SUBSCRIBE:

Joseph Klein


The New York Times Covers Up for Van Jones and Other Radical Friends of Obama

2009 September 9

 

Until the self-avowed Communist and 9/11 conspiracy loon Van Jones actually resigned as an Obama administration czar in the deep of night during the Labor Day weekend, The New York Times and other mainstream media pretended that he did not exist.

Bernie Goldberg, the media commentator for Fox News, offered two good explanations on the O’Reilly Factor last night for this example of journalistic malpractice, aside from the usual, day-to-day left-wing media bias.  The first was that the media were just trying to protect their man — Barack Obama.  Nothing that could seriously undermine the Anointed One’s mission to save the country from the greedy special interests and right-wing ‘racists’ was going to be prominently reported, particularly on the eve of Obama’s prime-time speech intended to resurrect his government-run universal healthcare program.

Goldberg also suggested that the absence of reporting on Van Jones, except by Fox News, was because the story had been broken and advanced by Fox News.  The New York Times did not want to sully its precious pages with anything that could conceivably be seen as legitimizing conservative reporting.  

O’Reilly countered that Van Jones was too minor a figure in the Obama administration to matter very much. But minor appointees by the Bush administration, whom the left-wing media thought were too Christian or otherwise too conservative in their views, received out-sized coverage in their day.

The larger question raised by the Van Jones story is why he and other radicals of the Reverend Wright and William Ayers variety have been allowed anywhere near the White House in the first place. The fact that they provide insight into Obama’s own true political leanings is something that the Gray Lady and its other left-wing friends in the media want to whitewash.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Dumb-Down With Keith Ogremann

2009 September 8

Now the big bad MSNBC ogre, Keith Olbermann, is going after Glenn Beck and Fox News for daring to expose the 9/11 conspiracy nut Van Jones.   This Obama administration czar resigned his post this past weekend, in large part because of Beck’s courageous reporting.

Instead of celebrating the work of a fellow journalist, the ogre wants to get him kicked off the air.  Here is Olbermann’s latest rant:

Find everything you can about Glenn Beck, Stu Burguiere, and Roger Ailes. . . . Tuesday we will expand this to the television audience and have a dedicated email address to accept leads, tips, contacts, on Beck, his radio producer Burguiere, and the chief of his tv enablers, Ailes . . .

Olbermann, who could not cut it as a sportscaster on Fox, launched his MSNBC weeknight show Countdown With Keith Olbermann in 2003.  Dumbdown would be a more apt title for his show as Olbermann makes up for his lack of intellect and dearth of knowledge about anything of political substance with childish personal attacks on whomever he happens to disagree with.

Olbermann’s targets are not just the likes of Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly.  He has gone after the majority of Americans who oppose Obama’s health care and wealth redistribution policies. 

And like the schoolyard bully who takes out his own inferiority complex on others with whom he cannot compete on the merits, Olbermann invites guests on his show who are similarly challenged.  Take this rambling exchange with the not-so-funny ‘comediene’  and failed political commentator Janeane Garofalo, who claimed that Americans attending the tea parties to protest Obama’s high-tax, run-away spending policies are racists:

JANEANE GAROFALO: It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that.

OLBERMANN: But if you spear your television network or your political party towards a bunch of guys looking who are just looking for a reason to yell at the black president, eventually you will marginalize yourself out of business, won’t you?

GAROFALO: Here’s what the right-wing has in, there’s no shortage of the natural resources of ignorance, apathy, hate, fear. As long as those things are in the collective conscious and unconscious, the Republicans will have some votes. Fox News will have some viewers. But what else have they got? If they didn’t do that, who is going to watch — you know what I mean? They have tackled that elusive clam — you know, the clam, the 18 to 35 clam — klan. Klan. With a k demo. But, you know, who else is Fox talking to? I mean, what is it urban older white guys? And the girlfriend, and, you know, the women who suffer from Stockholm syndrome gain. There’s a lot of Stockholm syndrome, is what I’m saying ultimately. What else do you want to know? (Emphasis added)

The only syndrome I see is two sophomoric drones so in love with the sound of their own supercilious voices that they cannot hear what the rest of us hear: how foolish they sound.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Naomi Wolf's America-is-a-Fascist State Hysteria Endangers American Lives

2009 September 6

Naomi Wolf’s hysterical predictions about a fascist state developing under President Bush came to naught.  The presidential election went ahead as scheduled, although she warned us of the possibility of a suspended election.  The candidate she endorsed, Barack Obama, won.  Despite her warnings of rampant censorship and shut-downs, her beloved leftward leaning mainstream media remained in business, continuing to leak classified information that is helping the enemy.  The CIA interrogators who helped keep our country safe from another 9/11 attack may be prosecuted, just as Wolf has long wanted.

But this pseudo-intellectual who claims to be an expert on ‘closed societies’ does not let the truth get in the way of her hysteria.  She sees a new wave of fascism stirring in the Obama administration (not mentioning, of course, the socialistic policies that are actually becoming an Obama trademark). 

Wolf’s complaint is that Obama wants to continue holding a few of the most dangerous terrorist suspects now being detained at Guantanamo indefinitely.  As she put it back in July, “six months after he ordered an end to torture and CIA ‘black sites,’ and promised to close Guantánamo within a year, Obama seems to be re-branding Bush’s worst excesses.” (Emphasis added)

To a radical like Naomi Wolf, “worst excesses” mean actions to save American lives from the Islamic terrorists who truly are fascistic.  She would rather release even the most hardened, al Qaeda detainee than see him prevented from exercising his self-proclaimed right to freely express his hatred of America by killing us.

Despite Obama’s unconscionable release of Justice Department legal memos and reams of other documents that al Qaeda can now access on the Internet, Wolf complained that Obama should have done more.

“Obama has sought to suppress hundreds of photographs depicting sexual assault in US-run prisons” Wolf said.  She would add more fodder for the Islamo-fascists to use in recruiting more recruits to their cause. 

It’s bad enough that Naomi Wolf is in denial about the barbarity of Islamic law which justifies the debasement of women as a matter of course.   But she is also accusing all Americans of being torturers.  And she is perpetuating her discredited, hysterical scare tactics to frighten American citizens, or to shame them, about what our elected government is trying to do to protect the lives of American citizens – the first responsibility of government.

Are the Democrats in Trouble?

2009 September 4

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi 

 Laura Ingraham, filling in for Bill O’Reilly last night on the Factor, posed a vital question on behalf of hopeful conservatives:  Are the Democrats in peril as a result of all of their self-inflicted wounds?

One would like to think so, given President Obama’s sliding poll numbers and Congress’ dismal score.  Every time Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid open their mouths, their arrogance, their hypocrisy, their inclination to appease America’s enemies, and their redistributionist values shout loudly to the American people.

But, as Mark Twain once said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”.

And the Democrats have plenty of money to pay for their lies in smear and propaganda ads as well as planted stories in the press.  George Soros will make sure of that.  And so will the mainstream media.

I expect that by the end of this year Obama will get enough of his health care program passed to call it a victory.  Afghanistan will bog him down, causing some split in the Democratic Party, but not enough to swing the majority in either house of Congress back to the Republicans.

The one wild card is the economy.  If it has not turned around dramatically by this time next year — and certainly if it gets worse — the Democrats may well be toast in the mid-term elections.  And if things continue to deteriorate after that, Obama could be looking at a one-term presidency.  But that is a lot of “ifs”.  The Dems will spend us into bankruptcy in order to give the illusion through Election Day that the economy is fixed.

 

A New Alinsky Rule – 'Exploit the Children'

2009 September 3

 Hannity

This is a picture shown on Hannity’s America of an organizer from the Obamacare advocacy group, Health Care for America Now. 

And here is what this organizer was recorded saying to his troops on how to stifle the opposition:

 “If they stand up and start asking questions and you’re in that area, simply stand up, and start — no. Start yelling, ‘health care now, health care now, health care now.’ Yes. You people, why won’t you — then simply stand up, ‘health care now, health care now’ until they get frustrated.”

The Obama forces are getting desperate.  They are using Saul Alinsky’s tactics for radicals against sincere Americans concerned with the direction in which Obama is taking the country. 

This is right out of Alinsky Rules Eight and Twelve:  “Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize…Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

While his supporters take the low road, President Obama intends to rise above the fracas (or so it seems) by delivering a prime-time propaganda piece (oops- TV address) before a joint session of Congress.  He is trying to erase the effects of a month of town hall protests and a multitude of objections to his program with a grand sweeping “rhetorical flourish,” to borrow one of his pet phrases.

