Obama believed his election would finally put an end to this kind of racist hatred.

Indeed, he promised to work toward that end.
If anything however, his election seems to have emboldened it.
Jeremiah Wright should have been a warning.

It is pointless to argue with the kind of lunatic delusion that motivates these people. They are beyond reaching.

It recalls the video of "Professor" Kamau Kambon advocating ing the extermination of white people.

The Black Male Felon site defines the terms BOW (black on white) BOB (black on black) WOB (white on black) and WOW (white on white), while the National Black Foot Soldiers objects to black on black killing, but not killing per se, reminding its readers, "THERE IS 1 ENEMY. LET US HAVE 1 MIND. [sic]"

It is not known at present whether or not Clemmons was associated with any of these groups, but one post ascribes a quote to Clemmons, in which he says:
"Watch the news, I'm gonna kill a bunch of cops."

Whatever the case, it is likely that Clemmons knew he would find police victims at that coffee shop.

The Forza Coffee Company was founded by a retired police officer. And while the Steele Street franchise where the shootings occurred had no tie to him, it was apparently a place frequented by local police.

The coffee company has set up a charity for the families of these fallen officers. Learn more by following
this link.

If you think the najority of blacks are not angry and racist, think again...

They will take your life with great zeal and without remorse!

And remember, OBAMA IS MUSLIM!

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Clubbing Navy Seals

From Townhall

Clubbing Navy Seals
by Brent Bozell

Last week, Fox News reported a jaw-dropping story about how our War on Terror has now become a war on ourselves.

In September, a team of Navy SEALs captured terrorist Ahmed Hashim Abed, a man known to the U.S. military as "Objective Amber," the architect of the vicious and deadly attack on four American contractors in the summer of 2004. These poor men were shot, burned, and then their bodies were desecrated, hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River.

But instead of hailing the SEALs as heroes for bringing this vicious murderer to justice, three of them have been brought up on charges.

When Abed was captured, he was brought to Camp Baharia, a U.S. base two miles outside Fallujah. According to one attorney, Abed was turned over to the Iraqis by mistake and was later returned to U.S. custody. There are differing reports that he was punched in the gut and given a bloody lip.

The SEALs were faced with two options.

One, choose an administrative hearing, facing no possibility of jail time or dishonorable discharge, but having their reputations forever tarnished.
Two, choose a court-martial, which could exonerate them completely or, if convicted, land them behind bars and end their military careers.

They have chosen the latter.

So now, they must stand trial, to defend themselves.
The terrorists must be laughing in disbelief at us, especially when it's a well-known fact that they inflict injury on themselves (or each other) while in captivity so as to accuse their captors of abuse. If true in this case, the ruse has worked beyond their wildest dreams.

But let us conclude the SEALs punched this man in the act of capturing him. Take a poll and ask how upset the American public would be and that's when you'd hear the outrage -- at the way the SEALs are being treated.

But you won't hear that outrage because the American people don't know about this story because, believe it or not, our national media won't report it.

There is no one except Fox emerging in a Nexis search of TV news transcripts.


How can this merit nothing?
There is no sign of a story in major newspapers like The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, even the Associated Press and other wire services. (One exception: Gannett News Service ran an article from the Navy Times, even if it didn't make USA Today, Gannett's largest property.)

Time and Newsweek couldn't find space for it.

Time did cover the saga of one Navy SEAL -- suffering post-traumatic stress disorder.

But instead of allegedly punching a terrorist, SEAL commander Mark Waddell was in danger of attacking a cartoon character at Disneyland: "The noise of the careening rides, the shrieking kids -- everything roused Waddell to a state of hypervigilance typical of his worst days in combat. When an actor dressed as Goofy stuck his long, doggy muzzle into his face, Waddell recalls, 'I wanted to grab Goofy by the throat.'"

Waddell's counselor hit Time's sweet spot: "We get all excited when Johnny goes marching off to war, and then we forget about him a few days later when our favorite football team loses a game."

Time only forgets about our fighting men when they're dragged into court for capturing a terrorist.

It's not like the Abed story is unconfirmed.

Kate Wiltrout had the story for the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot last week: "The military confirmed Wednesday that Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe, 24, was charged last month with assaulting a detainee, dereliction of duty for failing to protect a detainee and making a false statement.

Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas and Petty Officer 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe are accused of failing to protect the man, whose identity is classified, said Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, a spokeswoman for the military's special operations command."

The New York Post wasn't shy about this outrage.

"And so the SEALs will be arraigned on Dec. 7 -- another reason for the date to live in infamy," it stated. "Ironically, if the three had treated Abed like Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq has routinely treated American soldiers it captures, his bloody, mutilated corpse would've turned up floating in a river. (For the record, the number of US combat troops captured in Iraq and Afghanistan who have been recovered alive is approximately zero.)"

The national media don't want to touch this story, such is their hostility to the United States military, no matter how much they profess to the contrary.

You've heard the Obama White House insist that Fox News is not a "legitimate news organization."

This story demonstrates, yet again, that Fox often is just about the only legitimate news organization.

It's high time the American people started getting very vocal in their outrage.


Once again, America's mainstream media fails to report true and timely information. Their policy of 'cherry picking' stories that will reflect badly on Conservative Ideals, American Patriotism, or ANYTHING that deflects from their goal of completely brainwashing middle America with their twisted view of the world.

Sort of reminds me of that TV show, SURVIVOR.
Do anything, say anything to get immunity and win the game. The major networks should be ashamed of themselves!