By Ed Lasky

Barack Obama’s political magic is based on an ever-growing bag of tricks, relying on illusion, misdirection, and the media’s willingness to believe. Behind the stage presence of openness, bipartisanship, sincerity, transparency, and geniality are tricks learned from the hardball politics of Chicago.

Every magician needs his stage assistants. Barack Obama has two key people helping to smooth his way: Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. Each knows plenty of tricks of his own.


Rahm Emanuel was chosen by the chosen one to be his Chief of Staff — a very astute pick indeed. Few realize that Emanuel was one of the chief fundraisers for the Democratic Party. He is an experienced operator, who not only knows how to raise millions of dollars, but on whom to bestow them. He earned his reputation as hard-nosed and effective magician at raising money the hard way in his hometown of Chicago.


Clearly, someone with Emanuel’s skills can remind recalcitrant members of his own party (such as Blue Dog Democrats) that their future campaigns may just need the money that he and the President can raise faster than one can say Maurice Stans. Better to have the Rahmbo on your side than on the other guy’s side.


Lyndon Johnson used his mastery of Texas money men to power his career and to ensure that his legislation passed. Rahm can use those same talents to conjure up the same power. He is a consiglieri and a bag man of sorts — all perfectly legal, of course. No need to violate campaign finance laws when you reward your hedge fund supporters (who supported Obama so generously during the campaign) with taxpayer dollars. Just shake the money tree and the dollars will flow.  Pay-to-play: one of the oldest tricks in the books and the unofficial motto of Chicago.


A message was sent when Rahm was installed in the White House. The next campaign was already launched — and it would be a no holds barred race to the finish line. Again.


If that were not enough proof that Barack Obama is in permanent campaign mode, the man whose office is but a few yards away from the Oval Office might do the trick: David Axelrod.  He was Barack Obama’s campaign manager, whose skills also were honed in the battleground of Chicago politics. Axelrod was a master of setting up astroturf groups: ostensibly citizen’s groups formed to promote this or that project. In reality, they were funded by corporate groups.


Proximity to power says it all about a man’s standing in our nation’s capital. How come David Axelrod was transformed into the Senior Adviser to President Obama — showing up on television talk shows and meeting with foreign leaders, one of the go-to guys to present Obama’s plans to the public? What happened to Paul Volcker and Larry Summer, and the other grand old and not so old men that lent gravitas to the administration during the campaign? Like props from a completed magic trick, they have been sent backstage.


Axelrod is The Man. He crafts plans and their rollout to maximize the popularity of Barack Obama — the popularity that he plans to ride for a return to the White House in four years. Bill Clinton had his Dick Morris, George Bush had his Karl Rove, and Barack Obama has his David Axelrod.  At least George Bush waited until his second term to bring Rove on board in an official capacity. Axelrod was placed next to the throne on Day One, of the First Year of the Age of Obama.


But the tricks take a dark turn when you dip below the surface. Things get ugly down there. A magician is stealth, and Barack Obama is very stealthy. He may be gutting the Defense Department but, if there are any weapons he would seek to emulate they would be stealth fighters and bombers. They do the most damage (see Senator Stealth, Stanley Kurtz’s superb article about the legislative tricks Barack Obama used as a state senator).


In just the first hundred plus days, Barack Obama seems to focusing with laser-like intensity not on the budget deficit but on what he wants most of all. No, it’s not the end of global warming, not the leveling of Americans’ incomes and wealth, not the weakening of America and the empowering of our adversaries. That will all come, to be sure. What he wants most of all is vindication and more adulation. Those are his hungers and they cannot ever be satiated.  At least not in four years.


In the immediate future, he wants what every first term President wants: a second term and will do whatever it takes to win one. How delectable it must have been to boast “I won” before GOP Congressional leaders (the bipartisanship campaign slogan — find that in the props department, too). How fun it must have been to stand before executives and say that his administration was the only one standing between them and the pitchforks (how proud Saul Alinksy would be!). One cannot get the same thrill after leaving the Oval Office. Never.  You cannot buy such power. And it is all about power


Instead he has focused attention on his next campaign and done so using methods that reflect where he did his true learning: not Occidental College, not Columbia University, not Harvard Law, but the precincts of Chicago. Street smarts count there, not book learning. That is for the sissies you hire to run things under you.


Counting the ways


Barack Obama has sought to bring the census process into the White House and under the control of Rahm Emanuel. This could provide a very effective way to sway elections. Census figures are used to determine electoral votes. If the process is manipulated (say, by using a method of counting people called statistical sampling) then the totals can be manipulated. These can be used to redraw Congressional districts to disadvantage Republicans, for example (such the gerrymandering Obama himself engaged in during his Chicago days). They can also be used to determine the number of representatives a state can have (think blue states, which are losing people, might get a reprieve from losing Congressional seats); electoral votes for each state are determined by the census. In other words, the voting process can be corrupted in a myriad of ways. That is a native Chicago art form.


Barack Obama also has taken steps to increase the number of voters who will likely vote for him. Expanding citizenship to illegal aliens? Check. Empowering groups such as ACORN and ensuring they receive taxpayer funds? Check. Working with so-called 527 groups, funded by sugar daddy George Soros, to increase Democratic ranks? Check. Over cocktails at the White House, coordinate with these groups to pressure congressmen to ensure you have passed legislation that will help win the next election? Check.  Smiling as the Democracy Alliance — a group of billionaires and Democratic activists allied to you – fund candidates to take over secretary of state offices in more state capitals, so they can control the integrity of the voting process? Check. Appointing a labor ally — an officer of the Service Employees International Union, a group that spent tens of millions electing you — to a key post at the Federal Election Committee that monitors the legality of fundraising and spending? Check. Rollback rules requiring unions and their leaders to report information about their finances and compensation? Check.


Transparency promises? That is for the business people he threatens with disclosure of their names if they oppose his destruction of their investments.  He had his Justice Department drop charges of voter intimidation against the New Black Panther Party group after that group brandished weapons and threats at a polling station during Election Day — a clear cut case that would have otherwise resulted in victory. The dropping of those charges is a clear message that voter intimidation — as long as it is for the right (by which I mean the left) party — is okay when Attorney General Holder is leading the troops.


Explore the possibility of cooling the hot voices on talk radio by bringing up the prospect of a renewal of the Fairness Doctrine or requiring more community input in what messages are broadcast? Check (after all, his supporters had no problem chilling the exercise of free speech when they attacked a highly regarded radio talk show that dared, dared to have two critics of Barack Obama on the show). Free speech is only free when not engaging in the sacrilege of scrutinizing Barack Obama.  


Make sure not to quell the people’s anger, but channel it. Has there ever been such an un-Presidential bit of oratory as when he stated that bit of agitprop over the AIG bonuses?  Have your people work with the adoring media to coordinate your message for maximum political effect-even if it bends ethics out of shape? Who’s watching, so who cares? Check.   Reward labor allies with bailout money and help Michigan, an electorally vital state for Democrats, with taxpayer money.  Check. Taunt people with the possibility of a tax audit while you expand the ranks of the Internal Revenue Service by tens of thousands of new workers? Check-Tricky Dick would especially enjoy that one.


Should it shock our sensibilities that a President would countenance, if not plan, such an assault on the integrity of our democracy — especially when he bamboozled us with an image of being a different kind of politician, an honest one who would be above all clean of the corruption that tends to stick to all those who troll in Chicago politics? No-not at all. This is a man, despite the presumptions of his Harvard Law and University of Chicago sojourns, has no problem disregarding the contracts clause of the Constitution. Why stoop to play by the Marquess of Queensbury rules when victory is the goal?


These tricks of the trade are more befitting a Chicago alderman — who keep dropping like flies in the wake of Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s probe into the netherworld of Chicago politics — than that of a President.


Barack Obama doesn’t mind outsourcing most of his own job. Domestic policy? Send that along to Nancy and Harry and Soros’s boys at the Center for American Progress. Foreign Policy? Forget Foggy Bottom — where is that anyway? Send that stuff up to Turtle Bay and give the rest of the portfolio to Russia, China, George Soros and the mad mullahs of Tehran. That stuff is hard work and no fun at all.  The clearest sign that he cares very little for the nitty-gritty of governing of our nation and focuses on running his own campaign is that he convened his only  Cabinet meeting only after having served for months in office — and then only to respond to the tea parties on April 15th that posed the prospect of causing him political trouble.