The President is also hoping to influence voters through their children.  This is a version of Alinsky’s Rule Eight – “As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.” The children are Obama’s new flank, as he delivers a broadcast live via the White House’s Web site to the nation’s school children just a day before his address to Congress. 

Schools are being strongly encouraged to have their students watch the speech and have been given training materials to use with the kids as a follow-up.  Students will be asked to ponder such questions as:  “What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?”

With their parents watching the President’s prime time speech on health care the following night, will it be a mere coincidence if their kids start bugging them about what they plan to do to help the President? 

It looks like Obama is adding another rule to the Alinsky set: “Exploit the children to sell your arguments.”

It is time to counter by employing Alinsky’s Rule Eleven- “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

The opposition needs to field the strongest, most articulate opponent of Obamacare they have, to immediately follow Obama’s speech and to challenge him to a subsequent one-on-one, no-holds barred debate of the issues on prime-time TV.  Lets see how good the President is when he is forced to face his opposition directly.

Obamacare, Cuban-Style

2009 September 2

watson_unabashed

According to one ardent Barack Obama supporter in the House of Representives, Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.), if you oppose President Obama and Obamacare it is very likely because you are a racist.  Her ideal of a great government leader, moreover, is Cuba’s ruthless former dictator Fidel Castro, who has returned the compliment by praising Obama.

Here are two brief excerpts from a video of Watson’s disgraceful remarks shown on Hannity’s America this week:

WATSON: So, remember, they are spreading fear and they are trying to see that the first president who looks like me fails. And I want you to know, people look at the United States as a country that has changed its ways and has elected someone from Kenya and Kansas. I’ll put it like that.

WATSON: You can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro. But he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met.

It is plain to see that we have, in Watson, a race-obsessed Castro groupie in the United States Congress who is lecturing us on the parameters of how we may, and may not, speak about our President. Nor is she alone, of course. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for instance, has disparaged the many thousands of ordinary Americans who have attended town hall meetings in opposition to Obamacare, characterizing such people as inauthentic “AstroTurf” (as opposed to genuine “grassroots”) organizers who carry “swastikas and symbols like that” to the events.

Congresswoman Watson loves the Cuban health care system, or at least that tiny sliver of it which she and fellow Cuban healthcare fan Michael Moore have been allowed to observe — the state-of-the art facilities reserved for top government officials, visiting dignitaries, and foreigners with the hard currency to pay for the services.  Average Cuban patients, by contrast, are subjected to unsanitary conditions, long waits for vital surgeries (even Castro had to have his surgeon flown in from Spain), malnutrition, and shortages of basic drugs, to name but a few problems.

Yet this is the model that some Obamacare supporters point to as the example to follow.

Check out this photo of a Cuban hospital emergency room.  A picture is worth a thousand words.

cubaho22

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

The Fifth Column at the Department of Homeland Security

2009 September 1

Glenn Beck has recently been pointing out some dangerous appointments by the Obama administration, including the naming of Mark Lloyd as the FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer.  Lloyd believes in enforcing so-called “diversity” of opinion on the broadcast media through local control and accountability rules in order to suppress the conservative voices with whom Lloyd and other leftists disagree.

But as disturbing as this appointment is to those of us who believe in the First Amendment, it pales in comparison to the appointment of Arif Alikhan to serve as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Alikhan, a Sunni Muslim, had previously served as Deputy Mayor of Homeland Security and Public Safety for the City of Los Angeles, where he was primarily responsible for derailing the Police Department’s plan to monitor activities within the Los Angeles Muslim community, including at numerous radical mosques and madrassas that were operating there.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano

In an effort to justify this dangerous appointment, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano emphasized Alikhan’s “broad and impressive array of experience in national security, emergency preparedness and counterterrorism”.

To the contrary, Alikhan’s opposition to implementing effective measures of national security and counterterrorism sets up a fifth column beachhead in the the very federal agency that is supposed to combat Islamic terrorist plots against our homeland!

CAIR, one of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked American Muslim groups, loved the Obama appointment.  “Congratulations to Mr. Ali Khan on this well-deserved appointment,” said CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush. “Mr. Alikhan’s new position reflects his and the community’s dedication to helping preserve the security of our country.  The American Muslim community can be proud of him”

Janet Napolitano also appointed American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) National Executive Director Kareem Shora as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council.  Shora, who has lashed out against “extreme right-wing AM radio talk-show hosts” and  “certain pundits on the Fox News Channel” for alleged “opportunistic bigotry”,  has also criticized electronic surveilllance of communications with Middle Eastern countries, immigration screening, and no-fly lists, amongst other counter-terrorism measures.

Obama and Napolitano might as well post a “welcome” sign on the front door of the Department of Homeland Security to would-be Islamic jihadists plotting infiltration of our homeland for destructive purposes.

The Wrong Way to Remember Ted Kennedy

2009 August 29
Judge Robert Bork, one of Senator Ted Kennedy's victims

Judge Robert Bork, one of Senator Ted Kennedy's victims

We do not honor Ted Kennedy‘s memory by perpetuating his mistakes.  Despite all of the live prime time cable TV coverage last night of speeches extolling his legislative accomplishments and willingness to reach across the aisle on occasion, Kennedy’s extreme views on foreign policy, judicial appointments and health care are not worthy of emulation.

Unlike his brother John F. Kennedy who understood the Soviet menace and America’s special mission to carry the torch of liberty throughout the world, Ted Kennedy was a moral relativist when it came to dealing with our enemies.  An anti-war and nuclear freeze advocate to the core, he was one of the charter members of the ‘blame America’ crowd who tried to appease the Soviet Union.  He was a strong opponent of effective intelligence gathering programs.    He did not understand the gravity of the Islamic terrorist threat, and in 2007 voted against designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as terrorists ( Senator Obama was also against this designation but did not vote at the time).  Kennedy was also against virtually whatever it took to prevent another 9/11 catastrophe.

With respect to judicial appointments, it was Ted Kennedy more than any other Senator who turned Senate confirmation hearings into the poisonous, partisan battles that they have become.

Within 45 minutes of Judge Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a slanderous attack against Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.”

Kennedy’s style of vicious personal attack against a Supreme Court nominee became known as “borking“.

With regard to health care, Ted Kennedy’s vision to the end was a government take-over of one-sixth of the U.S. economy and crippling taxes to pay for it.  He called it “the cause of my life”.  Advocates of universal socialized medicine like Nancy Pelosi are urging quick passage of legislation to bring Ted Kennedy’s vision to life.  This would be a disastrous mistake.

Let not Kennedy’s  misguided causes live on to become our albatrosses.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

The Obama Administration's Message to Terrorist Detainees: Lawyer-Up

2009 August 26

mirandaImage14

The New York Times today carried a front page article with the headline “Records show Strict Rules for CIA Interrogations.” It almost appeared for a moment that the Times was taking a step back from the obsession it shares with other left-wing outlets such as MSNBC over what it now concedes were a few “aberations in the field.”

But hold on.  One has to read just a few paragraphs into the article  to understand the Times‘ real purpose in publishing it.   The Times is carrying the torch for the anti-war left’s campaign to put the entire Bush administration, “from the White House on down,” on trial because “any prosecution that focuses narrowly on low-level interrogators who on a few occasions broke the rules may appear unfair.” 

The Times‘ authority on the subject is the ACLU, whose spokesperson was quoted in the article as saying, “Any investigation that began and ended with the so-called rogue interrogators would be completely inadequate”.

The O’Reilly Factor also made the Obama administration’s disastrous re-opening of cases of alleged detainee abuse its lead story last night; unsurprisingly O’Reilly had a very different take on the potential consequences of such investigations. However, speculation on the show about one possible motive for the decision to investigate Bush-era officials was off the mark.

According to one theory, the CIA investiagtion decision was a lame attempt to divert attention away from Obama’s health care fiasco.  But the reality is that the decision reflects this administration’s philosophy that al Qaeda leaders and other suspected Islamic terrorists should be accorded constitutional protections comparable to those of criminal defendants in our civil courts.  The Obama administration is bending over backwards to make it virtually impossible to gain timely intelligence from high-value Islamic jihadist detainees.

In his initial interrogation by CIA officers, according to former CIA Director George Tenet, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed had defiantly told them, “I’ll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer.” Waterboarding changed his mind, and the information he subsequently supplied saved thousands of lives.

If a high-value detainee like Mohammed were to be captured now, not only would enhanced interrogation techniques be out of bounds.  He could well be read his “right” to remain silent.  If he lawyers-up under interrogation, that could well be the end of the questioning until his attorneys can be present.  This is no exagerration.  

The Obama administration has reportedly embarked on a new policy under which increasing numbers of terrorists detained in Afghanistan are being read Miranda warnings. Yes, you read that correctly.  Miranda warnings, which the Supreme Court said must be given by law-enforcement officers and agents to criminal defendants, to inform them of their right to remain silent and their right to have an attorney present during questioning, are evidently now being given to suspected Islamic terrorists caught in the battlefields of Afghanistan!

Obama has taken to praising Winston Churchill for upholding democratic values and the rule of law even at a time when London was being intensively bombed.  But in fact Churchill argued in cabinet meetings that Hitler was “the mainspring of evil” and “an outlaw,” and said that trials of top Nazis would be nothing more than a “farce.” Instead, Churchill’s advice was to “execute the principal criminals as outlaws — if no ally wants them.”

Obama would no doubt consider his new-found hero’s advice to be too harsh, to say the least.  But giving the Islamic terrorist suspects caught in Afghanistan the opportunity to lawyer-up surely is a farce of gargantuan proportions.   And re-opening past cases of enhanced interrogation only brings more aid and comfort to the enemy by chilling effective interrogation in the future.

Perhaps the interrogators and the detainees can share attorneys in the field to advise on the proper limits of interrogation. If we are going to treat the detainees with kid gloves and possibly release them anyway, at least the shared lawyers will save us time and money.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

If Even One Innocent American Life Can Be Saved by Rough Interrogation of Terrorist Suspects, That's a Good Thing

2009 August 25

I realize that it is politically incorrect to say so, but I could not care less how imprisoned al Qaeda leaders have been treated by the CIA if there was any chance that tough interrogation would yield life-saving information.  That is the bottom line — not whether some pathological Islamic fanatic who would like to see us all dead thought he was drowning while being water-boarded, was in despair while being kept in solitary confinement, or was frightened while being told that his family might be in danger if he did not cooperate. 

That’s just too darned bad. 

This needs to be repeated by Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and every other commentator on cable TV and talk radio who cares about American lives and is dismayed by the hard left sympathy for terrorist suspects that permeates Obama administration policies today.

First, it was the executive order calling for the closure of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay by early 2010, which the administration still cannot figure out how to implement safely.  We may see either release of some remaining detainees, or their trial under the full constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants in American courts.

Then there was the decision to end the enhanced interrogation techniques that have helped keep us safe since 9/11.  Instead, all interrogators have to abide by the Army Field Manual for Human Intelligence Collector Operations, a publicly available document posted on the Internet.  It provides the terrorists with a roadmap as to how they are likely to be interrogated and the expected psychological outcomes.

And in the latest outrage, Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to appoint a prosecutor to investigate alleged CIA interrogation abuses during the Bush administration. It is arguably one of the worst decisions to date of an already disastrous Obama administration. It chills effective intelligence-gathering as long as interrogators have to worry that everything they say and do may end up being used against them in a criminal trial.  And this puts all of our lives in jeopardy as al Qaeda and its allies continue to plot horrific attacks on our homeland that will make 9/11 look like child’s play.

Said Holder:

“I fully realize that my decision to commence this preliminary review will be controversial. As attorney general, my duty is to examine the facts and to follow the law.  In this case, given all of the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action for me to take.”

This self-righteous talk ignores both the facts and the law.  Holder is re-opening cases that other prosecutors have already looked into and have determined did not warrant further action.  There was insufficient evidence of a prosecutable crime. 

As for the law,  when the U.S. Senate ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture in 1994, it defined torture as an act “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering,” which is the definition of torture in the UN Convention itself.  The Senate went on to define mental pain and suffering as “prolonged mental harm” resulting from such causes as “the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering or the threat of imminent death”.

I italicized the key words for Holder and his appointed prosecutor, John H. Durham, to read carefully.  Even water-boarding, which was done for two minutes or less, never exposed the few al Qaeda leaders subjected to it to any physical harm at all, or to any threat of actual drowning. 

Stop the witch hunt and go after the real enemy who wants us all dead!

Why is Barack Hussein Obama's State Department Breaching the Separation of Mosque and State?

2009 August 21

Ramadan_1

Cable TV chatter has been all about Obamacare.  Bill O’Reilly, for example, leads off The Factor with this topic virtually every night. Sean Hannity’s show this month has been devoted almost entirely to Obamacare.

Now there’s nothing terribly wrong with that, except, as a result, President Obama is getting a free pass on other vital issues that are being ignored. So I am going to bring up one that I find deeply disturbing, in hopes that the cablemeisters will start covering it more prominently.

Earlier this month, Barack Hussein Obama’s State Department put out a statement announcing:

“[The] Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) has assembled a range of innovative and traditional tools to support Posts’ outreach activities during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan … America.gov will publish a ‘Multicultural Ramadan’ feature.”

The intent is to address “the concept of an Islam in America ‘brand’.”

An “Islam in America” brand?  We are spending taxpayers’ money to advertise and promote a religiously inspired ideology whose core believers want to impose their faith on the rest of us?

Apparently the Obama State Department is following Great Britain’s example of multiculturalism gone wild.

Where is the ACLU?  This hypocritical far-left organization has no problem attacking every conceivable symbol of our Judeo-Christian culture that appears in the public square.  But its First Amendment concerns about “separation of church and state” disappear when it comes to separation of mosque and state.

The same Obama administration that now promotes the Islamic “brand” in America and a multicultural celebration of Ramadan, saw fit, just four months ago, to ask Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, to cover over the name of Jesus inscribed on a pediment behind the podium from which President Obama was slated to deliver an address.

We are an open, pluralistic society that honors and protects the right of all Americans to practice the religion of their choice, or to practice no religion at all.

But we are confronting an ideology that forbids its believers to co-exist on equal terms with those whom they regard as infidels. Now we are being encouraged to surrender our own distinct identity and beliefs, in response to the siren call of multiculturalism.

It is time to stop obscuring the Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment roots that have allowed us to advance far beyond the fundamentalist-dominated Muslim world, just to prove how “understanding” we are of the special sensibilities of our Muslim minority population.  If we fail to embrace our heritage, the sickness that already has taken root in our society will metastasize into something far deadlier than anything universal health care could possibly treat.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Frank Speak

2009 August 20

Frank B

Barney Frank, one of the most influential members of the socialist-leaning Progressive Caucus, managed to take a gratuitous shot at the war in Iraq while defending Obamacare. In response to a question at his town hall meeting concerning the huge cost of universal health care that taxpayers would be subsidizing (and that future generations would have to bear in the form of trillions of dollars of new government debt), Frank responded that the U.S. government’s most wasteful boondoggle has been the war in Iraq.  This non sequitur of an answer was aired during Bill O’Reilly’s talking points last night.

Aside from completely dismissing the sacrifices of our brave men and women fighting in Iraq, Congressman Frank also disrespected his audience by ducking a perfectly legitimate question on the topic at hand — voter concerns about universal health care.  According to a new NBC poll, 54 percent of Americans are concerned that the government will go too far in reforming the nation’s health care system, while 41 percent are more worried that the reform will not do enough to lower costs and cover the uninsured.  More Americans disapprove of the way that the President is handling the whole health care issue than approve.

As for Iraq, we will only have wasted precious lives and treasure if Obama precipitiously withdraws.  The war has resulted not only in the liberation of millions of Iraqis from the yoke of Saddam Hussein‘s tyrannical regime.  It also dealt a huge strategic defeat to al-Qaeda, as the people turned against that bloodthirsty organization after they had gotten to see the true face of radical Islam up close. 

If Barney Frank were ever to be frank about government waste, he would own up to the disgraceful role he himself played in pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into insolvency.  He did that, along with his fellow liberals in Congress, by resisting calls for more regulation of these two quasi-governmental entities, and by instead pressuring them to back ever-riskier subprime mortgage loans to people who could not afford them.  Now Frank and his fellow liberals are trying to foist yet another government-sponsored financial debacle on more than one-sixth of the American economy.

Frank derisively asked one of his questioners at his town hall meeting, what planet she was from. The same could be asked of the congressman.

Copyright 2019 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry