|
Obama tells
banks and corporation
how it's gonna be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
event |
description |
|
Obama Dangerously Wrong About Terrorists |
I
listened today to the "anointed one"
pontificating about how we have
been seriously wrong in the way we have allegedly been treating
suspected terrorists.
As usual, Obama's clever speech writers,
along with the man's admitted ability to deliver a stirring oration, have seemingly
convinced his poorly informed, and/or mentally challenged, followers
that the way we handled terrorists during the last Bush administration
was both legally and morally reprehensible: a situation the enlightened
messiah will rectify, while dangerously degrading our nation's security,
which he is sworn to protect and preserve.
Here are irrefutable
facts you should know before deciding that the president is not guilty
of avoidably exposing our nation to terrorist attack, which could well
be a thousand times more destructive than was the shocking destruction
of Sept. 11.
A mentally deranged, suicidal, misguided religious
fanatic of the sort that was happy to steer an airplane filled with
screaming innocent civilians into a New York office building would be
thrilled to be able to set off a nuclear bomb in the middle of any of
our major cities.
There are perhaps thousands of such dangerous
lunatics ready to do just that. All they need is the bomb and an order
to do their dirty deed.
The bomb is available now, whether from
nuclear devices unaccounted for during the breakup of the Soviet Union
or from potential sources such as Libya, North Korea, South Africa,
Pakistan, and, soon, even Iran.
Some of those bombs are small
enough to be carried by one man, and could even be hidden in luggage.
It would be all too easy to bring one in undetected aboard any of
the many foreign-flagged ships entering our major harbors every day. They could also be smuggled aboard aircraft (small private and large
commercial) or back-packed across our inexcusably leaky border with
Mexico.
It may be debatable, but since the weapons of horrific
mass destruction are available, and the mentally sick men needed to
place and then detonate them are ready and eager, it is reasonable to
conclude that it is only because of the thankless work by our
intelligence services that we have been spared an attack so terrible as
to be beyond our imagination.
Yet now, weepy, wimpy, misguided
(and/or irresponsible) government leaders are embarked on a suicidal
plan to emasculate those same intelligence agencies.
It is
interesting to consider that over the past many decades, bleeding-heart
liberals have used the "If it saves only one life it's worth (you fill
it in)" in arguing for everything from abolishing the death penalty, to
dictating how hot McDonald's coffee can be. Seems as though our pompous
politicians can only relate to one life at a time. Otherwise, how can
one attempt to explain why they are unwilling to allow a relative
handful of persons to be made somewhat uncomfortable for a short period
of time, so that billions of us might be spared experiencing wanton,
indiscriminate, hate-filled destruction on a scale such as man has never
witnessed?
The bottom line is that we must -- simply must -- use
all reasonable means of getting terrorists to give us the information
needed to prevent a major attack. Under the circumstances, what we've
been doing, in that respect, seems quite reasonable. Perhaps the
question we should be asking our tragically misguided leaders is: "Isn't
it worth using extraordinary means on a hundred or so psychopathic
killers, in order to extract information that can save millions of us?" |
|
Obama's Back-Door Rendition |
The United States
is now
relying heavily on foreign intelligence services to capture,
interrogate and detain all but the highest-level terrorist suspects
seized outside the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to
current and former American government officials…
Human rights
advocates say that relying on foreign governments to hold and question
terrorist suspects could carry significant risks. It could increase the
potential for abuse at the hands of foreign interrogators and could also
yield bad intelligence, they say…
American officials say that in
the last years of the Bush administration and now on Mr. Obama’s watch,
the balance has shifted toward leaving all but the most high-level
terrorist suspects in foreign rather than American custody. The United
States has repatriated hundreds of detainees held at prisons in Cuba,
Iraq and Afghanistan, but the current approach is different because it
seeks to keep the prisoners out of American custody altogether…
As a safeguard against torture, the CIA's Panetta said, the United States
would rely on diplomatic assurances of good treatment. The Bush
administration sought the same assurances, which critics say are
ineffective…
American officials said the United States would
still take custody of the most senior al-Qaeda operatives captured in the
future.
A clever move in how
it kills two birds with stone, avoiding further headaches for Obama over
how to dispose of terrorists in U.S. custody while leaving jihadis in
the possession of people willing and able to do what's necessary to
obtain emergency information if need be.
But, how is this
significantly different from rendition? The only difference is
that instead of grabbing these people ourselves and handing them over to
Jordanian or Pakistani intelligence agencies for interrogation, we’re
leading their guys to the suspects and letting them take it from there.
"Rendition-lite,"
Tom Maguire calls it. Which makes this the
second Bush policy despised by
the left in the span of three days that The One’s decided to continue. |
|
No Class |
John Hinderaker never
thought much of Barack
Obama's policies, and he's starting not to think much of him as a human
being. Today Obama continued his gratuitous and graceless attacks on his
predecessor in the inappropriate context of Memorial Day:
"Our
fighting men and women -- and the military families who love them --
embody what is best in America. And we have a responsibility to serve
all of them as well as they serve all of us."
"And yet, all too
often in recent years and decades, we, as a nation, have failed to live
up to that responsibility. We have failed to give them the support they
need or pay them the respect they deserve. That is a betrayal of the
sacred trust that America has with all who wear -- and all who have worn
--
- the proud uniform of our country."
Barack Obama, the soldiers'
friend! As Chris Stirewalt notes:
It gets little notice, but even
to this day Bush makes calls on wounded veterans at military hospitals,
corresponds with families of fallen service-members and gives his own
money to veterans charities. In office, Bush hugely increased funding
for veterans programs and worked relentlessly to improve the lot of
ordinary troops.
It would be interesting to know how much of his
own money Barack Obama has given to veterans' charities over the years.
I'd hazard a guess: zero.
Obama's incessant attacks on the Bush
administration tell us nothing about former President Bush, but a great
deal about Barack Obama -- the man has no class.
|
|
Obama's Verbal Onanism |
Clarice Feldman says
her friend Danube
commented on how many times Obama used the first
person singular in his latest speech:
"I did a bit of an
experiment. I found the complete text of Obama's national security
speech from last week. Using the control-f function on my browser, I
discovered that the man used the word 'I' 108 times in that speech. As
rendered [sic] by the NYTimes, the speech was 8+ pages -- let's call it
an even twelve times per page that the man said 'I'."
I'm
reliably informed that his speech lasted 60 minutes. That's 1.8 times
per minute, or one "I" every 33 seconds.
I believe that must be a
record for an American leader. Can anyone think of a speech that
would top it?
|
|
Who Wrote Dreams and Why It Matters |
Jack Cashill said his
involvement in this occasionally harrowing literary adventure began in
July 2008, entirely innocently. A friend sent him some short excerpts
from Dreams and asked if they were as radical as they sounded. Cashill
bought the book, located the excerpts, and reported back that, in
context, the excerpts were not particularly troubling.
But he did
notice something else. The book was much too well written. Cashill had
seen enough of Obama's interviews to know that he did not speak with
anywhere near the verbal sophistication on display in Dreams.
About six weeks later, for entirely unrelated reasons, Cashill picked up
a copy of Bill Ayers 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days. Ayers, he discovered,
writes very well and very much like "Obama."
In mid-September,
after considerable digging, Cashill wrote a few speculative articles for
American Thinker and other online journals and discovered that he was
not alone in his suspicions.
Looking for some scientific
verification, Cashill consulted Patrick Juola of Duquesne, a leading
authority in the field of literary forensics. Juola, however, advised
him
against relying on computer analysis on a subject this sensitive. "The
accuracy just isn't there," he told him. He encouraged
Cashill instead "to
do what you're already doing . . . good old-fashioned literary detective
work." Cashill took his advice.
The first question Cashill had to
resolve was whether the 33 year-old Barack Obama was capable of writing
what Time Magazine has called "the best-written memoir ever produced by
an American politician."
The answer is almost assuredly "no."
Very interesting piece -- worth reading
-- go
here . . . |
|
Obama Not Vetted Before Election (Or Since) |
Filling in as guest
host for radio talk-show host Bill Bennett this week, Republican
National Committee Chairman Michael Steele
said Barack Obama was simply
never vetted by the press because it fell in love with him.
"The
problem that we have with this president is that we don't know him," he
said. "He was not vetted, folks. He was not vetted, because the press
fell in love with the black man running for the office. 'Oh gee,
wouldn't it be neat to do that? Gee, wouldn't it make all of our liberal
guilt just go away? We can continue to ride around in our limousines and
feel so lucky to live in an America with a black president.' Okay that's
wonderful, great scenario, nice backdrop. But what does he stand for?
What does he believe?"
"So we don't know. We just don't know." |
![]()
©
Copyright Beckwith 2009
All right reserved
|