Backed by this supporting cast, Barack Obama, the magician, hopes to continue to amaze his public and bewilder his opponents with his political magic. He is hoping the house lights do not come on and reveal the wires, pulleys and trap doors before the curtain is closed on his presidency.


Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker.

Page Printed from: at June 03, 2009 – 08:53:53 PM EDT

The Emergence of President Obama’s Muslim Roots

The Emergence of President Obama’s Muslim Roots

June 02, 2009 6:58 PM

ABC News’ Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report: The other day we heard a comment from a White House aide that never would have been uttered during the primaries or general election campaign.

During a conference call in preparation for President Obama’s trip to Cairo, Egypt, where he will address the Muslim world, deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Denis McDonough said “the President himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to — or before he’s been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world — you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father — obviously Muslim Americans (are) a key part of Illinois and Chicago.”

Given widespread unease and prejudice against Muslims among Americans, especially in the wake of 9/11, the Obama campaign was perhaps understandably very sensitive during the primaries and general election to downplay the candidate’s Muslim roots.

The candidate was even offended when referred to by his initials “BHO,” because he considered the use of his middle name, “Hussein,” an attempt to frighten voters.

With insane rumors suggesting he was some sort of Muslim Manchurian candidate, then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and his campaign did everything they could to emphasize his Christianity and de-emphasize the fact that his father, Barack Obama Sr., was born Muslim.

The candidate’s comment at a Boca Raton, Florida, town hall meeting on May 22, 2008, was typical: “My father was basically agnostic, as far as I can tell, and I didn’t know him,” he said.

In September 2008, candidate Obama told a Pennsylvania crowd, “I know that I’m not your typical presidential candidate and I just want to be honest with you. I know that the temptation is to say, ‘You know what? The guy hasn’t been there that long in Washington. You know, he’s got a funny name. You know, we’re not sure about him.’ And that’s what the Republicans when they say this isn’t about issues, it’s about personalities, what they’re really saying is, ‘We’re going to try to scare people about Barack. So we’re going to say that, you know, maybe he’s got Muslim connections.’…Just making stuff up.”

Back then, the campaign’s “Fight the Smears” website addressed the candidate’s faith without mentioning his father’s religion:

“Barack Obama is a committed Christian. He was sworn into the Senate on his family Bible. He has regularly attended church with his wife and daughters for years. But shameful, shadowy attackers have been lying about Barack’s religion, claiming he is a Muslim instead of a committed Christian. When people fabricate stories about someone’s faith to denigrate them politically, that’s an attack on people of all faiths. Make sure everyone you know is aware of this deception.”

The website also provided quotes from the Boston Globe and Newsweek mentioning his father’s roots.

Since the election, however, with the threat of the rumors at least somewhat abated, the White House has been increasingly forthcoming about the president’s roots. Especially when reaching out to the
Muslim world.

In his April 6 address to the Turkish Parliament, President Obama referenced how many “Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim majority country. I know, because I am one of them.”

– Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller

RE: “What Muslim World?” By Scott Carpenter and Soner Cagoptay

This article says there is nomMusiljm World Read the reply below for the truth

RE: “What Muslim World?” By Scott Carpenter and Soner Cagoptay
To the editor of Foreign Policy:
The “so-called Muslim world” is NOT “so-called”. There is a great deal of unity in the “Muslim world”. ALL Moslem countries are members  of the OIC; all of them subscribe to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which flatly contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; all of them are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel to one degree or other.
Islam, as an ideology based on the Koran and the sayings of Muhammad, does not recognize the validity of nation states. For religious Moslems, the world is divided into Islam and non-Islam. For them, nation states are only temporary until Islam conquers the whole world.
Of course, there is much variation in the Muslim world; but the fact that all Muslim countries are united into one political organization (The Organization of the Islamic Conference) based on Islam, means that, yes, there is a Muslim world. They created that concept, and so it exists. It is ludicrous for us to tell them otherwise.
Carl Goldberg, PhD

Twelve Ways to Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons without War

Twelve Ways to Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons without War

TIP’s Press Kit for President Obama’s Trip to Cairo
TIP’s Press Kit for President Obama’s Trip to Germany

Iran is moving steadfastly toward acquiring the capability to make nuclear weapons. Last month it successfully test-fired a solid-fuel missile with a range of 1,200 miles – a weapons delivery system able to reach most countries in the Middle East and some in Europe. The world does not have a lot of time to prevent Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terror, from getting these weapons. It will take the will of key countries to stop Iran. Following are twelve ideas – carrots and sticks – that can be used to persuade Iran’s leaders that it is in their interest to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program and support of terror – without military action or regime change. All peaceful means must be used; at the same time, all options should be left on the table. Nothing would be more dangerous than Iran with nuclear weapons.

1. Cut off the sale of gasoline to Iran: The biggest stick the international community can wield remains Iran’s dependence on imported gasoline. Iran has not developed enough capacity to refine its crude oil into gasoline. It therefore imports 40 percent of the gasoline it needs – almost all of it from Swiss, Dutch, French, British and Indian companies. When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rationed gasoline during the summer of 2007, violent protests broke out, forcing him to end the rationing. These European and Indian governments should stop companies based in their countries from selling gasoline to Iran.

2. Ban investments in Iran’s energy sector: In addition to cutting off gasoline sales, the international community, led by the United Sates, should provide incentives to foreign banks and companies to eliminate investments in Iran’s energy sector. This would prevent foreign oil companies from investing in Iran’s oil industry.

3. Eliminate the purchase of oil from Iran: Iran derives an estimated 85 percent of its revenue from its oil sales. Iran’s leaders use oil revenues to subsidize heavily the prices of gasoline, food, housing and other necessities. Clearly, a severe reduction in these revenues would have a strong impact on Iran’s people and leaders.

4. Sustain international pressure on foreign banks and oil companies to halt their dealings with Iran’s energy sector: International pressure on foreign banks and oil companies already has led major firms worldwide, such as Germany’s Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank, England’s HSBC, Credit Suisse and Royal Dutch Shell, to halt or limit their business with Iran.

5. Freeze Iranian bank assets and impose sanctions on Iranian entities linked to its nuclear program: In June 2008, all of the EU’s 27 member states agreed to freeze any assets held in their jurisdictions by Bank Melli, Iran’s largest state-owned bank which has been labeled a nuclear proliferator by the EU, US and Australia for its role in Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program. In March 2009, the US Treasury Department imposed sanctions on 11 companies linked to Bank Melli. In February 2009, officials from France, Britain and Germany issued a list of 34 Iranian entities allegedly linked to Iran’s nuclear or biological weapons programs. Measures such as these must be broadened.

6. End World Bank contributions to Iran: In 2008 millions of dollars in financial guarantees were provided to Iran’s industrial and natural gas sectors through the World Bank’s Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). The international community should demand that future MIGA outlays not end up in Iranian hands.

7. Stop pipeline deals with Iran: There are a number of major pipeline deals with Iran that will enable Tehran to transfer and sell natural gas to Europe. The Nabucco pipeline and others, worth billions of dollars, would seriously erode the impact of economic sanctions that could halt Iran’s nuclear program.

8. Halt arms sales to Iran: Because Iran’s missile defense system is antiquated, Tehran seeks to purchase advanced weapons systems. Media reports at the end of 2008 indicate that Russia signed an agreement to sell its S-300 air-defense missiles, among the most sophisticated in the world, to Iran. Later reports state that Russia has decided not to sell this system to Iran. One speculated reason is that Iran could not make payments. Iran’s acquiring this system would significantly change the military balance in the Middle East.

9. Deny shipping insurance to companies helping Iran: UN Security Council Resolution 1803 calls on all states to “exercise vigilance” with regard to companies that do business with Iran in order to avoid financing Iran’s proliferation activities. The resolution specifically cautions states to be wary of granting insurance to businesses trading with Iran. It also focuses on export credits and loan guarantees. Insurance companies could increase the cost of doing business in or with Iran by reassessing their rates in view of Iran’s questionable stability. Transit insurance could also be raised for ships and merchandise passing through Iran.

10. Intelligence: Gathering accurate and actionable intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program is key to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The international community, led by the United States, should intensify its efforts at gathering such intelligence, upgrade the tools and facilitate greater cooperation among the world’s intelligence organizations.

11. Divestment: American states and investors are taking the lead in incorporating “terror-free” investing principles to remove a source of income from Tehran’s leaders. Governments and investors around the world should pursue similar principles in their investment strategies.

12. Impose inspections and restrictions on Iranian goods and officials: Stringent inspections of items entering or leaving Iran should be carried out, and strict international travel prohibitions should be imposed on Iranian officials, except for nuclear negotiators.


The Israel Project is an international non-profit organization devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom and peace. The Israel Project provides journalists, leaders and opinion-makers accurate information about Israel. The Israel Project is not related to any government or government agency.

The Joke Is On Us

Absolutely the funniest joke ever……ON US !!!
Let it sink in.
Quietly we go like sheep to slaughter. Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given  for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ….. during the Carter Administration?  

Didn’t think so ! Bottom line .. we’ve spent several hundred billion  dollars in support of an agency …

the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember.


It was very simple…. and at the time everybody thought it very appropriate

The ‘Department of Energy’ was instituted on

8- 04-1977

Hey, pretty efficient, huh?

AND NOW IT’S 2009,







And NOW we are going to turn the Banking System, health care & the Auto Industry over to them?

Barack Obama, I have had it with your behavior and administration

Barack Obama, I have had it with your behavior and administration

Posted By Gary Shumway On April 24, 2009 @ 10:37 am In Barack Obama, We The People | 47 Comments

I received an email this morning from a friend and in it was the letter below to barry from Mr. Bell. I called Mr. Franklin Bell and received his permission to post it on Red Pills. He asked me not to include his phone number since he has been getting a lot of calls of support, i.e., “it is getting a bit out of hand”. If you would like to contact Franklin, please send him a snail mail. So rest assured this is from a real guy, a real American who is obviously dismayed, as so many of us are, as to what is happening to America. Note that he included his congress critters as recipients of his letter. If we would each do the same, do you realize what an impact that would have, particularly if it were sent to the Democrats who are supposed to represent us! Then, in the next election, consider voting third party and get rid of the traitorous sludge currently in office.

Thank you Mr. Bell!

Mr. Bell’s open letter to barry:

Franklin T. Bell, CFM, RPA, FMA
7239 Swan Point Way
Columbia, MD 21045

April 9, 2009

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC20500

Mr. Obama:

I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally.

You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America. You are responsible to the citizens of the United States. You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth..

I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world. Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the peoples of Europe? Are you brain dead? What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century?

Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this
heritage. Do you not understand this?

Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia. You don’t show Great Britain, our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia. How dare you, sir! How dare you!

You can’t find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don’t want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey. You offended our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves. What’s the matter with you?

I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you.

You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses. What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I seriously doubt it.

What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members – on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves? I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer. You haven’t said anything about that. Who authorized that? I surely didn’t!

Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that’s $45 million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million – not a bad take. Who authorized that and why haven’t you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now.

I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do. We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you. I also want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities. I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.


Franklin T. Bell, CFM, RPA, FMA

cc: Senator Barbara A.. Mikulski

Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Frank M. Kratovil, Jr. (D), 1st Congressional District
C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger III (D), 2nd Congressional District

John P. Sarbanes (D), 3rd Congressional District
Donna F. Edwards (D), 4th Congressional District
Steny H. Hoyer (D), 5th Congressional District
Roscoe G. Bartlett (R), 6th Congressional District
Elijah E. Cummings (D), 7th Congressional District
Christopher Van Hollen, Jr. (D), 8th Congressional District

Our Judeo-Christian Nation

Defense Budget Transparency

J. Randy Forbes
Contact: Jessica Mancari (202) 225-6365

Defense Budget Transparency

By Congressman Randy Forbes, May 22 –

President Obama came to office boldly promising “a new era of openness in our country.” Less than twenty-four hours after taking the oath of office, the new president declared that “transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.” In one of his first executive orders he wrote that, “democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.” Boldly beginning another memorandum to his executive department and agency heads, he stated, “My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.”

The Administration has certainly insisted on transparency when it involves divulging our interrogation techniques to alleged terrorists, but has refused to apply the same standard for the American people when it comes to the readiness of our nation’s defenses. In a move the Washington Post described as “unprecedented secrecy,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently instituted a gag order requiring hundreds of Pentagon officials involved in the budget process to sign a non-disclosure agreement barring them from discussing any proposed cuts or expenditures even to members of congress. These were the very individuals who had the expertise necessary to assess any potential damage to national security such cuts could present.

Additionally, when the defense budget for 2010 was sent to Congress, Title 10, Chapter 9, Section 231 U.S.C. specifically mandated that the Secretary of Defense include with the defense budget a 30-year shipbuilding plan for the Navy and a certification that “both the budget for that fiscal year and the future-years defense program” would be sufficient to meet the plan. If the budget could not meet the plan, the Secretary is required by statute to describe and discuss “the risks associated with the reduced force structure of naval vessels that will result…” The Secretary submitted none of this information with his budget and has indicated he will not submit the plan or the certification until the 2011 budget.

This information is essential for Members of Congress to analyze the defense budget and ensure the country will have a navy strong enough to meet our national security needs. Without it, there are huge concerns that we will not have adequate funds for shipbuilding, ship repair, and ship maintenance. This is especially important given the fact that last year it was revealed by the media that two of our naval vessels failed their InSurv inspections (the functional equivalent of a home inspection for navy ships) and were deemed “not combat ready.” Shortly after this revelation, the InSurv inspections were classified thereby preventing the results from being brought to the public’s attention. Since then, media reports have indicated that an additional four ships have failed these critical inspections.

Under the Administration’s gag order, Army leaders refused to testify at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the Army’s top acquisition project saying the hearing was “too closely aligned to FY2010 budget.” Transparency failures of this type leave Congress, which is charged in the Constitution with the responsibility “to raise and support Armies,” and “to provide and maintain a Navy,” without the information necessary to address national security weaknesses such as this year’s $417 million shortfall in ship depot maintenance.

Furthermore, the Administration’s censoring of senior defense officials and classification of routine reports make it difficult for the critical assessments of our military readiness to occur well in advance of conflict. Additional secrecy in our defense budget does not promote our security but hides deficiencies in the infrastructure we rely on for national defense.

Certainly, a degree of budgetary deliberations deserve to be kept internal, and sensitive information that could be a threat to our sailors should be protected. Yet, I question an Administration that determines sharing previously unclassified ship readiness reports is more dangerous than releasing memos on the way the CIA interrogates alleged terrorists – the details of which were released by the White House earlier this year over the protests of the current and several former directors of the Central Intelligence Agency.

When it comes to the security of our citizens, we should be neither assessing capabilities on the battlefield nor allowing our budget to determine our strategy. In the near term, it may be politically opportune for the Administration to hide defense shortfalls in favor of funneling government spending elsewhere. In the long term, however, this secrecy in spending priorities only temporarily conceals a dangerous course for our nation. Unfortunately, as our nation’s intelligence community found in the wake of September 11, if the defense of our nation is tested and proven to be found wanting, it is too late to look in hindsight to identify who was asleep at the switch while our military was allowed to hollow. The Department of Defense ought to abandon its most recent information lock-downs, lest the only thing transparent about the Administration be its claim to be transparent.

Congressman Randy Forbes of Virginia is the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee.

Since when Did America Become a ‘Muslim Country’?

Since when Did America Become a ‘Muslim Country’?

Oh My God.

Ever read something that just made you rub your temples and pray that something is just a horrible practical joke?

Barack Obama in an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station:

“And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”

Remember during the primaries and the election campaign where uttering things about Obama’s Muslim roots was considered slander by Team Obama and his supporters.

Not now, now he embraces those Muslim roots.

Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller, ABC’s Political Punch:

The other day we heard a comment from a White House aide that never would have been uttered during the primaries or general election campaign.

During a conference call in preparation for President Obama’s trip to Cairo, Egypt, where he will address the Muslim world, deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Denis McDonough said “the President himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to — or before he’s been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world — you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father — obviously Muslim Americans (are) a key part of Illinois and Chicago.”

Given widespread unease and prejudice against Muslims among Americans, especially in the wake of 9/11, the Obama campaign was perhaps understandably very sensitive during the primaries and general election to downplay the candidate’s Muslim roots.

The candidate was even offended when referred to by his initials “BHO,” because he considered the use of his middle name, “Hussein,” an attempt to frighten voters.

Read the whole article.

Toby Harnden, U.S. Editor of the Telegraph UK:

It is important to note that “if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world”.

So says President Barack Obama. Or I should say: Barack Hussein Obama.

That’s right: Barack Hussein Obama. Say it proud. Say it out loud. The middle moniker that dared not speak its name during the election campaign is now front and centre of the US president’s attempt to woo the Muslim world, the theme of his visits to Riyadh on Wednesday and Cairo on Thursday.

Petrified of the potential political fallout of being branded a Muslim, Candidate Obama – a practicing Christian – never used the name “Hussein” and its use was frowned upon as a forbidden code for the nutty accusation that he was some kind of Islamic Manchurian candidate.

No more. To say Barack Hussein Obama – BHO for short – now appears to be the height of political correctness.

On Obama’s Apologize for America tour, many noticed that Barack Obama seem far less concerned with what Americans thought, than he did what other countries thought as he went from one to the other apologizing for America at every turn.

Once again, Obama’s words are meant for others and he shows a complete lack of concern for how the people of America, the people HE is supposed to represent feel.

CNN Poll: “Many Americans hold unfavorable view of Muslim world”

Hours before President Barack Obama departs for a trip to the Middle East, a new national poll suggests that only one in five Americans has a favorable view of Muslim countries.

That compares to 46 percent of the people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey who say they have an unfavorable opinion of Muslim countries. That’s up five points from 2002, when 41 percent indicated they had an unfavorable view.

Three in ten meanwhile say they have a neutral opinion of Muslim countries.

The poll also suggests that most Americans think people in Muslim countries don’t think highly of the United States. Nearly eight in ten questioned say people in Muslim countries have a unfavorable opinion of the U.S., with 14 percent saying Muslims hold a favorable view.

But the poll indicates Americans seem to be split on whether such negative opinions by Muslims matter. Fifty-three percent of those questioned say they think Muslim views of the U.S. matter a great deal or a moderate amount, with 47 percent saying that Muslim opinions of the U.S. don’t matter very much or at all.

The poll’s release comes just hours before the president flies to Saudi Arabia for meetings with King Abdullah. Following the stop in Saudi Arabia, Obama heads to Egypt, where Thursday he’ll deliver a long-awaited speech on relations between the United States and the Muslim world. At a town hall in Turkey earlier this year, the president delcared that “the United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.”

Americans seem to agree with the president: 62 percent of those surveyed say they don’t think the U.S. is at war with the Muslim world, with 36 percent indicating that the country is at war with Muslim countries. Those numbers have remained stable since CNN’s 2002 poll.

But the poll suggests that six out of ten think that the Muslim world considers itself at war with the U.S.

Here is the White House link to the whole interview.

Jihad Watch points out the incorrect information Obama spewed in that interview:

Indonesia: 200 million Muslims. India: 156 million Muslims. Pakistan: 150 million Muslims.

United States: 2.3 million Muslims (according to the Pew Research Center).


This is going to be an awful long 3 1/2 years and counting down.

Al Qaeda Planning Bio-Terror Attack Via Mexico?

Al Qaeda Planning Bio-Terror Attack Via Mexico?

Too many people on the liberal side of the fence argue that illegal immigration is a racial issue. They believe that those of us who want to secure the US boarders are inspired by racism, trying to keep out Hispanics. Last year’s story of the Hezbollah Mole in the CIA case (Nada Nadim Prouty) and the terrorists targeting Army base after sneaking over the borders, highlight the reasons we want true immigration reform without amnesty, it is why we want the borders secured before anything else is done. It is more difficult to launch an attack when you can’t get in the country.

In the video above al Qaeda recruiter, Abdullah al-Nafisi discusses how easy it would be: