That Didn’t Take Long: Rahm Emanuel Transition Co-Chair Resigns Over Ethics Violations

That Didn’t Take Long: Rahm Emanuel Transition Co-Chair Resigns Over Ethics Violations

By Doug Powers  •  February 26, 2011 06:01 PM

**Written by Doug Powers

As you would expect in Chicago politics, all potential Team Rahm transition co-chairs were subjected to stringent background checks… except for the ones who weren’t:

(CNN) – A co-chair of Chicago mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel’s transition team resigned from her new post Friday after it was revealed that she left her high-level state job last summer over ethics violations, CNN confirmed Saturday.

Judy Erwin previously served as the executive director of the Illinois Board of Higher Education and served on then-candidate Barack Obama’s Education Policy Committee during his 2008 presidential campaign. On Thursday, she was named to Emanuel’s transition team and according to a news release, Erwin was also recently hired as managing director for ASGK Public Strategies, the communication management firm founded by former Obama senior adviser David Axelrod.
[...]
But a recent decision by the state Executive Ethics Commission says Erwin used her state e-mail account and phone to campaign for Obama, engaging in campaign fundraising activity and using staff resources to help plan her trip to the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

A full 24 hours from appointment to resignation for ethics reasons. Is that a new Chicago record? Highly unlikely.

Given the man under whom Emanuel studied the art of smooth transition at the executive level, I’d expect more problems in the very near future.

**Written by Doug Powers

Obama Nixes Safe Drilling

Obama Nixes Safe Drilling

By Jeffrey
Folks

 

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was in Houston this weekend talking with oil
executives who are eager to start drilling again in the Gulf of Mexico. That may
sound like progress, but after the meeting Salazar said that nothing had
changed. He was not ready to approve any new drilling.
Despite everything that energy companies have done to devise advanced
containment systems, Salazar is unwilling to issue a single new permit. Systems
constructed by the nonprofit Marine Well Containment Company and other entities
are now able to handle a flow equal or greater than that experienced during the
Deepwater Horizon accident last summer. But that’s not enough for Salazar, who
stated
that
even the most advanced systems have “limitations on water depth and
barrel-per-day containment capacity.”
Well, yes. Any system that could be devised would have limitations on depth
and per-barrel capacity. But that’s not the point, as Mr. Salazar must know. The
question is whether the new systems are able to handle the sorts of accident
that might actually take place. Not the worst scenario that someone from the
Interior Department could dream up. Combined with safely protocols now in place,
the new containment equipment can do just that.
So why no permits for new drilling? It appears that the Obama
administration is more interested in kowtowing to environmental donors in
advance of the 2012 election than it is in controlling energy prices. Even with
a federal court order
to decide
on new drilling in the Gulf by March 20, the Obama administration
remains obdurate.
By refusing to grant a single deep-water permit in the Gulf, Obama has shut
down access to one third of America’s oil supply. With Libyan oil fields now
closed indefinitely and with uncertainty about future production elsewhere in
the Middle East, it is a dreadful time to be shutting down America’s oil fields
as well. Turmoil in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, or Iraq would drive the price of
oil up above $150 a barrel, at the very least. A prudent policy would be to
increase domestic production in light of uncertainty abroad.
Some Americans are already paying $4 a gallon for gas, but this is not just
because of what’s happening in the Middle East. Government action on Gulf
drilling permits would immediately calm the oil markets and bring down prices,
even though new production would not come on line for several years. But instead
of reducing prices, Obama seems is intent on driving them up.
It’s not just the Gulf of Mexico that is off limits. Obama opposes drilling
anywhere offshore, including in the rich arctic region which is known to hold
billions of barrels of oil reserves.
Just as bad, in his FY2012 budget Obama proposes
cutting
$4.4 billion of annual tax deductions for oil and gas drilling –
deductions for depreciation and amortization that date back to 1913. Those tax
deductions help energy companies pay for exploratory projects that then result
in lower energy costs for all Americans. At a time when Obama is throwing away
$100 billion on risky alternative energy boondoggles, a number of which have
already gone bankrupt, he wants to end those modest tax advantages that actually
result in the production of large quantities of new energy. That sort of
accounting only makes sense to a politician.
Obama, in fact, is doing everything possible to curtail domestic energy
production, and yet he says that
“our dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security.” If reliance on
foreign oil puts America at risk, why not produce more oil at home? New drilling
techniques including fracking, horizontal drilling, and deep-water drilling now
make it possible to do just that, but Obama opposes all of these.
If the President knows that dependence on foreign oil threatens our
national security and that new drilling techniques can increase
domestic supplies, why is he intent on destroying our domestic oil and gas
industry?
America is going to need new oil and gas production in a big way. In a new
report
, Charles T. Maxwell, the dean of U.S. energy analysts, has gone on
record saying that regardless of what happens in the Middle East, oil prices are
going up, way up. In a Barron’s interview Maxwell stated that oil
prices will hit $300 by 2020. Maxwell arrives at this number by way of a
straightforward calculation. By about 2015 global oil production will peak, but
demand will continue to increase on a global basis.
That leaves Americans paying $12 a gallon for gas, which is just about what
Obama has said he wants. That certainly will help to end our dependence on
foreign oil. The problem is there won’t be anything to take its place.
At $12 a gallon, we won’t be driving around much in large SUVs or in small
SUVs, either. Nor will we be enjoying cheap air fares or discounted cruises. The
cost of transporting goods will triple, as will the cost of heating homes,
schools, and offices. And those who think that solar and wind will take the
place of fossil fuels are sadly mistaken.
As Maxwell points
out
, solar energy now supplies one tenth of one percent of America’s energy
needs. Even with massive subsidies — the kind of subsidies that have already
bankrupted the Spanish economy — solar and wind will never supply more than a
small percentage of America’s energy needs. Since Obama, through EPA
restrictions, is busy sabotaging coal and natural gas as well, and since America
has no serious nuclear program underway, we are left with nothing.
Only a president who is extraordinarily stupid would fail to see this.
Conclusion: Obama is either extraordinarily stupid, or he is willing to trade
America’s national security for the support of
environmentalist donors who are key to his re-election. Whichever it is, we’re
in trouble.
Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and article on
American culture.

The Geraldo Rivera of Presidents

The Geraldo Rivera of Presidents

By Betsy M.
Galliher

 

I’m bitter.  No two ways about it.  Without Robert Glib in the press room
there’s just no comic relief in the fundamental transformation anymore.  So
often Leftists are, themselves, the best illustration of their ironic world of
absurdity — even those Leftists who sometimes masquerade as conservatives.
Before Late Night hosts, White House press secretaries, and Saturday Night
Live casts found such pleasure in giving conservatism a bad name, there was
Geraldo Rivera.
Remember the unending build-up to Rivera’s live television special, “The
Mystery of Al Capone’s Vault”?   Its marketing created a palpable curiosity,
sparking conversations around water coolers for weeks.  For all the anticipation
— all the promise of treasure — we were left with thirty seconds of watching
dust settle on an empty room.  Nothing like naked humiliation to jumpstart a
career.
If Kennedy was the “King of Camelot,” and Reagan, ‘the Teflon President,’
Barack Obama is the “Geraldo Rivera President.”
Rivera was born to a Puerto Rican father, and a Caucasian mother.  He was
raised in his mother’s Jewish faith, later rejecting it, and is now purportedly
an atheist.  He evokes other religions as they suit his purpose.  He is
respectful, for example, with the Leftist organizing, Muslim Brotherhood, and
their offshoot, CAIR.
He grew up in “ethnic confusion” in Long Island where he lead a double
life; an ethnic ‘pastiche’ at home, and a boy with white, protestant friends at
school.
He was born “Gerald,” eventually adopting the Latino pronunciation,
Geraldo.
After graduating from Law School, he devoted himself to the cause of
“poverty law.”
With the help of another writer, he penned his autobiography; Exposing
Myself
, [not to be confused with any of Obama's books] at the age of 48,
wherein he chronicled the discrimination he faced in his youth, and his fight to
champion the ‘little guy.’
He is the author of several other books. The books, HisPANIC Why
Americans Fear Hispanics in the U.S
., and The Great Progression How
Hispanics Will Lead America To A New Era Of Prosperity
, are progressive
manuals which inject accusations of racism in what should be real discussions;
blurring legal and illegal immigration, for example, and calling virtually any
and all opposition racist.
He is vocal in his disagreement with George W. Bush; Bush’s handling of
war, his response to 9/11, his hurricane Katrina response, his ‘stolen’ 2004
election, and the arrogance of his foreign policy.
He postures with our troops, championing their bravery while showcasing his
own risk, and inadvertently undermining troop movements and tactical
maneuvers.   He questioned whether 9/11 was an ‘inside job.’
He is, perhaps, most famous for his personal exploits.  The mystery of his
many affairs, his affinity for the high life, and his desire to befriend the
powerful, the criminal,  Hollywood celebrities, and the most provocative world
leaders.
He supports ObamaCare.
He blames talk radio for making Latinos feel unwelcome as
immigrants.
He decries racism, but projects race into every possible situation.  When
Joe Wilson shouted, “you lie” to President Obama, it was racist.  When anyone
questions illegal immigration, it’s racist.  The police response to “these
missing white girl cases,” is racist.  Before Sonia Sotomayor is a wise
American, she is a wise Latino.
He treats conservatives with disdain.  He once called FNC co-worker
Michelle Malkin’s opposition to illegal immigration, “anti-immigrant hysteria.”
He followed that with, “I’d spit on her if I saw her.”  The Tea Party incites
violent rhetoric, even shootings in Arizona.  He has “never seen any people of
color” at a Tea Party rally.
He calls himself a Zionist but shamelessly attacks Israel, including
propagating the narrative that it is Netanyahu who refuses to make peace with
Palestinians.
He has a knack for inserting himself in every story; championing the
downtrodden, while he somehow makes their plight about himself.
He has a very healthy opinion of himself, evidenced by numerous magazine
covers, books, self-congratulatory speeches, and a love of the limelight that,
sadly, tends to undermine the good he has done.  He once called himself, “one of
America’s few one-name celebrities.”
He has extensive experience in using Teleprompters.
If not for the famous moustache, you might confuse Geraldo for another
‘one-name celebrity,’ except Obama very openly deplores FOX News, and Geraldo
collects a paycheck from them.
Any lack of substance is disguised with Geraldo’s grandiose style:  the
broken nose in 1988 when he pitted volatile racist groups against one another,
weeping with Katrina victims, putting himself in harm’s way with soldiers, and
humanizing the Charles Mansons and Castros of the world.  Above all, Geraldo
reads the world through the progressive’s race-colored glasses.  As countless
citizens, even liberals, are now realizing, falling for style over substance is
exactly how we get a narcissistic, appeasing, race-obsessed Gerry Rivera to the
White House.
If you want to see the victim narrative come to life, look no further than
Madison, Wisconsin where bloated teachers unions wage class warfare, and their
elected mouthpieces flee the State; supposedly unaware, if the flotilla isn’t
righted, the Democrat and union ships go down together.
All the while, of course, Rome continues to burn, and the Obamas host a
timely celebration of Detroit’s Motown History and its role in the civil rights
movement, complete with a day of workshops, and a lavish, star-studded
sing-a-long.  Because, in the words of Michelle Obama, “the Motown story is a
metaphor for life,” which I’m sure means a lot to Americans in the crosshairs of
a civil war in Libya, the families of the four Americans killed by Somali
pirates last week, and our brave soldiers risking their lives around the
world.
If unions are to expect another bailout, it makes sense they posture as the
new civil rights’ movement.  Surprisingly, Geraldo hasn’t yet stood weeping with
union members on the steps of the Madison State House.  It would certainly fit
the narrative.  Forget that public employee unions are paid at twice the rate of
their private sector counterparts; forget the $200 billion in stimulus dollars
from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that largely went to
fund — save — public employee pensions in already bankrupt States, forget
their union collects dues that are used to support one — and only one –
political party, forget they can ‘skip’ (cough, cough) school for a week and
still have a job, and forget the many good and honorable public school teachers
the union disparages by association.
This is what the narrative buys.  Empathy for the cause; distraction from
the facts.  Geraldo knows it well.  Obama community-organizes on its
behalf.
What’s most remarkable, is the fact Obama is now ostensibly the organizing
arm of all public sector unions from within the White House, even if only by
proxy.   A President organizing against State Governors, and private taxpayers,
is nothing less than un-presidential.
The truth is we know the song.  We get it.  And, frankly, it’s been playing
in our heads like a bad record for far too long.  Many of us manage to work and
prosper despite some adversity — in many cases, it’s what compels us.  And we
do so without calling in the union or the government to babysit every bump in
the road, or evoking racial inequality or other misnomers when we fail.  The
narrative is simply lost on those of us who refuse to see life through the prism
of race, or class, or a long-held grudge.  We refuse to let the narrative trump
the reality of the truly oppressed — the taxpayer.
The White House says it’s not taking sides in the union fight in Wisconsin,
but Obama’s actions say otherwise; no matter how covert.  In 2012 taxpayers will
take a real seat at the collective bargaining table, and vote Big Labor out of
the White House.  FOX News could take the same lead, but if fair and balanced is
your mantra, Rivera isn’t the worst of token progressives.  At the very least,
Rivera continues to prove conservatism is the right path, often times better
than conservatives themselves can convey.

Live and Let Die

Live and Let Die

Posted By Nichole Hungerford On February 26, 2011 @ 6:09 am In Daily Mailer, FrontPage | 38 Comments

In his speech on the turmoil in Libya, President Obama used the phrase “international community” three times. He did not say the name “Muammar Qaddafi” once. By the time it was obvious that the dictator was slaughtering his own people, vowing to “cleanse Libya house by house” and “die as a martyr,” President Obama could not muster the fortitude to denounce the Qaddafi regime by name or articulate any action that would prevent the loss of human life. With all that is at his disposal to influence the ending of this bloodshed, the president has opted to allow America to stand by silently on the sidelines and watch the massacre unfold.

The president’s response to Libya was so milquetoast, in fact, that even left-wing MSNBC host Chris Matthews was left longing for a Reagan-esque “evil empire” moment. Even liberal commentator Eugene Robinson was moved to call for U.S. action in his recent column. The tone of the president’s remarks exhibited a bizarre disconnect as well. Notwithstanding the president’s great faith in the opinion of the “international community,” a despot like Qaddafi, who speaks earnestly in terms of political cleansing and martyrdom, surely cannot be rhetorically coerced to end his rampage, and he clearly is not sensitive — to say the least — about the feelings of the “international community.”

But the Obama administration is in the grips of a teachable moment. Since taking office, Obama’s goal has been to demonstrate to the world that the U.S. is a team player. To the Arab world in particular, he has sought to prove that the U.S. is not interested in exerting influence in the region, which is considered the source of Islamist discontent by the Left. This, the administration believes, will assuage anti-American sentiment and Arab belligerence, as the president has intimated over and over again in his overtures to the Muslim world. Now, we are witnessing the catastrophic repercussions of such a destructive posture: America is willing to forsake its unrivaled ability to stop monstrous violations of human rights in order to avoid offending the sensibilities of Islamo-fascists.

To be sure, the U.S. has faced similar decisions before. When a freedom-seeking revolt broke out in Hungary in October of 1956 against the U.S.S.R., the anti-communist rebel forces were led to believed the U.S. would come to their aid. In fact, this is one of the reasons the rebel Hungarians fought so successfully for so long against the Soviets. At various points, victory seemed achievable for the uprising, which would have changed the face of the entire Cold War. But President Eisenhower ultimately abandoned and betrayed the Hungarian freedom fighters — and the rebellion was savagely squashed by the Soviets. It is a regrettable and tragic chapter in Cold War history in general and in American foreign policy in particular.

 

One exoneration of Eisenhower’s policy that could be pointed to is his fear that an international war could have broken out over Hungary, since a nuclear Soviet Russia was a dangerous reality. For Obama, however, there is no such excuse. Numerous Muslim leaders have themselves denounced Qaddafi for the express reason that he is killing Muslims. Certainly, it is in the interest of protesters across the region that Qaddafi be held accountable, lest other autocrats get the impression that dissent can be crushed with impunity. Furthermore, Qaddafi has virtually no credibility in the international community — the Arab League, the African Union, the European Union, and the Islamic Conference have condemned his actions.

Rather, the inaction toward Libya we are seeing today is more reminiscent of the Left’s shameless reaction (or non-reaction) to the mass slaughter of the Iranian people by the Ayatollah Khomeini during the Islamic Revolution. After the pro-Western Shah of Iran (the Left’s bete-noire) was deposed, the Islamic revolutionary forces oversaw a bloody transfer of power. The silence from the Left on this massacre, which was precipitated by the Carter administration’s unconscionable undermining of the Shah’s regime, was deafening.

But what more could one really expect from the political faith? According to the leftist worldview, the U.S. is largely a pernicious force on the world stage and is the cause for the disdain that it attracts worldwide. This is Obama’s view. At this very moment in Libya, the U.S. could be intervening to support internal pro-Western (and pro-democratic) secular forces, while marginalizing the Islamist faction. Instead, the U.S. will stand by while the Libyan government kills its people, and, therefore, help fertilize the soil in which a more brutal Islamist regime will grow and replace it. This is the historical record of what leftist American administrations do in foreign policy — and we are now witness to the tragic and morbid example in Libya.

What is it with Obama and sanctions?

What is it with Obama and sanctions?

Jerry
Philipson

 

The United States has just announced
that it will impose unilateral sanctions on Libya in order to end the
violence and repression there.

What is it with Obama and sanctions? He
seems to be fixated on them as a means to prevent madmen from sowing death and
destruction. Its as if he doesn’t have any other weapons at his disposal.

The President keeps on telling us he is a sports fan. If he was a batter
in a baseball game he’d have two strikes on him and be facing a third.

Strike number one is Kim Jong-Il of North Korea. Sanctions certainly
haven’t prevented him from pursuing his nuclear ambitions, which was their whole
point. Obama swung at the North Korean dictator with a sanctions bat and missed
completely.

Strike number two is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Obama
thought sanctions would prevent Iran from developing and posessing nuclear
weapons but they have been no more successful there than they were in North
Korea. Iran is very close to becoming a nuclear power and sanctions have done
nothing to prevent Ahmadinejad from pursuing and achieving this status. Obama’s
sanctions bat swung and missed at him too.

Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi will
be strike number three. The sanctions won’t be any more successful with him than
it was with the other two, which Obama will soon find out. The violence and
repression in Libya will end whe Gadhafi falls from power and not one minute
before. He will keep on killing people in order to remain head of state for as
long as he can. That is his nature and his way and sanctions simply won’t change
him.

Three strikes and you’re out, Barry. Too bad we won’t be able to
get Obama out of the game until 2012 though.

This group not work for
you? How about foreign policy in general, domestic policy in general and
economic policy in particular…Obama swung and missed at those as well.

Chaos Summer: Why Wisconsin is Only the Beginning

Chaos Summer: Why Wisconsin is Only the
Beginning

February 25th, 2011

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, FloydReports.comI’m going to bankrupt this country by any means necessary, and if you
try to stop me or slow me down, I’ll shut the government down and blame it on
you. If you try to stop me, you can kiss your political careers good-bye. Isn’t
this essentially what Barack Obama and his allies in the U.S. Senate are saying
to the Republican leaders in Congress?
One thing is certain: it’s not an idle threat. Obama and his allies control
the executive branch of the government and the United States Senate. They also
control
the mainstream media
. On top of that, they control the unions, which they
are sending
into the streets
.
Our great nation is on the verge of bankruptcy. The  national debt stands at
$14 trillion. When the people cried out and demanded that Washington put a stop
to the out-of-control waste and spending, Barack Obama instead responded by proposing a
budget
that, by his own calculations, doubles our already
untenable debt
over the next decade.
Americans wrongly assumed that Obama would change accordingly after taking
his election “shellacking.” He said the day after the elections, “And I told
John Boehner and Mitch McConnell last night, I am very eager to sit down with
members of both parties and figure out how we can move forward together.” His
compromising rhetoric worked
to get Americans to back-off and lower their
defenses.
In reality, when the Republican-led House of Representatives put forth
legislation to cut our out-of-control deficit by $61 billion — a mere 3.7
percent of our deficit and a scant 0.4 percent of our national debt — Barack
Obama and his allies in Congress threatened to shut the government down.
Read
more
.

Live and Let Die

Live and Let Die

Posted By Nichole Hungerford On February 26, 2011 @ 6:09 am In Daily Mailer, FrontPage | 4 Comments

In his speech on the turmoil in Libya, President Obama used the phrase “international community” three times. He did not say the name “Muammar Qaddafi” once. By the time it was obvious that the dictator was slaughtering his own people, vowing to “cleanse Libya house by house” and “die as a martyr,” President Obama could not muster the fortitude to denounce the Qaddafi regime by name or articulate any action that would prevent the loss of human life. With all that is at his disposal to influence the ending of this bloodshed, the president has opted to allow America to stand by silently on the sidelines and watch the massacre unfold.

The president’s response to Libya was so milquetoast, in fact, that even left-wing MSNBC host Chris Matthews was left longing for a Reagan-esque “evil empire” moment. Even liberal commentator Eugene Robinson was moved to call for U.S. action in his recent column. The tone of the president’s remarks exhibited a bizarre disconnect as well. Notwithstanding the president’s great faith in the opinion of the “international community,” a despot like Qaddafi, who speaks earnestly in terms of political cleansing and martyrdom, surely cannot be rhetorically coerced to end his rampage, and he clearly is not sensitive — to say the least — about the feelings of the “international community.”

But the Obama administration is in the grips of a teachable moment. Since taking office, Obama’s goal has been to demonstrate to the world that the U.S. is a team player. To the Arab world in particular, he has sought to prove that the U.S. is not interested in exerting influence in the region, which is considered the source of Islamist discontent by the Left. This, the administration believes, will assuage anti-American sentiment and Arab belligerence, as the president has intimated over and over again in his overtures to the Muslim world. Now, we are witnessing the catastrophic repercussions of such a destructive posture: America is willing to forsake its unrivaled ability to stop monstrous violations of human rights in order to avoid offending the sensibilities of Islamo-fascists.

To be sure, the U.S. has faced similar decisions before. When a freedom-seeking revolt broke out in Hungary in October of 1956 against the U.S.S.R., the anti-communist rebel forces were led to believed the U.S. would come to their aid. In fact, this is one of the reasons the rebel Hungarians fought so successfully for so long against the Soviets. At various points, victory seemed achievable for the uprising, which would have changed the face of the entire Cold War. But President Eisenhower ultimately abandoned and betrayed the Hungarian freedom fighters — and the rebellion was savagely squashed by the Soviets. It is a regrettable and tragic chapter in Cold War history in general and in American foreign policy in particular.

 

 

 

One exoneration of Eisenhower’s policy that could be pointed to is his fear that an international war could have broken out over Hungary, since a nuclear Soviet Russia was a dangerous reality. For Obama, however, there is no such excuse. Numerous Muslim leaders have themselves denounced Qaddafi for the express reason that he is killing Muslims. Certainly, it is in the interest of protesters across the region that Qaddafi be held accountable, lest other autocrats get the impression that dissent can be crushed with impunity. Furthermore, Qaddafi has virtually no credibility in the international community — the Arab League, the African Union, the European Union, and the Islamic Conference have condemned his actions.

Rather, the inaction toward Libya we are seeing today is more reminiscent of the Left’s shameless reaction (or non-reaction) to the mass slaughter of the Iranian people by the Ayatollah Khomeini during the Islamic Revolution. After the pro-Western Shah of Iran (the Left’s bete-noire) was deposed, the Islamic revolutionary forces oversaw a bloody transfer of power. The silence from the Left on this massacre, which was precipitated by the Carter administration’s unconscionable undermining of the Shah’s regime, was deafening.

But what more could one really expect from the political faith? According to the leftist worldview, the U.S. is largely a pernicious force on the world stage and is the cause for the disdain that it attracts worldwide. This is Obama’s view. At this very moment in Libya, the U.S. could be intervening to support internal pro-Western (and pro-democratic) secular forces, while marginalizing the Islamist faction. Instead, the U.S. will stand by while the Libyan government kills its people, and, therefore, help fertilize the soil in which a more brutal Islamist regime will grow and replace it. This is the historical record of what leftist American administrations do in foreign policy — and we are now witness to the tragic and morbid example in Libya.


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, a Saudi National, He is charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction

 
 
 
Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, a Saudi National, was
arrested today in Texas.   He is charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass
destruction in a terrorist act.   Aldawsari is a student here in the United
States.    According to some reports, his preferred target for attack was former
President George W. Bush.
 
Aldawsari came here in 2008 on a student visa (didn’t
we learn anything from 9/11?).  According to diaries that he kept and were
seized by federal law enforcement, his purpose in coming here was to achieve
violent jihad and martyrdom.
 
Missing from all of the media accounts so far is the
fact that Aldawsari is a Muslim.   Fox News, using the Associated Press
describes him as a “Saudi Arabian citizen.”  A longer media report on KDAF-TV’s
website describes his desire for Jihad against the “infidel Americans.”  Why
would he want to do that?  Perhaps it is because he is a Muslim, but the
politically correct reporting dare not mention that.    The closed reference to
the “M” word is the statement he made in one of the diaries about “operations in
the land of the infidels against occupying forces in the land of the
Muslims.”  Of course, his religion is never mentioned.
 
USA Today and even the conservative Daily Caller did
not make mention of his religion.
 
Let’s start asking the basic questions.  First, why
was this guy even in the country?  Didn’t we go through this about ten years
ago? Does the name Mohammad Atta not ring any bells?  Fifteen of the nineteen
9/11 hijackers were from; you guessed it, Saudi Arabia, just like
Aldawsari.   Many of them were here on student visas, just like, you guessed it,
Aldawsari.  And do you know what else ties them all together?  They were
Muslims.
 
Not all Muslims are jihadists.   Every once in a
while, a few Muslims even speak out against the terrorists.  But those who speak
out against the Muslims are a small minority.
 
First, we need to cut off Visas for anyone from
Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia.  Is it unfair to Abdul, Ahmed and
Mohammad?  Sure.  Unless of course, Mohammad happens to be Mohammad Atta who
wants to commit mass murder against Americans.  The problem we have is we do not
know if Mohammad who comes over here from Saudi Arabia is simply some guy who
wants to learn at an American University or if he is Mohammad who wants to go
out in a blaze of jihadist glory, taking a few thousand Americans with
him.
 
In the terrorist war, all Muslims may not be our
enemy but all of our terrorist enemies are Muslim.  There is no way to
distinguish between those who are and those who aren’t, and American lives are
too valuable to gamble with.
 
Unfortunately for us, we have a regime that will not
even associate Islam with terror, even though that has been a fifteen hundred
year pattern with Islam.   Since 9/11, we have been lucky.  Either the
terrorists have misfired, like the Christmas day underwear bomber, or we have
caught them, as with Aldawsari.   We cannot keep counting on getting
lucky.  They only have to get lucky once and we have another 9/11.
 
We need to be vigilant.  We need to be able to
identify those who are against us, instead of hiding behind political
correctness and we need leadership in this country that believes in protecting
America, not apologizing for it.

Obama lied, transparency died, Part 989

Obama lied, transparency died, Part 989

By Michelle Malkin  •  February 24, 2011 09:47 AM


Darkness falls.

In Culture of Corruption, I exposed Team Obama’s big lie about its commitment to public disclosure and openness in government.

Liberals balked. “How can you possibly make such a judgment so early on in the presidency?” they squawked.

After the book was published, the White House’s selective transparency and subversion of disclosure rules and regs continued apace.

Democrats played hide-and-seek on the Hill.

President Obama cut endless backroom deals and cut C-SPAN out.

The White House carved out a Coffee House loophole to keep lobbyist meetings off the books.

And, finally, the White House press corps started complaining about lack of access.

Now, this today from Politico:

Caught between their boss’s anti-lobbyist rhetoric and the reality of governing, President Barack Obama’s aides often steer meetings with lobbyists to a complex just off the White House grounds – and several of the lobbyists involved say they believe the choice of venue is no accident.

It allows the Obama administration to keep these lobbyist meetings shielded from public view — and out of Secret Service logs collected on visitors to the White House and later released to the public.

…Obama’s administration has touted its release of White House visitors logs as a breakthrough in transparency, as the first White House team ever to reveal the comings and goings around the West Wing and the Old Executive Office Building.

The Jackson Place townhouses are a different story.

There are no records of meetings at the row houses just off Lafayette Square that house the White House Conference Center and the Council on Environmental Quality, home to two of the busiest meeting spaces. The White House can’t say who attended meetings there, or how often. The Secret Service doesn’t log in visitors or require a background check the way it does at the main gates of the White House.

…It’s not only Jackson Place. Another favorite off-campus meeting spot is a nearby Caribou Coffee, which, according to the New York Times, has hosted hundreds of meetings among lobbyists and White House staffers since Obama took office.

And administration officials recently asked some lobbyists and others who met with them to sign confidentiality agreements barring them from disclosing what was discussed at meetings with administration officials, in that case a rental policy working group.

Obama lied, transparency died, Part 989.

See, I told you so.

Obama’s mystery links to Gadhafi uncovered

Obama’s mystery links to Gadhafi uncovered

Prez fails to call for dictator’s removal despite reports of attacks on
citizens


Posted: February 23, 2011
8:22 pm Eastern

By Aaron
Klein

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

 


Sen. Barack
Obama with Rev. Jeremiah Wright

JERUSALEM – As pressure mounts on the White House to intervene to stop
Moammar Gadhafi’s bloody crackdown in Libya, many commentators have been
wondering why Barack Obama has been cautious in his criticism of the dictator
after the U.S. president so fervently supported the removal from office of U.S.
ally Hosni Mubarak of Egypt.
But Gadhafi has been tied to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s spiritual adviser
for more than 23 years.
The Libyan dictator also has financed and strongly supported the Nation of
Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan. Obama has ties to Farrakhan and his
controversial group.
Autographed!
Get the book that finally exposes Obama and his team of anti-American radicals:
Aaron Klein’s “The Manchurian President” at WND’s Superstore

So far, White House officials have called for an end to the violence but have
seemingly ruled out any unilateral action in Libya. Despite Gadhafi’s reported
ordering of massacres that reportedly have killed hundreds of civilians in
recent days, Obama hasn’t called on Gadhafi to leave office.
Pressure has been mounting on Obama to take a tougher stand, with the
chairmen of the House and Senate foreign relations committees calling on the
White House to re-impose economic sanctions on Libya that were lifted in 2004.
But Obama has multiple close ties to activists who have had relationships
with Gadhafi.
Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of Obama’s longtime Chicago church, went with
Farrakhan to visit Gadhafi in 1984.
(Story continues below)
 

 
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Wright himself noted the trip could
cause problems for Obama.
“When [Obama's] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit
[Gadhafi] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a
snowball in hell.”
Farrakhan, a close friend and associate of Wright, has been financed by
Gadhafi, including with a $5 million interest-free loan in 1985.
Later that year, Gadhafi spoke by satellite to Farrakhan’s Saviour’s Day
Convention in Chicago, and reportedly told Farrakhan supporters he was prepared
to provide weapons to a black army in the U.S. to destroy “white America.”
In October 1995, Gadhafi reportedly called Farrakhan with congratulations on
the success of the Million Man March. Gadhafi was said to have assured Farrakhan
that together “we will unite our capabilities and efforts to achieve this.”
 


Moammar
Gadhafi

 
According to reports in 1996 from Libya’s news agency, JANA, Farrakhan and
Gadhafi agreed to work together to mobilize “oppressed blacks, Arabs, Muslims
and Red Indians” to help reshape U.S. foreign policy.
Gadhafi said that until his alliance with the Nation of Islam, “our
confrontation with America was like a fight against a fortress from outside.”
He asserted his alliance with Farrakhan provides him with “a breach to enter
into this fortress and confront it.”
Farrakhan went to Libya for multiple other events. He was the recipient in
1996 of the Gadhafi Human Rights Award, which came with a $250,000 prize.
Farrakhan accepted the prize despite U.S. sanctions on Libya.
Obama tied to Nation of Islam
Wright and Obama reportedly attended the Million Man March on Washington,
which was led by Farrakhan and other prominent black leaders such as Al
Sharpton.
Rev. Willie Barrow, a member of the Obama campaign’s official Faith Outreach
Team and an Obama superdelegate, is a close friend of Farrakhan’s and a staunch
Nation of Islam supporter.
Farrakhan stated in a 2002 interview he met with Barrow to devise his Nation
of Islam platforms.
Marxist activist Cornel West, an adviser to Farrakhan, also had been an
adviser to Obama’s 2008 campaign and is a close Obama associate and personal
friend.
During the period of Obama’s attendance at Wright’s Trinity United Church,
which practices controversial Black Liberation Theology ideology, the Chicago
church was openly allied with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.
Wright gave Farrakhan his 2007 Empowerment Award. Farrakhan delivered
multiple guest lectures at the church.
Wright has been involved in Farrakhan initiatives and labeled him “one of the
most important voices in the 20th and 21st century” during a national address to
the media in April at which Nation of Islam officials were invited guests.
Obama has appeared at least three times on the cover of Trumpet magazine,
founded by Wright. The magazine, to which Obama last year granted a lengthy,
exclusive interview, regularly hails Farrakhan.
Obama’s
face was featured on the cover
of a 2006 issue of Trumpet alongside
Farrakhan’s image.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, a 2004 photo emerged of Obama’s wife,
Michelle, posing with Farrakhan and Obama adviser Barrow at a woman’s luncheon
for the Rainbow/Push Coalition for which Barrow serves as chairman emeritus.
In the picture with Michelle Obama is Khadijah Farrakhan, Louis Farrakhan’s
wife.
Another Obama connection to supporters of Farrakhan comes from David Axelrod,
Obama’s chief political strategist.
Although he is Jewish, Axelrod sits on the finance committee of St. Sabina,
the Chicago Catholic parish that was led by controversial pastor Michael
Pfleger, an outspoken Farrakhan supporter who hosted the Nation of Islam chief
at his parish several times.
The Archdiocese of Chicago temporarily removed Pfleger from his duties at St.
Sabina in 2008 following a well-publicized guest sermon at Trinity church in
which Pfleger claimed Hillary Clinton cried in public because she thought being
white entitled her to the Democratic presidential nomination.
Pfleger hosted Farrakhan at his church several times, including one May 2007
sermon that was Farrakhan’s first public appearance since he announced in 2006
he had been suffering from prostate cancer and was seriously ill.
According to reports, Pfleger spent hours with the Nation of Islam chief
during his illness. Pfleger previously enlisted Farrakhan’s support for several
of his initiatives, including an anti-gun protest in 2007.
With research by Brenda J. Elliott

Read more: Obama’s mystery links to
Gadhafi uncovered
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=267361#ixzz1EtdHJV00

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers