Here is what Denmark is doing to correct the problem that crept up on them in all of their goodness.....
A must read for Americans & Canadians, our politicians need a wake-up call!!!!!!!!
In 1978-9 I was living and studying in Denmark . But in 1978 - even in Copenhagen , one didn't see Muslim immigrants. The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism - one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 - a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time. The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism.
Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies - it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism. How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets - all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?
By the 1990's the growing urban Muslim population was obvious - and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark 's liberal way of life, the Danes - once so welcoming - began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.
The New York Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported: "Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of
40 percent of the welfare spending." "Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes." "Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane." "Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem"
"Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark 's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim." It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws. An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and the U.S. : some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their lives.
Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden - before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa - who as a teenager had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers - and I wonder what she would say today.
In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years - one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe . ( Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of "racism" by liberal media across Europe - even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.)
If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark's history, culture, and a Danish language test. You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting.
If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark , you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won't find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen . Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark , they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren't.
In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government's welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. "We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration. The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now," he said.
A large thorn in the side of Denmark 's imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, "The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference," Hvilshøj says, "There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come." And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, "In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech." Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen, stating that the family's thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark. The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time - in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.
Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law. And meanwhile, Americans clamor for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in America look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history . . we would do well to look to Denmark, and say a prayer for her future and for our own.
A Wise Warning from Europe about Americas Future
Editors note: This is the transcript from a speech given by Mr. Wilders at the Four Seasons, New York, last week.
I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario from becoming a reality.
My short lecture consists of four parts.
First, I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close, I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.
The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Romes ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.
But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. Its the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer,walk threesteps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.
There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.
Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark serve only halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam, gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear whore, whore. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England, Sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25% of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.
Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they understand the 9/11 attacks.
Muslims demand what they call respect. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept Sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.
Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators settlers. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.
Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.
Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.
Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Koran. The Koran is Allahs personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Koran is Allahs word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.
The Koran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Koran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.
Quran as Allahs own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means submission. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.
This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam the most retrograde force in the world, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Koran.
Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.
I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Koran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.
Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.
A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.
Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to lose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.
Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: Islam has bloody borders. Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islams territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is Jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It IS Israel.
It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a right-wing extremists or racists. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.
This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europes history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in what President Reagan so aptly called: the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.
If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can come only from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.
Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60% of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I dont think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.
Patriotic parties that oppose Jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with 5% of the vote. Now it stands at 10% in the polls. The same is true of all similarly-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.
Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europes last chance.
This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will admit only parties that are solidly democratic.
This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.
This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks to its location, it is safe from jihad and Sharia. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.
Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe, American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europes children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.
This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.
These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:
Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.
Geert Wilders is chairman of the Party for Freedom, the Netherlands.
Maybe the Time's experts could figure out how to get their subscription numbers back up*. Quagmire.
*Other than hiring ACORN to fill out all those snow flake subscriptions forms that fall by the dozen out of any magazine. We're talking 'paying subscriptions' unlike dead/non-tax paying/non-existent voters here.
I care. It is the mind who decides the action of the body and it is ideas who determine behaviours of people. I care about what Muslims believe or practice and we will have no peace until they reject Islam.
About 50 parishioners were locked into the Assemblies of God church before it was set ablaze. They were mostly women and children. Those who tried to flee were hacked to death by machete-wielding members of a mob numbering 2,000.
The 2008 New Year Day atrocity in the Kenyan village Eldoret, about 185 miles northwest of Nairobi, had all the markings of the Rwanda genocide of a decade earlier. By mid-February 2008, more than 1,500 Kenyans were killed. Many were slain by machete-armed attackers. More than 500,000 were displaced by the religious strife. Villages lay in ruin. Many of the atrocities were perpetrated by Muslims against Christians.
The violence was led by supporters of Raila Odinga, the opposition leader who lost the Dec. 27, 2007, presidential election by more than 230,000 votes. Odinga supporters began the genocide hours after the final election results were announced Dec. 30. Mr. Odinga was a member of Parliament representing an area in western Kenya, heavily populated by the Luo tribe, and the birthplace of Barack Obama's father.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/13/2008 00:00 ||
Top|| File under:
None of this will be in the MSM nor will McCain mention it in the debate.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
10/13/2008 1:16 Comments ||
It's becoming more and more obvious that the Democratic candidate for the Presidency of the United States is the equivalent of a rabid dog. Someone's going to have to put a stop to him. Unfortunately, everybody's so busy fawning over him they can't see the foam at the lips, or understand what it means. If things get even half as bad as they appear they will, we may experience the first military coup in the history of the United States. The military swears an oath first and foremost to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. If they see this jacka$$ attempting to shred it, they will act, because it's their DUTY to do so. I'd hate to see that day come to the United States, but I'd hate even more to lose many of our most basic freedoms and NO ONE do anything about it.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/13/2008 4:34 Comments ||
Remember, he wants an armed civilian defense corps the equal of our military. Why would he want that, do you think?
Odinga has a "vision" vor all of Africa. Obama has a "vision" for the world. In the short term, Odinga will use Russian military hardware to help achieve his dreams. Obama will use Soviet ideology to achieve his.
In my heart of hearts I cannot believe that this country is on the cusp of committing national political suicide. With a 50/50 country and red versus blue, coastal vs. flyover, right vs. left, common sense vs. nuance, patriotism vs. radical chic, etc. - we may be on the verge of a 2nd civil war. Remember this guy Obama would never be able to even obtain a "classified" clearance much less a TSC or whatever the POTUS is given. I have no idea why we don't make any candidate go through the same vetting our armed forces go through. If he had to go through that he would never make it 1/2 way. The scenario is less Manchurian Candidate and more like 7 Days in May. God Forbid!!
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/13/2008 8:58 Comments ||
OP, this Friday past, I had a nagging feeling about the same. The public trials and hangings, however (Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, Waters, etal), may be worth the price of admission.
Civilian control of the military goes to the heart of our constitutional system and is drilled into every officer, NCO and enlisted person in uniform.
I do not think our professional military will stage a 'coup', period. In the event of a major disaster or a major attack on the country NORTHCOMM will assist and coordinate with civil authorities.
At a guess they might also step in if there was an overt overthrow of elected government. And that's not in the cards, folks. If the worst fears of the right and the libertarians come to pass it will be gradual.
If the worst fears of the right and the libertarians come to pass it will be gradual.
Sure will be, since the "frog in hot water" mode has been the left's strategy for four decades already. A relentless forward drive, but gradual, yet all-encompassing, from the "personal" to the "political"... worked pretty fine, though, of course, this is eroding the host societies to the point they even self-destruct themselves (abortion, lower rates of marriage & birthrate)... politically, this doesn't matter, as the Enlightened Ones political wing has carefully crafted itself a clients system, working fine in a decomposed social body atomized through Diversity (as opposed to ethnically homogenous societies with common History & identity), while the cultural wing churns out leftist automatons by the tens if not hundred of thousands through education & mass-entertainement.
The Obama model would call for the replacement of high level military leaders, both uniformed and DoD civilian, almost immediately. The new cadres of loyal military leaders will ensure both stability and enforcement of the regime's goals at all levels. This action has already been mirrored in law enforcement and the courts in major urban areas throughout the country. When it happens, it should come as no surprise. The deweaponisation of the population should likewise, come as no surprise.
The kinds of military who would stage a 'coup' aren't the kind to give back power easily.
Military in Chile saved democracy, and Chile itself. Nationalists in Spain also saved democracy in a fashion, though this may not have been their final goal. Both coups spared their respective country a worse fate - if Chile had gone cuba-like the way it was headed before the generals had this came to an halt, the local Dealer Maximo probably would still be in power, or if he wasn't, the country would be in a far worse shape than today's rather successful country.
Remember, he wants an armed civilian defense corps the equal of our military.
And I predict that you will see open season on these folks just as soon as they commit their first atrocity. I'm convinced you might even see some states secede, starting with Texas. Yep...Civil War II.
Posted by: Black Charlie Shunter2952 ||
10/13/2008 9:42 Comments ||
In those countries there wasn't a strong prior tradition of constitutional government with balanced powers. They were creating order in what was almost a vacuum of prior precedents for it.
Not so here. A military takeover here would abrogate over 200 years of constitutional government. It is precisely what George Washington is revered for having rejected.
Nationalists in Spain also saved democracy in a fashion, though this may not have been their final goal
Initially it was. But the "democrats" either failed in their regions and were executed by loyalists (Goded), had accidents (Sanjurjo), were pushed aside by Franco (Queipo de LLano) or had "unfortunate accidents" just after a tense conversation with Franco (Mola).
A military takeover here would abrogate over 200 years of constitutional government.
Just for the sake of arguemnt, what if they instead SAVED it? What if "democracy" was used as a weapon against the AMERICAN REPUBLIC, IE the "200 years of constitutional governement" (whihc btw is the single thing I admire the most in the USA, your framework)?
I think some of us are going off the deep end here and shouldn't. If Obama wins, he'll have about 49% of the voters against him from the start and he'll be unable to deliver on his promises without raising everybody's taxes and then losing his majority. It could be a messy two years, but things will correct in 2010.
Aside from that, remember that many of the things the presidential candidates are advocating are beyond their control anyway. You can jabber all you want about new technologies, gas pipelines, offshore drilling, and 100 mpg cars, but that won't make them available next year or the year after.
Finally, all is not doom and gloom. Oil is down, gasoline is down, the dollar is up, and the vast majority of people are paying their mortgages and getting proper health care. The biggest problem right now it panic, so stop doing it.
This election actually puts the US in peril. I think alot of folks here are pretty simple minded and just hoping for the best. Hussein is a Muslim Manchurian. Go over to Atlas Shrugs today. There is a good piece on Hussein's dealings with Kenya and Odinga, his radical Muzz "relative". The thing is, Hussein will immediately, with the help of Pelosi and Kennedy, et al., begin to implement curbs on our freedom of speech and mount a full-blown effort to subvert the 2nd Amendment rights which are the underpinning of our republican democracy. Within a couple of years, blogs like this, and radio shows like Hannity and Rush may disappear. It will not be the military who saves us. It will be only ourselves. If Hussein is elected, I would guess his tenure would be short. Less than JFK's. Get ready for tumult. Buy ammo. I just received lots of brass in my favorite calibers. Get it now while you can.
We've seen what happens when the masses of people contact their Congressional representatives and senators to object to something -- it doesn't happen, or at least not as originally intended. We put an end to that horrible illegal aliens bill, and we put a stop to the 20% for ACORN rescue plan. Granted the rescue plan that resulted was no prize, but it was in that key way better than the original. So, should Obama actually win, which is not yet assured despite media crowing, we'll just have to stay on top of Congress to make sure they don't do anything really horribly objectionable, like de-fund the military... until, as Darrel says, 2010.
You'd better be pretty damned clear in just what ways that would be true and how it would work before I'd support such a move.
The 'domestic' part of 'domestic or foreign' refers to open civil war of the sort we experienced in the 1860s. Unless there was an open and very clear constitutional violation in the way in which someone assumed power, those who take up arms against that goverment are in fact the internal foes -- but even then the military is on very iffy grounds for intervening unless there is secession etc.
And do be aware that if, for instance, TX tries to secede then the military's duty is to prevent that, not to abet it.
Great... let's have the Army take over. I can't believe some of you people are serious. You'd rather be a Pakistan than have Obama be the president?
What's REALLY going on is that there is a great fear of the unknown (a possible half-black President), that even though Obama is no better or worse than your average Democratic candidate for President, the unbridled rage and fear has been much greater. The REAL justification for the hate is so unujustifiable that there is a great struggle to come up with a halfway justifiable reason to really hate him, and I mean REALLY--he's probably hated by some people over here as much as you'd hate a serial killer.
But don't fool yourself. The real underlying reason for the fear is not rational or justifiable. If it were, people who value freedom like yourselves wouldn't come up with ridiculous suggestions like military coups. C'mon!
The reason is just meaningless hate, as I'm sure I'll get for posting this message.
OK, I'm going to disagree with you as well, Todd. Kindly take the time to read the article that triggered this thread. Take notes - it will help you refine your assertions.
"No better nor worse" than other Dem candidates? I can't say that I remember other candidates who have aided and abetted openly murderous rampages on the part of relatives who lost a pretty fair election in another country.
There is rage here, alright. But it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a certain propensity of Obama to encourage thuggery in order to advance his own position and power.
I for one have no desire nor willingness to have the toxic corruption and abuses endemic to Chicago spread to the nation as a whole.
Wouldn't be a 'coup. It would be returning the American government to the people by defending the constitution. -- 'k?
No, k. The people get the government returned to them November 5. Then they get to lie in the bed they've made for two years. That's what the Constitution says. And if you think some beer hall putsch is the way we change governments, you should return to the country you came from. Because no true American favors the violent overthrow of a properly elected government.
lotp, this article deals with a lot of hearsay, unsubstantiated claims including those by Jerome Corsi (who by no means is an unbiased source) and guilt by association--to the extent of claiming Obama is personally responsible for genocide, which is a stretch. Is he promoter of Shariah law or is he a true-believing member of a crazy christian church group? Pick one.
A different version of Raila Odinga can be seen in his wikipedia entry and in numerous other places. But of course, there is no need for any benefit of the doubt. Would any claim against Obama need to be proved before holding him responsible for genocide? Not when you've already made up your mind and are looking... hoping... for a socially acceptable justification. The reason this is not frontpage news is because it is an article devoid of any responsibility of proving anything.
man... obama is reminding me of some thing that happened previously in history...
civilian defense corps... hmmm some guys in brown shirts, but i cant place them...
'patriotic' children singing nationalistic hymns to a leader figure who was very charismatic...
promises to nationalize sectors of the economy...
hmmmm, anyone able to help me put my finger on it?
Posted by: Abu do you love ||
10/13/2008 14:06 Comments ||
Obama will be Carter writ large with cascading crisises that will make the Iran hostage crisis seem like a minor diplomatic tiff.
Pakistan is already bankrupt and is weeks away from not being able to pay for food imports. Iraq. Iran, Afghanistan and several of the Stans could all go over the edge. Russia, China, India get drawn in.
It looks an awful lot like Europe in the 1930s. All we need to complete the picture is an isolationist and demilitarizing America.
Todd you may well be right WRT this article. But you stretch the truth when you assert the article claims Obama is personally responsible for genocide. It calls into question his judgement for being closely associated with someone who has credibly been held accountable for atrocities - as it should.
It was Odinga himself who claimed to the BBC to have been in near-daily consultations by phone with Obama.
In addition you duck the issue of Obama's tendency to thuggishness as demonstrated in his earlier elections, his boasts about being from and acting in the tradition of Chicago, his call to 'get in the face' of anyone who wishes to keep his/her voting intentions private, etc.
There's a lot to worry about WRT Obama, in part because he has a very deep habit of covering up his trail. The colors on his campaign website are getting faded from all the scrubbing of false claims they've needed to do lately ....
lotp, I have to admit I am not too familiar with the thuggery allegations against him and the "against private vote stuff". Are any of these allegations proven, and if so, are they as big as they are made out to be?
It would be stupid of me to comment without knowing the facts, so I'll comment later.
Todd, it's a pattern of incidents which add up to a worrisome whole.
One dimension of it is his repeated use of "the politics of personal destruction" to remove political opponents. Read up on what happened to primary and general election opponents in his first Illinois race and again when he ran for the US Senate. Court-sealed divorce records leaked right before election day etc etc.
Then look at how his supporters have attacked Sarah Palin and her family. The whole practice of personal destruction, as taught by Obama's inspiration / radical community organizer Saul Alinsky, intentionally hurts the candidate's family in order to cause him/her to withdraw from the race or to lose it. Obama made no real attempt to stop the horrific attacks on Palin and her kids, especially the older daughter.
This is just one example of what troubles me deeply about Obama.
Re: the 'in your face', google the quote. He has urged his supporters to demand that people tell them who they will vote for - and if they aren't voting for him, the implication is, to harass and otherwise pressure them until they do.
Straight out of the Chicago machine. Nasty, thuggish intimidation tactics. There's lots of that in his history too.
Everything in google about "in your face" stuff is based on an editorial authored by Michelle Malkin (who is yet another extremely biased source--see practically every editorial she's written). Her editorial takes a phrase and blatantly makes up generalized conclusions from it. I don't see anywhere that he's specifically promted thuggery--saying "in your face" promotes intense campaigning sure, but thuggery? Do we have proof of people getting beaten up or harassed for being Republican--any police complaints? Also, how exactly does this thuggery work when the actual voting process is by secret ballot? It's not like Obama's "thugs" will know that you didn't vote for him.. what's part 2 of the plan? Torching districts where votes against Obama is > 50% etc?
If I recall correctly, Obama has repeatedly said that candidates' families are off limits during the elections. Obama and Biden have been extremely good at really muting their attacks on Palin, and mostly concentrating their fire on McCain.
Are there supporters of Obama that might be going after Palin? Sure, I don't disagree... Is there be a small subset of McCain supporters who would never vote for a black man just because? Sure, but I wouldn't conclude that McCain is racist just because some of is supporters might be. It would be unfair.
It seems like all you have is a series of half-truths and generalizations, or even partisan lies that once grouped together, are fuzzy enough to conclude whatever you want to conclude.
There is enough stuff in the current administration, for example, that a non-republican would term thuggish. Don't get me wrong, I am by no means saying Obama's a saint. I just don't think he's any more "evil" than your average politician.
I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.
Obama in 9/17 rally in Nevada, reported many places including SFGate, the San Francisco Chronicle's online site.
Obama's call to put families off-limits was weak and belated. It only happened after he took a lot of public heat.
Vandalism of Republican offices has started again. Molotov cocktails thrown at a front yard sign lately. Did Obama cause that? I doubt he ordered it. But he has run a campaign where that is the logical conclusion. He boasts of using Chicago techniques. It's not a smoking gun case - it's a racketeering pattern of behavior.
And one that is there for anyone willing to look at it.
lotp... again, I missed the part where he said "go beat up and/or harass people". People say "get in their face" all the time. It COULD be interpreted as "be intense;try very hard", but you choose not to.
Again, you go ahead and associate anything negative with Obama. There is no "logical conclusion" here, as you put it. It's just subjective conclusion where something can be interpreted in multiple ways. Again, assigning blame of supporters' actions on the candidates themelves is a slippery slope. He is Not responsible for EVERY political action of perhaps 50% of the nation or over 60 million voters--that's simply unfair. Unless someone is mentally handicapped or under age, they are responsible for their own actions--that's just the law. Similarly, McCain is not responsible for the actions for every person who'd vote for him.
There were plenty of attacks on Obama's wife, and smears trying to portray him as a Muslim. Who's responsible for that? Certainly not McCain, right? McCain waited a while before finally admitting a couple of days ago that personal attacks against Obama--i.e. he's "Arab" or a "terrorist" should not happen. Is that not too little too late?
If I recall correctly, Obama has repeatedly said that candidates' families are off limits during the elections. Obama and Biden have been extremely good at really muting their attacks on Palin, ....
Are there supporters of Obama that might be going after Palin? Sure, I don't disagree...
You must have been out of the country when the Palin announcement happened. Shortly after, his flying monkeys went on a insulting smear spreading rampage. Bambi didnt say anything until the end of the 3 day weekend. (Before the start of the next news cycle)
Posted by: Mike N. ||
10/13/2008 16:10 Comments ||
And Bambi didn't say anything against Palin did he?
An one can conclude, if one chose to do so, that McCain only decided to take a stance on personal attacks against Obama (a couple days ago), after he learned that it wasn't helping his polling numbers and he needed a new strategy. I'm sure he's still a great guy tho...
'He did it too' is poor defense of your position.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
10/13/2008 16:16 Comments ||
You are correct. That is no justification, which is why I have mostly refrained from bringing up McCain.
My whole point tho, is that Obama is "just as bad" as your usual politician, but has recieved even more "rage" than the average presidential candidate, which implies that there is another, more basic underlying reason for the massive hatred against him, a hatred so potent that some people in this thread are calling for a military takeover if Obama wins.
First of all, Todd, let me be clear on this. lotp should have never lowered herself to debate with because you are a RACEBAITER.
You don't say the fear could be the result of racism, you throw out any possibility that it could be a result of policy positions or friendships with traitors and go straight to insisting that it must be his race.
Furthermore, you've obviously not been paying attention to this site. These same people say the same things about many other politicians. Barry happens to be the first black uber liberal to run for president since the burg began. The same things were said about Kerry. Is he part black or something? Did I miss a memo?
D) You debate like a defense attorny and that gives me a headache.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
10/13/2008 16:28 Comments ||
I don't recall other candidates aggressively using threats of legal action to pre-empt criticism, as the Obama campaign has in multiple states.
I don't recall other candidates getting the word out to flood radio stations with calls in an attempt to silence critics.
If you don't see what this adds up to it's because you don't want to, Todd.
This candidate has chosen a long history of association with black racists including Farakhan and Wright. He has chosen a long history of association with far left groups hostile to the dominant US culture and willing in some cases to use violence against police, courts, the Pentagon and the Congress.
His wife makes it clear she is not proud of the US and has not been for her entire life.
These are the people Obama spends his time with. They are the people he has surrounded himself with for decades. They are the people who have launched and supported his political rise.
That's not "just as bad". That's a significant difference from other candidates and utterly disqualifies him from the Presidency in my opinion.
Also while a private person is free to hate his country this is not a quality I would desire for my president. If I were American I would like if only by egoism a president who wants the best for the country not one who hates it and want to bring it down: myself or mychildren could be collateral damage.
Of course, Mr Todd, you are perfectly free to consider that love of his country is an unimportant quality for a POTUS.
Obama's Moslem supporters in the middle east consider him a fellow Moslem.
People aren't "calling" for a military takeover. They are witnessing the demise of democracy if Obama wins because he is a classic Marxist.
Why aren't you commenting on the actual information on this posted news story.
It's easy to recognize you as what we call a "troll," which in this case means that you are here, not to learn or truly participate, but to promote a specific political agenda--the election of Obama.
I suggest you READ, THINK, (if that's possible for you) and visit other important websites that are providing real journalism such as sweetness-light.com gatewaypundit.blogspot.com, etc.
You CANNOT silence criticism of your beloved leader by crying "racism." People are seeing through it.
Finally, what ABOUT the "50 prishioners were locked into the Assemblies of God church before it was set ablaze. They were mostly women and children. Those who tried to flee were hacked to death by machete-wielding members of a mob numbering 2,000.
The 2008 New Year Day atrocity in the Kenyan village Eldoret, about 185 miles northwest of Nairobi, had all the markings of the Rwanda genocide of a decade earlier. By mid-February 2008, more than 1,500 Kenyans were killed. Many were slain by machete-armed attackers. More than 500,000 were displaced by the religious strife. Villages lay in ruin. Many of the atrocities were perpetrated by Muslims against Christians.
The violence was led by supporters of Raila Odinga . . ."
And WHAT ABOUT the fact that Obama was there supporting and campaigning for Odinga, who is not only Obama's cousin, but a fellow Marxist?
I seriously suggest you go find an essay written by John W. Campbell, Jr. called "Tribesman, Barbarian, and Citizen."
When I first read it way back in the 80's, it didn't have that much of an impact on me. Now that I'm older, I've seen just how true it is. Skin color matters nothing. Skin color is just a false flag, an excuse for people, what truly matters is WHAT people ARE. And what they are isn't defined by coloration.
Analog Science Fact -> Fiction, May 1961, (May 1961, John W. Campbell, Jr., Street & Smith Publications, Inc., $0.50, 180pp, digest, magazine)
OK... It was easier to debate with one of you but I am severely outnumbered here and can't respond to all of you. But rest assured that I CAN respond to everything you've said and most of the responses (except those from lotp) aren't very good. I decided to keep posting until the first bone-headed message that will just take the discussion south, and since that HAS happened (thanks, ex-lib) I will stop.
For the record I am a registered Republican who voted for Bush the first time (not in 2004 tho; didn't vote). I have not decided who I'm voting for yet, but no means is Obama my "messiah". I was trying to make a point, but that's gotten lost and will definitely not recover after post #51.
I will just say... lotp, thanks for taking the time to talk to me. I deeply respect you for treating me fairly and using logic, and not namecalling, to attack my views. In fact I will even apologize for perhaps implying that YOU might in any way be racist.
Oh and the Dow's up 11% today, so McCain might actually have a shot now to distract voters from the economy and onto how Obama is scary :-)
To all the amateur "Seven Days in May" conspirators on the site today, chill. I spent a great many years in the Air force hauling bombs, rockets and missles to designated targets for Uncle Sam and (on occasion) sitting nuclear alert. I do not know in my wildest imagination when I would have voluntarily turned my weapon system against this country.
Talks cheap and, with the exception of Old Spook, I don't know if anyone on this site has ever been at the pointy end of the spear. Who would I be taking orders from to 'overthrow' the duly elected government of this country. What if the other crewmen I served with saw it differently. Would there be a "Dr. Strangelove" firefight at the base and the 'winner' would then be empowered to join forces with other like minded forces 'for truth justice and the American way'.
What a bunch of crap. I was prepared to drop a nuclear weapon on a target unknown to me until the moment I was ordered to do it. I was prepared to do that based on my confidence and belief in the system of command and control that was inherent in the military I was part of.
Obama may be the disaster I believe he will be. He may do his best to destoy the country I love. He may do the same to the military I cherish but you do not save the Constitution by destroying it.
Also, except for the egomaniacal general or two (think Wes Clark) and some sychophantic followers, the average G.I., from private on up would probably tell them to just pound sand. I know I would have.
Let's stay real here folks.
Posted by: Total War ||
10/13/2008 17:41 Comments ||
I'm just amazed anyone can still be undecided.
I definitely think Obama is scary. He has surrounded himself with people who fundamentally don't like this country. He is as extreme a leftist as we have ever seen be a major-party candidate for POTUS.
That said, should he win, I believe he will be severely limited in what he would like to do. I am not concerned with the brownshirt armies or gun grabbing. To do those things he would need serious support and while he may get 49%+ to vote for him, there is no way this percentage of the population will support measures like that. The dems in Congress, who have to get reelected every two years, certainly understand this.
Our democratic tradition is strong. We may get a grade-A asshole/marxist in the White House for the next 4 years. But the country is not going to come to an end because of this jackass. It is bigger, stronger and far more enduring than he is. He tries to push too far and it is going to blow up in his face pronto.
Okay Todd, ignoring that bit of racebaiting, are we really to beleive that a 'registered Republican' still isn't certain that he isn't going to vote for an extreme liberal with radical Marxist friends?
Posted by: Mike N. ||
10/13/2008 18:12 Comments ||
In fact I will even apologize for perhaps implying that YOU might in any way be racist.
Thank you. Especially since my stepfather is of another race than my mother and I and I work for the most integrated, racially equal organization in the world.
Well, I'm pro-life and Obama is pro-abortion.
I'm for less taxes and he's for more taxes.
I'm for people who earn their money to keep it, and he wants to "spread the wealth around" (him and his cronies being the mediators thereof).
He's for national health care and I believe that always winds up to be slavery with gold chains on the medical profession.
He's in favor of liberal judges interpreting the constitution equally liberally, and I want it to be interpreted literally and with original intent.
Everything he wants requires more government, and I want less government.
He was a lawyer for ACORN engaging in lawfare, and I'm against lawfare and lawyers who engage in it. Not to mention being against ACORN for voter registration fraud.
Nope. All of the above are reasons to vote against a white guy (which I did against Kerry, Gore, and clinton.). He just happens to be black, and I am very aware of my feelings about people, and I do not hold hate against any black people in general.
I am not racist for voting against him and for Palin, er, McCain. I have Reasons that I think are good.
Very well said, Total War. I'd venture a guess that 30-40% of posters either are veterans, current military, or parent/child/spouse of one of the above. Of lurkers, I wouldn't dare guess. This is based on absolutely no actual data whatsoever, and is worth what you just paid to read it. ;-)
Registered Republican is not the same as voting Republican. Back when one had to be registered with a party to vote in its primary here in Ohio, Mr. Wife and I registered for opposing parties so that we could affect both... based on all the phone calls that have been aimed at me instead of him, I think I was the one who got the Democratic Party. Functionally, we're both independents. Not to mention that there were a number of Rantburgers proclaiming that if a Conservative didn't get the Republican nomination y'all weren't going to vote.
Bottom line, Todd, it's very simple: do you believe we need to fight and win the war on terror/jihadism/Islamofascism/whatever, lest our children have to go back and fight later for their right not to be enslaved to the Caliphate, or do you think this whole war on terror thing is stupid and counterproductive, and if we'd only just treat those people fairly and listen to their grievances we could bring all the troops home in a trice? If the former you must vote Republican, if the latter, Democrat. All else is commentary. I shan't see you at the polls as we're in different states, but I hope you will find yourself content with your choice.
Back to the posted article, the ostensible purpose of this thread. That Mr. Obama is palled around and overtly supported the candidacy of a man such as Mr. Odinga is obscene, but of a piece with closest friendships during adulthood. Once again he either does not know what kind of a man he befriends, or doesn't think such things are important.
"if we'd only just treat those people fairly and listen to their grievances"
That's the basic problem with Obama and many Democrats: they just can't wrap their brains around the notion that Islam is not a Judeo-Christian culture preaching "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
I'm still active duty mil, it doesn't matter if the new POTUS is duly elected - if the gov't acts against the U.S. Const or in a tyrannical manner (by the reasonable man theory) - THEN YES, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE CITIZENRY TO OVERTHROW THEM - HENCE, THE WORDS OF JEFFERSON ECHO CLEARLY. Unless the Constitution is changed by constitutional process to fit the new socialist meme then the people reserve the right, nay, the onus to overthrow the govt. The 2nd Amendment wasn't just about protecting people from criminals - it was also in fact to make the gov't fear the people.
Will you people get a clue? Look at three things: Obama's "associates", his prior action, and his campaign. This isn't a careful, pragmatic Bill Clinton, this is a full-scale loon being shoved into office by a well-orchestrated and highly fraudulent election process. Bill and Hill started doing some very flaky things during their first two years, and got caught at it. The people raised such a hue and cry that the Republicans took control of Congress in the next election. Bill Clinton was pragmatic enough to pull back and take it easy, with only a few bad decisions that we're still living with. Obama is nothing like Bill Clinton: if confronted, he will push even harder, enact even more unconstitutional executive orders, and dig himself in even deeper. He's a puppet, and the people handling the strings are Ayers and Wright, among others, who WON'T back off. It's going to get ugly - very ugly - very fast. The Left is tired of chipping away - they want it all, and they want it now.
I'll make a prediction that Obama will win, probably by less than 500,000 votes. I'll also bet that more than five MILLION fraudulent votes will be cast in this presidential election. I also will bet that the major contributors to that fraud will never be held accountable as long as there's a Democratic congress OR a Democratic president. Our Republic can only work when it's supported by a moral population. When the amorals like Ayers, Wright, Farrakan, Jackson, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, and hundreds of others have power, our Republic will be destroyed.
Broadhead6 - Right on, Brother. I'll be there at your back.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/13/2008 20:53 Comments ||
Let's face it: all this talk of civil war and rebellion is just that, talk. We have no redline that, when crossed, would cause any appreciable fraction of the population and its lower level statesmen to say "Okay, that's ENOUGH! EAT LEAD!" Exactly what fraction of the camel in the tent is too much?
I see nobody asking these questions, and when I DO see someone getting close to asking them, I hear tut-tuts from "moderators", online and off, telling us that such questions are off limits.
I know my redline, but I doubt if any will back me up when I DO punch the Camel's nose.
The axis of evil lost a charter member this weekend, when the U.S. took North Korea off the State Department's list of terror-sponsoring states. In return, Pyongyang promised to let international inspectors look everywhere except where its nuclear materials might actually be hidden.
Kim Jong Il, despite having broken every disarmament promise he's ever made, has thus managed to persuade another U.S. President that he's serious about giving up his nuclear program. President Bush's agreement sends this message to Iran and other rogue states: Go nuclear and your political leverage increases. The U.S. had vowed not to remove North Korea from the terror blacklist until Kim's government had agreed to a "strong verification regime." But then North Korea started calling the U.S. bluff -- most recently on Thursday, when it told the inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to start packing their bags -- and the U.S. caved. As John Bolton notes nearby, Tehran will get the point.
No verification regime is 100% certain -- and searching for nuclear materials in North Korea, which has a history of lying and cheating, poses special challenges for even the most rigorous inspections. But our sources tell us the U.S. has the technical expertise to get up to 98% accuracy -- providing it can do snap, on-demand inspections anywhere in the country. Instead, Pyongyang will permit the verifiers to have unfettered access only to its declared nuclear sites -- all of which the IAEA has already combed over again and again. Access to any other location will be by "mutual consent." Inspectors will be welcome to search the Yongbyon complex and a few other known nuclear sites, such as universities. If they want to inspect anywhere else, they'll need Kim's assent. If they request access, and Pyongyang agrees, it's a sure bet the offending materials will be long gone before the inspectors arrive. This is trust but pretend to verify.
Meanwhile, the State Department didn't trust its own verification experts to take part in the disarmament process. Late Thursday, less than two days before the agreement was announced, we asked Paula DeSutter, head of the Bureau of Verification, Compliance and Implementation, what she knew about the pending deal: "I have no clue," she said. "I know zero, zip, nada, nothing. . . . That's on the record. Zero, zip, nada, nothing." Ms. DeSutter says that no one from her bureau accompanied State Department negotiator Christopher Hill on his trip to Pyongyang two weeks ago. Nor did anyone from her bureau take part in the interagency process that evaluated the deal. "I was not consulted," she said. The fact that the verification bureau was left out of the loop is further cause to suspect that Mr. Hill and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice cared above all about declaring a diplomatic success. (For the record, Ms. DeSutter said over the weekend that she supports the deal.)
Since the disarmament deal was struck in February 2007, the North has refused to give a complete accounting of its plutonium program, disclose how many nuclear weapons it has and where they are, or come clean on its suspected uranium program. Now it has managed to wriggle out of its commitments on verification -- all without having to wait for an Obama Administration.
A few hours before Washington announced it was taking North Korea off the terror list, the Pyongyang media released the first photographs of Kim Jong Il since he had been rumored to have fallen ill two months ago. He was smiling.
Meanwhile, the State Department didn't trust its own verification experts to take part in the disarmament process. Late Thursday, less than two days before the agreement was announced, we asked Paula DeSutter, head of the Bureau of Verification, Compliance and Implementation, what she knew about the pending deal: "I have no clue," she said.
One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:
- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.
It's not just Obama. A rubber stamp Reid/Pelosi Congress and a press that's totally in thrall will allow all of Obama's worst idea to flower.
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
10/13/2008 15:58 Comments ||
So, according to Obama, the "American Dream" only goes so far, and it is his version--i.e., for only stupid easy-to-manipulate non-producers too dumb to understand what is going on. Guess his little Obama Youth Brigade teens should read the fine print: "Because of Obama, I'm going to be the architect, chemical engineer . . ." and happy as a clam to make a whopping $40K/year for it. DUH . . .
. . . Who are these men: Tony Rezko, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers? How has their relationship with Senator Obama helped to shape the man who seems to be so at ease in dismissing these relationships as peripheral to his true character. A relationship does not end simply because it has been disavowed or broken off; the effect remains for years, even for a lifetime. The influence that one person has upon the character of another is not so easily cast off simply by reading a press bulletin or making a public announcement of disavowal or condemnation. That influence lingers in the mind and the stronger of the personalities knows this and will stimulate that dormant influence to active receptivity. The word character is defined by the words which surround it, just as a mans character is defined by the human influences affecting his psyche. To say that a man has cast off an influence means about as much as a judge telling a jury to disregard a previous statement or testimony. The testimony has already had an effect upon the minds of the jury. . . .
CBS News' Bob Schieffer, who will moderate the debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, LI, let the candidates know yesterday he planned to remain fully in charge of the event.
"It will not embarrass me, if they go off in a different direction, to say, 'Excuse me, could you focus on the question that I just asked?' " Schieffer said. Previous moderators have found that easier said than done, with candidates on both sides ignoring their questions and time limits.
Since learning he would be moderating the debate, Schieffer has been clipping articles and consulting think-tank experts to come up with questions. He quipped that he had a nightmare that all of his questions had been used up with a half-hour to go. "I don't want to think about it too much," he said, "but I think it could very well determine who our next president will be."
Memo to America's enemies: Be careful what you wish for
Sol Sanders writes the "Asia Investor" column weekly for EAST-ASIA-INTEL.com.
The anticipated catcalls from Beijing and Moscow -- as well as the usual suspects in the British and Continental and Indian leftwing media -- had hardly echoed when the truth dawned on them. The financial screwup that had temporarily wrecked the American economy was the end of Washington's dominance of the world, the schandenfreudians screamed. For the nth time, the early predictions were for an end to "the unipolar world" and the start of a new multipolar dawn in international relations minus American paramountcy that would bring nirvana. The verdict was unanimous among the usual suspects not excluding the Mullahs in Iran.
By David Owen Only posted this one for the following paragraph:
Bush's legacy would be best served by taking dramatic diplomatic action to prevent a war with Iran. He should publicly warn Israel that the United States will use its air power to prevent it bombing Iran, while announcing that he is sending Rice to Tehran to start negotiating a grand bargain whereby all sanctions would be lifted if Iran forgoes the nuclear weapons option. He could indicate that the negotiations would not continue indefinitely, but they would give his successor, as president, time to consider all the options, military and economic. It would also allow time for Israel either to negotiate a coalition to last until 2010 or to hold elections. It would replace the present multilateral negotiations, which are stalled with Russia and China unwilling to move on strong economic sanctions. Above all, it would be a last act of real statesmanship from Bush who is otherwise destined to end his term a miserable failure. BTW, David Owen was the British foreign secretary from 1977 to 1979
"if Iran forgoes the nuclear weapons option"
I think Iran has made itself pretty clear. Only Carter and Obama are too stupid to realize that negotiations just buy the centrifuges more operating time.
Owen would certainly know all about being a miserable failure. If you put him and Jimmuh in a barrel together and rolled them down a hill, you'd always have a cringing, cowardly, appeasing S.O.B on top.
Foreign Minister under Callaghan: yeah, that's about as creampuff as Britain's ever been until this recent punking by the Iranians over the RN captures. This sniveling bastard needs to save his drivel for The One. Bush, for all his faults is a man; that by definition means he isn't interested in this guy's craven idiocy.
On August 21st, 2008, the MV Iran Deyant, 44,458 dead weight bulk carrier was heading towards the Suez Canal. As it was passing the Horn of Africa, about 80 miles southeast of al-Makalla in Yemen, the ship was surrounded by speedboats filled with members of a gang of Somalian pirates who grab suitable commercial ships and hold them and their cargos and crews for ransom. The captain was defenseless against the 40 pirates armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades blocking his passage. He had little choice other than to turn his ship over to them. What the pirates were not banking on, however, was that this was no ordinary ship.
The MV Iran Deyanat is owned and operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) - a state-owned company [that] regularly falsifies shipping documents in order to hide the identity of end users, uses generic terms to describe shipments to avoid the attention of shipping authorities, and employs the use of cover entities to circumvent [UN] weapons proliferation [regulations].
[The hijacked ship] was brought to Eyl, a sleepy fishing village in northeastern Somalia, and was secured by a larger gang of pirates - 50 onboard and 50 onshore. The Somali pirates attempted to inspect the ships seven cargo containers but the containers were locked. The crew claimed that they did not have the access codes and could not open them. Pirates have stated they were unable to open the hold without causing extensive damage to the ship, and threatened to blow it up . the pirates broke open one of the containers and discovered it to be filled with packets of what they said was a powdery fine sandy soil .
Within a period of three days, those pirates who had boarded the ship and opened the cargo container with its gritty sand-like contents, all developed strange health complications, to include serious skin burns and loss of hair. And within two weeks, sixteen of the pirates subsequently died, either on the ship or on shore
[Russian sources claim she] was an enormous floating dirty bomb, intended to detonate after exiting the Suez Canal at the eastern end of the Mediterranean and in proximity to the coastal cities of Israel. The entire cargo of radioactive sand, obtained by Iran from China (the latter buys desperately needed oil from the former) and sealed in containers which, when the charges on the ship are set off after the crew took to the boats, will be blasted high into the air where prevailing winds will push the highly dangerous and radioactive cloud ashore.
Given the large number of deaths from the questing Somali pirates, it should be obvious that when the contents of the ships locked cargo containers finally descended onto the land, the death toll would be enormous. This ship was nothing more nor less than the long-anticipated Iranian attack on Israel.
Fox News interviewed an expert whose analysis would seem to confirm these conclusions:
Chemical experts say the reports sound inconsistent with chemical poisoning, but may reflect the effects of exposure to radiation.
Its baffling, said Jonathan Tucker, a senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Im not aware of any chemical agent that produces loss of hair within a few days. Thats more suggestive of high levels of radioactive waste.
It doesn't make any difference if you've heard this one before or not - listen to it again.....
Get a load of these high school kids. At the conclusion listen to the high note on the trumpet . . . played by a high school kid? One of the fathersrecorded it, added some graphic enhancements to the recording, and posted it on the web. The song, of course, is the Battle Hymn Of The Republic." Be prepared. It will definitely send a few shivers up your spine.
I FIND THIS EMAIL FROM READER DONALD GATELY DEPRESSING. . . . Gately writes:
I consider myself a libertarian/conservative. Like many people of that bent, I was uncomfortable with Bush when he was nominated. But Al Gore's increasingly-erratic behavior during the 2000 election made me hope Bush won.
Once Bush won, and it became clear that the Florida democrats were trying to steal the election, I became something of a Bush loyalist. Throughout his first term, I took note of all the really horrible things that were said about him, saw that a large portion of the left would rather see Bush fail than see America succeed, and was alarmed by the complicity (and often, participation) of the MSM and mainstream Hollywood. It wasn't far into his second term that I succumbed to Bush Fatigue, due to his inability to make the case for his foreign policy to the American people, and his inability to find the veto pen. He has truly been a terrible steward of the Republican brand, and because of this, the Conservative and libertarian causes are suffering.
I'm no fan of McCain , but as I dislike Obama (and love Palin), I'll be pulling the lever for McCain in November.
This is surely small of me, but if Obama wins, I plan on giving him as much of a chance as the Democrats gave George Bush. I will gleefully forward every paranoid anti-Obama rumor that I see, along with YouTube footage of his verbal missteps. I will laugh and email heinous anti-Obama photoshop jobs, and maybe even learn photoshop myself to create some. I'll buy anti-Obama books, and maybe even a "Not My President" t-shirt. I'm sure that the mainstream bookstores won't carry them, but I'll be on the lookout for anti-Obama calendars and stuff like that. I will not wish America harm, and if the country is hurt (economically, militarily, or diplomatically) I will truly mourn. But i will also take some solace that it occurred under Obama's watch, and will find every reason to blame him personally and fan the flames.
Obama's thuggish behavior thus far in this election cycle - squashing free speech, declaring any criticism of his policies to be "racist" (a word that happily carries little weight with sensible people these days), associating with the likes of Ayers, Wright, and ACORN - suggests that I won't have to scrape for reasons to really viscerally dislike Obama and his administration. And even if he wins, his campaign's "get out the vote fraud" activities are enough to provide people like me with a large degree of "plausible deniability" as to whether he is actually legitimately the president.
I've seen a President that I am generally-inclined to like get crapped on for eight years, and I've seen McCain and Palin (honorable people both, despite policy differences I may have with them) get crapped on through this election season. If the Democrats think that a President Obama is going to get some sort of honeymoon from the folks who didn't vote for him, as a wise man once said: heh.
I understand where he's coming from, but . . . . Well, it makes me sad to think that this is where we are. Personally, if Obama's elected I intend to give him a chance and weigh him on his actions, not his party. But I agree that he's not likely to get much of a honeymoon -- except from the press, which has been giving him one for about a year already.
Hit the link and read the rest. Speaking just for myself, I intend to do everything I can to prevent this all from happening. I also do not intend to be shy in my critique of any future Obama/Reid/Pelosi administration.
No need to be shy. But do it with class and wit. That will drive the Dhimmis even more crazy.
It's as I've said before. If Obama becomes our next POTUS, the "Impeach Him" yard signs will just move one or two doors down on or about 1/20/2009.
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
10/13/2008 15:08 Comments ||
If this is how it's to be, then fine. We did not start this, nor do I see any chance (given the MSM) that we can roll things back. The left started this - I say we fight back in kind. My bet is that -as always - they'll overreact. My bet is that most true Americans will see through that and turn on Obama's thuggish horde.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
10/13/2008 15:47 Comments ||
I hear where this guy is coming from and I feel much the same in many ways. I also hear where Instapundit is coming from when he says that it saddens him that it has come to this. Should Obama win in November, I think the liberal chickens could be coming home to roost.
I must admit, I'm anxious to see how they react to the taste of their own medicine. Should be entertaining, to say the least.
I will support a legitimate president, Donk or Trunk, in anything and everything he/she does that is the legitimate function of a Republican form of government. That includes BHO. What I will NOT do is allow ANYONE, especially BHO, to destroy what I've committed most of my adult life to - supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States, and the people governed by that document, from all enemies, regardless of where they come from. I didn't like a lot of what Bill Clinton did, and I said so. I'll do the same thing if either John McCain or Barrack Obama gets elected. It's only if (or when) someone tries to shut me up, or starts to try to hurt me or my family in any way - physically, economically, politically, socially - that I'll do more than just raise a stink. I hate how badly our country is being run, and anyone that deliberately tries to make it worse (Obama, Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, etcetera, ad nauseum, ad absurdum) makes himself my enemy by doing so.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/13/2008 22:23 Comments ||
Face it, conservatives can not churn up the bile and frothing anger to make a decent protest. I think the best (worst) that is possible for conservatives was used against Clinton and it just made him more and more popular.
The only way is satire, humor, and mocking when/if he does something stupid.
Apparently the author prefers the Hoover approach, credit collapse & massive bank failures. Government may well have contributed to the Panic. However, this is an unprecedented situation. I don't expect the government to bat 1000.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.