Welcome to The Complete Danged Truth web site.

Welcome to The Complete Danged Truth web site.
http://www.thecompletedangedtruth.com/

As you probably know by now, Sen. John McCain has flip-flopped and now says he is for building “the danged fence.”

That’s why the J.D. Hayworth for Senate Campaign is proud to set the record straight. It’s kind of like the now long- forgotten “Straight Talk Express”  that the Senator was once so proud to ride.

Here’s the truth:

While Sen. McCain’s paid advertisement calls for building the “danged fence” now, he had a different message on February 24, 2010 before The Homeland Security Department’s Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2011.

Sen. McCain said “…the border fence issue has been a waste of billions of dollars. One huge effort failed several years ago and now apparently this one as well.
I’ve asked the chairpersons of this committee to if we . . . could have a hearing on [the fence which has been a] waste of billions of dollars in what seems to be an abject failure.”

The media has seen through this game he is playing.

Glenn Beck warned his listeners the ad might make them vomit.

ABC News reminded its audience that in a 2007 Vanity Fair interview, McCain said, “I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build (expletive deleted) fence if they want it.”

Big Government called it the “Worst ‘Danged’ Political Ad in History! Congratulations, John McCain.” 

Politico wrote of McCain: “His shift across the political landscape on this issue remains stunning to his former allies in the immigration world.”

MSNBC mocked McCain saying “John McCain, who once led the charge for comprehensive immigration reform, is up with an immigration ad a hardliner would be proud of.”

TRUE/SLANT wrote the ad is “perhaps the worst, most ineffectual, pandering campaign ad ever.”

The Washington Post’s web headline over The Fix column reads “Has John McCain Started To Panic?”

Drudge Report’s headline said “ON DEFENSE: MCCAIN FLIP FLOPS ON IMMIGRATION.”

The Arizona Daily Star
 wrote: “But critics who say he flip-flopped on the issue of the border fence suggest it’s almost as if Babeu is saying ‘You’re one of us . . . now.’ (Even though you weren’t before when you were ‘pro-amnesty.’)”

And now you can decide for yourself.

McCain TV Ad: “Complete The Danged Fence”

Islam is the Enemy of Freedom by Amil Imani

Islam is the Enemy of Freedom  
http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=2

Tuesday, 20 November 2007

A great irony of the age is that the seemingly most diehard proponents of freedom— the useful idiots   of our time—are the most dangerous unwitting accomplices of liberty’s enemy—Islam. Keep in mind that the very name “Islam” is a derivation of “taslim,” the Arabic word for “surrender,” surrender to the will and dictates of Allah as revealed by Muhammad and recorded in the Quran.

This non-negotiable surrender to Islam requires the individual as well as the society to disenfranchise themselves of many of the fundamental and deeply cherished human rights.
Below is a brief presentation of what this surrender to Islam entails and why it is imperative that all freedom-loving people arise and defeat the menace of Islamofascism. 

Amendment I of the Bill of Rights enshrines some of the most cherished ideals of freedom-loving people:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Islam considers itself the three branches of government. It enacts laws as it sees fit, adjudicates laws, and executes as it deems. Islam is anathema to the provisions of the First Amendment and much more.

* Islam proclaims itself as the only legitimate religion for the entire world, grudgingly granting minor recognition to Judaism and Christianity from whom it has liberally plagiarized many of its dogma. Jews and Christians are allowed to live under the rule of Islam as dhimmis and must pay a special religious tax of jazyyeh. Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Baha’is, members of other religions, agnostics, or atheists are not even allowed to live practicing their belief or disbelief.

* Islam actively suppresses and even prohibits the practice of other religions, including those of the “people of the book,” Jews and Christians. There is not a single church or synagogue in the cradle of Islam, Saudi Arabia, while thousands of mosques dot the tolerating and welcoming non-Moslem lands. Islamic countries that allow for Jewish and Christian places of worship subject these “people of the book” to numberless subtle and not-so-subtle forms of persecution. Moslems in non-Moslem lands proselytize relentlessly and convert others while any Moslem who leaves Islam is judged as apostate and automatically condemned to death.

* Freedom of speech is just about non-existent in Islam. The word is Allah’s, his chosen divines such as Ayatollahs and Imams are the only ones who are to make pronouncements squarely-based on Allah’s word, the Quran. Any expression in the least at deviance from the Quran, the Hadith and the edicts of Islamic high divines is heresy and severely punishable. Hence, stifling of free expression is the major mechanism by which the Islamic clergy retain power and prevent constructive change in Islamic societies.

* Freedom of the press is completely alien to Islam, since a free press tends to express matters as it sees it, rather than as it is stated in the Quran. To Islam, the Quran is the press and the only press. There is no need for critical reporting, no need to present ideas that may conflict with the Quran, and no place for criticism of anything Islamic. The stranglehold of Islam on the individual and society is complete.

* Peaceful assembly of the people is not allowed. The backward oppressive Islamic societies inflict great hardship on the citizenry and any assembly of the victims presents a threat to the suffocating rule. Islamic governments routinely prevent peaceful assemblies from taking place. Failing to do so, they unleash their hired thugs, the police and even the military against any assemblage no matter how peaceful and how legitimate is its grievance. The Islamic Republic of Iran which is vying with Saudi Arabia as the leader of true Islamic rule, routinely attacks any and all gatherings of its people, arrests them, imprisons them without due process, tortures them, and even executes them in secret dungeons. Journalists, academics, unionists, students, teachers, women rights groups who dare to petition the government for redress are labeled subversive and are severely punished.

* Maltreatment of religious minorities and the non-religious is criminal indeed. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, for instance, the government has launched a systematic program of genocide against its largest religious minority—the Baha’is. The government is gathering a comprehensive list of Baha’is, their occupations, locations, properties and the like—action reminiscent of the Nazis. The government is banning Baha’i students from post high-school education unless they recant their religion, deprives them of engaging in numerous forms of occupations and trades, denies them from holding worship gatherings, razes their holy places and much more. The Islamic Republic of Iran is not satisfied with its cruel treatment of the living Baha’is and has launched a war on their dead by bulldozing Baha’i cemeteries in several cities. Thus is the rule of fundamental Islamism that is awaiting the complacent and snoozing world.

* Oppression of women in general is tragic indeed. Men are allowed to have as many as four wives simultaneously and as many concubines as they wish or can afford. Men can easily divorce their wives and automatically have the custody of the children, if they so decide. Women have subservient status to men in all areas of the law. Equality under the law has no meaning in Islam. Just one example of the dreadful way of treating women in Islam is a case of a Saudi woman who was gang-raped. The Islamic court convicted the woman to prison term and lashes for having committed the “sin” of riding in a car with a male who was not her relative. This is a standard form of Islamic Shariah justice—a savage heritage of barbarism that ruled the Arabian Peninsula some centuries ago.

* Islam has a solution for every “problem.” It deals with homosexuals, for instance, by hanging them en mass and gloating about it, even though homosexuality is just as prevalent in Islamic lands as anywhere else. Recently an Ayatollah made a ruling on homosexuals. He said that they should be tortured before they are hanged. In Islam the rulings of high-ranking clergy constitute the law and are binding.

* Not only Islam does not allow freedom of assembly and the press, it is intrusively restrictive in every aspects of a person’s life. The way women should dress, the haircut of men, the music people are allowed, movies to watch, television programs to view, and even parties in the privacy of their home are subject to the ridiculous monitoring of moral police. Islam is hell-bent on outward morality and puritanical conduct while it is rotten to the core just below the pretentious surface.

* Islam segregates by gender many public places and events such as beaches, sporting venues, public transportations, and even building elevators. Families are often prevented from attending a sporting event together or swimming together at a beach.

* Egypt, the crown of the Arab-Islam world, demands that citizens declare Islam or only one of the two other religions, Jewish and Christianity, as their religion in order to receive the government-issued identity cards. ID cards are required for jobs, healthcare, education, a marriage license and a host of other things. If you are an agnostic, an atheist, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Baha’i, you are forced to perjure yourself to receive the indispensable ID card. In a real sense, Islam the pretender of high moral ground compels people to lie in order to receive what is their birthright as citizens.

I have been sounding the alarm about Islam’s imminent deadly threat for a number of years. The Islamic treasury flush with oil extortion money together with the help of useful idiots is having the upper hand in this battle of survival for freedom. The slaveholder Islam has been transformed into a more virulent form of Islamofascism; it is an inveterate unrelenting enemy of freedom. We need to act now and stem the tide of this deadly threat. Tomorrow may be too late. Freedom is too precious to abandon through complacency, acts of political correctness, or outright cowardice.

Posted in B Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, democrat muslim, Hussein Obama, Islam, islam fundamentalist, Islam ideology, Islam sympathizers, Islam Threat, Islam's Founder, Islamic Banking, Islamic centers, Islamic Circle of North America, Islamic cult, Islamic doctors, Islamic Extremists, Islamic Fifth Column, Islamic history, Islamic immigration, Islamic Imperialism, Islamic Jihad, Islamic lies, Islamic Multiculturalism, Islamic Nukes, Islamic perversion, Islamic prison recruiting, Islamic Propaganda, islamic recruiting, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Schools, Islamic Slavery, Islamic terrorism, Islamic Women Rights, Islamists, Islamo-fascists, muslim, Muslim Alliance, Muslim American Society, Muslim Civil Liberties Union, muslim clerics, muslim democrats, Muslim doctors, muslim extremist, Muslim Fundamentalism, muslim ghettos, Muslim integration, Muslim Mafia, Muslim Propaganda, Muslim Rape, muslim schools, Muslim soldiers, Muslim Student Union, Muslim Students’ Association of the U.S. and Canada, muslim sympathizers, Muslim U.S. sailor, Muslim Violence, Muslim vote, Muslims go home, Obama. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Naming the Enemy— ISLAM

Naming the Enemy

 

Posted By Fern Sidman On May 17, 2010 @ 12:03 am In FrontPage | 6 Comments

On Tuesday evening, May 11th, the crossroads of the world, better known as Times Square in Manhattan was the scene of a passionate display of fortitude as members of the Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam gathered for a rally to expose the existential perils that radical Islam represents to the Western world. Standing just a few blocks from the place where 30 year old Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani born and Taliban trained American citizen attempted to detonate his vehicle filled with deadly explosives, the leaders of this rainbow coalition of activists sounded a clarion call as onlookers watched and listened.

Comprised of Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and ex-Muslims, the HRCARI is a nascent organization that champions the rights of those who have been victimized and slaughtered by Muslim extremists. Having staged its very first rally in Times Square in May of 2009, their ranks have swelled over the last year with those who are deeply concerned about the cultural indifference to the burgeoning growth of Islamic radicalism.

Charles Jacobs, a board member of the HRCARI and a writer for The Jewish Advocate in Boston said, “Our purpose here today is two-fold. We are here to send a clear message to the press and politicians who have intentionally obfuscated the nature of this most recent terrorist attempt by not labeling the enemy as radical Islam and acquiescing to political correctness. We are also here to educate the public about the pernicious agenda of those radical Islamists who would love nothing more than to obliterate our cherished values of democracy, freedom and liberty.”

“The Western world is mired in self-doubt and self-guilt that has been imposed upon us by those post-modern forces on the left and in the sphere of academia who believe we are deserving of the animus of our enemies,” he ruefully observed.

Holding aloft signs and banners saying, “Elected Officials and Mass Media – Unveil The Truth: Radical Islam Attacks Humanity,” “Stop Billions of Saudi Oil Money that are Funding Worldwide Radical Islamic Intolerance and Terror,” “Reform Radical Islmamic Madrassas: Stop Teaching Hate” and displaying placards of those Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, women and gays who have been summarily murdered by brutal Islamic regimes, the rally attendees graphically described the horrific consequences of being an “infidel” in the Muslim world.  Martin Rosenthal, a rally attendee from Queens held a homemade sign that said, “Queers Against Radical Islam” and spoke of the heinous atrocities committed against both gay men and women in such countries as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Narain Kataria, the founder of the Indian American Intellectuals Forum said, “Since 9/11/2001, the followers of the so called “religion of peace” have carried out 15,101 deadly terrorist attacks and killed more than 75,000 people. It does not requite a rocket scientist to tell us that the aim of the Jihadist is to dominate the entire world, force all of us to surrender and to plant the Islamic flag in Washington, London, Jerusalem and New Delhi, not to mention New York City.” He also spoke of the mass slaughter of Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan. “Pakistan is the nursery of terrorism. Pakistan is the epicenter of Jihad. Pakistan is the most untrustworthy ally in the war on terror. Pakistan is fooling us. They use sophistry and subterfuge to hoodwink us,” he declared.

“What we need here in America and throughout the free world is intellectual clarity,” said Madeline Brooks, the Manhattan chapter head of Act For America, a national human rights organization that stridently opposes radical Islam and serves as a bulwark against the mendacity of multicultural relativists in the progressive camp. “We here in New York are faced with mortal danger each day. We are the prime terror target on this planet. We are in daner of being nuked and the government’s denial of this threat only leaves us in a much weaker state and undermines the confidence of the people who reside here. That is the reality of radical Islam and we do ourselves a grave injustice by not confronting it head on with the gravitas that it demands” she continued.

John Kenneth Press, a PhD in history and the author of  “Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future” (2007 – Social Books) said, “Culturism is a political philosophy, art and science based upon the understanding that cultural diversity is real and important. Western culture believes in free speech, feminism, and the separation of church and state. Islam, for example, does not. Western culture is based on individuals applying their intelligence towards progressive and productive ends. For 1400 years there has been a worldwide Jihad fueled by radical Islam whose objective is death and destruction of all infidels and the sooner that we give voice to this, the sooner that we demand that our government consider this threat as a moral and physical exigency, the sooner we can increase our chances of not falling prey to an Islamic caliphate.”

“21st century Nazism is now tantamount to radical Islam” said Andrew Upton, a board member of HRCARI. “There is someone here today holding a sign saying, “Queers Against Radical Islam.” We applaud this person for spotlighting the fact that gays and lesbians are considered worthy of death in Islamic countries as are women who are consistently victims of honor murders by male family members for attempting to divorce their husbands, for being raped, for not allowing themselves to be party to forced marriages and for purported violations of Sharia law,” he said.

At the conclusion of the rally, the participants took their signs and banners and staged a march throughout the Times Square area calling on all concerned citizens to lobby their elected officials and the press to “jettison the fraud of multicultural relativism and political correctness in the name of our survival.”

See No Radical Islam, Hear No Radical Islam

Posted By Ryan Mauro On May 17, 2010 @ 12:18 am In FrontPage | 10 Comments

On May 13, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) confronted [1] Attorney General Eric Holder about whether radical Islam was the motivating factor in the terrorist plots against the United States over the past year. Rather than acknowledge the religious-ideological threat posed to us, Holder continued the Obama Administration’s pattern of trying to avoid using terms like “radical Islam” and “Islamic terrorism.”

Rep. Smith repeatedly prodded at Holder, who tried to fend off the attack by saying, “There are a variety of reasons why people do things. Some of them are potentially religious.”

Unsatisfied with the lack of clarity, Rep. Smith continued to ask him, “Are you uncomfortable attributing any other actions to radical Islam?” Holder replied by saying, “No, I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion…”

Finally, Holder conceded, saying “I certainly think that it’s possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to make an impact on people like Mr. Shahzad,” referring to the American who tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square as part of a plot by the Pakistani Taliban.

The Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, made her language more realistic in February when she flatly stated [2] to the Senate, “Violent Islamic terrorism…was part and parcel of the Ft. Hood killings.” She obviously went the extra mile after she was criticized for saying her agency was preparing for “man-made disasters” instead of “terrorism,” telling [3] a German newspaper that she was trying to “move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”

The Obama Administration as a whole, however, is trying to avoid using such terms as much as possible. Neither the Quadrennial Defense Review nor the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review even mention “Muslim” or “Islam,” instead [4] focusing on “non-state actors” and “Al Qaeda and global violent extremism.” The National Security Strategy document likewise will no longer mention “Islamic extremism,” removing [5] the portion that says that “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”

This removes the religious-ideological component from the assessment. Al-Qaeda is pinpointed as the main enemy, but the driving force behind the terrorist group is not. Instead, Al-Qaeda is one among many violent extremists, rather than a symptom of a specific disease. Furthermore, it narrows the war down to Al-Qaeda, apparently drawing a distinction between them and groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Taliban, the latter of which was once said [6] by the Administration to contain “moderate” elements that could be included in a political process.

On April 6, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair spoke about intelligence reform. He did not mention “the War on Terror” once, instead referring to “countering violent extremism.” The State Department’s top terrorism official, Daniel Benjamin used [7] the same term but did a better job in defining the threat by referring to “counter-ideology initiatives.” However, he talked about “delegitimiz[ing] the Al Qaeda narrative and, where possible, provide positive alternatives.” This again pinpoints Al-Qaeda as the enemy when the problem encompasses many more jihadists, many of whom disagree with Al-Qaeda’s narrative on some levels but still promote Sharia Law.

President Obama has dropped the term “War on Terror” from the vocabulary, believing it has negative connotations in the Islamic world, and uses the term “justice” instead of “democracy” for the same reason when promoting reform overseas. Phrases like “overseas contingency operation,” “a campaign against extremists who wish to do us harm,” and “countering violent extremism” are used to today to vaguely define the conflict.

The thinking behind these changes is that U.S. foreign policy is what creates terrorists and jihadists. The violence these groups take part in occurs out of frustration over political disagreements, and if the U.S. can successfully convince the Islamic world that the West is not waging war on their religion, such groups will be defeated.

A few statements by President Obama provide a window into what he feels creates terrorists. On January 5, President Obama said [8] that Guantanamo Bay was “an explicit rationale for the formation of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” a statement that is incorrect [9] on its own terms and is incorrect in its inference that U.S. policy is the decisive factor in a decision to carry out terrorism on innocent civilians.

During the presidential campaign in May 2008, President Obama told [10] The New York Times that “There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations.”

He went on to say that Hamas and Hezbollah need to be convinced that their violence is hurting their “legitimate claims,” but did say that Hezbollah was “not a legitimate political party” and recognized the influence Iran and Syria has over them. He did not explain what “legitimate claims” Hamas and Hezbollah have, but the quote shows that he attributes their existence to political causes.

The Obama Administration has been using John Brennan, the special assistant to the President for counterterrorism, to discuss its efforts to fight terrorism. In some cases, his words sound positive. He said [11] that the term “War on Terrorism” was dropped because “by focusing on the tactic, we risk floundering among the terrorist trees while missing the growth of the extremist forest.” This sounded like a recognition that some radical jihadists use other methods to reach their objectives. However, in that same speech, he placed emphasis on Al-Qaeda, saying the Administration will fight them “aggressively wherever it exists” but will not define the campaign as a “global war” because it “only plays into the warped narrative that Al-Qaeda propagates.”

In defending the language of the Administration, he said [12] “what we have to do is make sure that we’re not pouring fuel on the flames by the things we do.” Even the media coverage of his statements showed the change in perception from the previous administration. The New York Times described [12] Brennan as “helping Obama redirect the war against Al-Qaeda.” In other words, the war is specifically against Al-Qaeda and their collaborators, and their strength comes from a negative perception of U.S. foreign policy.

It is true that the war for the hearts and minds is critical, but it must be understood that radical Islamic terrorists view all the political conflicts through religious-ideological lenses. They are pursuing the establishment of their version of Sharia Law, as evidenced by their brutal attacks and oppression upon other Muslims. There is no “Al-Qaeda narrative,” as if they are the author of the ideology they espouse. Al-Qaeda and the other jihadists subscribe to an overall narrative provided by radical Islam and have some deviations based on interpretation.

The words of the very forces we face debunk the Administration’s analysis of what is the root cause of terrorism. The Muslim Brotherhood’s own documents have described its covert campaign in the United States as “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.” The head of the Hezbollah in Iran has called [13] for a “Greater Iran” that extends from Palestine to Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden says that “The matter is summer up for every person alive: either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.”

These are not the words of people simply opposed to U.S. policy. These are the words of Islamic extremists on an ideological crusade to dominate the West.

Obama: Trust Only Me, America

Obama: Trust Only Me, America

May 17th, 2010

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Expose Obama

 and don’t speak against meh

Always the smooth operator, Obama is urging the American people to tune out other voices and listen only to the sound of their dear leader’s voice. He bemoans the growth of new media during his commencement address at Hampton University in Virginia: “You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank all that high on the truth meter…With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation…All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.”

It is less than slightly ironic to hear our Blackberry-toting president proclaim he is unable to operate modern technology, but the content of his new media criticism is downright chilling. Obama’s political career has been built on a narrative that he and his close associates carefully crafted. The only biographical information we know about the president comes from his two autobiographies, both of which contain large embellishments and historical inaccuracies. These inaccuracies were virtually censored in the formerly dominant old media. Only the new media have dared to challenge Obama’s narrative.

Obama laments the role cable news plays in the political discourse because they dare discuss issues he doesn’t want covered. This would be an interesting academic topic, were it not for attempts by his underlings to restrict the flow of information on the Internet and over the airwaves. While he demonizes blogs, talk radio and cable news, his czars and his recent Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, are perfectly comfortable with the idea of the U.S. government restricting free speech.

Free-flowing information is a vital part of any free society. If the public is unable to get information unfiltered by the government they will never hear a fair and open debate.

Obama wants to withhold conflicting versions of the public narrative from the American people, and the old-line media are willingly going along with Obama’s desires. Were it not for alternative sources of media such as blogs, talk radio and cable news, Obama and his radical friends wouldn’t have to defend their agenda. That’s why team Obama is seeking to restrict these alternative forms of media. Obama’s recent attack on new media is part of a strategic assault on free speech.

Susan Crawford, Obama’s former Internet czar, has been pushing tirelessly for so-called “net neutrality,” which if made into law will transform the Internet and ultimately give the government power to regulate content. Despite its high-sounding name, “net neutrality” is nothing but another government regulation that will inevitably have unintended consequences that could reach into every individual’s home connection. Proponents of neutrality should be more concerned with government intrusion than with any limitations imposed by the marketplace. As Timothy B. Lee of the Cato Institute has stated, the regulation inherent in “net neutrality” is not needed because “network owners are likely to find deviations from the end-to-end principle unprofitable.”

Efforts to regulate the Internet, coupled with the efforts of FCC Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd to silence talk radio, constitute two grave threats to free speech and access to independent ideas. Lloyd believes the most effective method for controlling talk radio is through local and racially diverse media ownership requirements which could effectively force ownership changes at many conservative talk and Christian radio stations.

The final part of this triple threat to speech is Elena Kagan, Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court. Kagan, in one of her few public statements on any issue, stated in the University of Chicago Law Review: “If there is an ‘overabundance’ of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action — which there well might be when compared with some ideal state of public debate — then action disfavoring that idea might ‘un-skew,’ rather than skew, public discourse.” So in Kagan’s view the government can determine what the ideal level and content of free speech and public debate is, and it can regulate or block anything above that level. Under this view Obama’s own administration could determine that there is too much criticism of him and regulate the offending media outlets.

Obama’s assault on free speech is threatening the very core of our Republic. If the government can silence its critics, the American people may never know the truth. Blogs, talk radio, and cable are an integral part of our democracy. Patriotic Americans must stand up and defend the right to consume and disseminate unfiltered information

Obama’s Tireless Efforts On the Basketball Court and Golf Course Cause BP to Successfully Insert New Pipe to Siphon Oil to Surface

Obama’s Tireless Efforts On the Basketball Court and Golf Course Cause BP to Successfully Insert New Pipe to Siphon Oil to Surface

By Doug Powers  •  May 16, 2010 03:06 PM

I’ll leave it to Chris Matthews to find a way to link the two, but first, the potentially good news:

Engineers trying to stop an oil leak deep below the surface of Gulf of Mexico have successfully inserted a mile-long pipe to siphon oil from the disastrous spill, British Petroleum said Sunday.

BP says they are now capturing some of the leaking oil, and hopfully all of it eventually.

President Obama was notified, but only after bees swarmed his motorcade on the way to chur… er, I mean, on the way to play basketball:

null

Keith Olbermann has dismissed the swarm as racist “Beebaggers” upset at the health care bill. Congressman Clyburn was in the car and claims to have heard at least two of the bees buzzing racial slurs, though news footage doesn’t as yet support that claim.

As luck would have it, smoke has a calming effect on bees, so all the president had to do was roll down the window and the bees slowly headed back to Michelle’s garden.

And if shooting hoops wasn’t enough, yesterday Obama spent majority of his Saturday trying to plug up the oil leak by jamming golf balls into every hole in the ground he could find:

null

And it might have worked!

If BP’s latest effort doesn’t go as well as expected, the administration’s going to offer the stubborn leak a Medal for Courageous Restraint and see if that’s enough to get it to stop.

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

The Left’s War on Free Speech

The Left’s War on Free Speech

By Bruce Walker

The left pretends to be the biggest champion of free speech. When the New York Times wrote articles about how our government was tracking the activities of terrorists, journalistic behavior which directly endangered the lives of Americans by providing intelligence information to those terrorists who are at war with us, the sanctimonious left insisted that this newspaper was simply exercising its constitutional right of free speech and free press.
In 1977 and 1978, Illinois Nazis planned a march Skokie, Illinois. That predominately Jewish community was home to many Holocaust survivors. The city, noting the intentionally provocative and malicious nature of this march, adopted ordinances to prevent the march.  The perennially leftist ACLU took the side of the Nazis, citing the First Amendment rights of these disruptive goons. 
The left at Berkeley in 1964 rallied around the “Free Speech Movement,” which was intended to be disruptive.  By 1965, this movement had become known as the “Filthy Speech Movement,” because it asserted the right of students on campus to yell obscenities with impunity. The left had no problem with that at all, even when the speech inspired — almost called for — riots that destroyed property, frightened people, and produced numerous minor crimes.  Hear what one of its “heroes,” Mario Savio, said at the time: “Government insults its citizens and denies their moral responsibility when it decrees that they cannot be trust to hear opinions that might persuade them to dangerous or offensive conduct.”
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, every effort to impose restrictions upon pornography met with loud screeches of censorship by the left. Even when government funds are used to create “art,” like crosses in glasses of urine or nude women smearing chocolate over their bodies before audiences, the left sighs and tells Americans that this is the price of free speech.
All this devotion which the left pretends to have for free speech is just like every other profession of values by the left: it is pure fraud, smirking lies, and measured injustice.  Consider the position that Elena Kagan has taken toward free speech. She wrote in 1996 that free speech could be restricted if it directly or indirectly incited people to do harm, and Kagan noted the famous example of someone yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. She equates that with the notorious “hate speech” invented by the left.
The arguments of the left are always specious. The person yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is protected if he believes that there is fire. It is only if he lies — if he knows that there is no fire but yells “Fire!” anyway — that his speech is restricted.  So-called “hate speech” is precisely protected because the speaker believes what he is saying. Kagan may think that he is wrong; you or I may think that he is wrong; our opinions do not matter: the expression of honest belief or opinion is absolutely protected by the First Amendment, with no exceptions at all.
What this deformed interpretation of the First Amendment means, in fact, is that Americans are forced into silence, or worse, into lying about their beliefs. The channeling of expression into politically correct ravines means that the entire purpose of the First Amendment, which is to have speech that is the product of free minds and consciences, is lost. 
The left displays a very curious attitude toward the rights of different sorts of speakers. “Hate speech” is almost always directed against the lonely individual conservative, who has no wealth or power to protect him. Conservatives have been noting for forty-one years that government licensed television network channels lie about conservatives, defame conservative leaders, and construct crude caricatures of conservatives as a group. Worse, for most of those forty-one years, the networks scrupulously avoided criticizing each other for ideological bigotry, acting like a true monopoly. The left defended the right of multi-billion dollar corporate giants to savage the lives of conservatives by malicious mendacity. The left never said a word about these mammoth business empires hurting the public.
So when does the left get concerned about opinions reaching tens of millions of Americans? When someone like Rush Limbaugh takes the largely ignored and financially modest medium of A.M. talk radio and, against a torrent of abuse and many boycotts, finds a profoundly resonating voice among the conservative majority of America.  Then — only then! — the ancient “Fairness Doctrine” rears its peculiar head. When the identical triplets of CBS, NBC, and ABC had the same news, the same entertainment slant, the same everything — which meant conservative ideas and beliefs were scrupulously purged, the left thought the Fairness Doctrine something akin to censorship. Only when the other side gets heard does the doctrine have meaning.
The left is utterly wedded to thought control. Like all sibling totalitarianisms, the left in America is addicted to power and repelled by truth. The creation of officially defined oppressors and officially defined victims determines who has rights and who does not.  The totalitarian narcotic of “Social Justice,” the drug of choice for Hitler, Stalin, Father Coughlin, and Sir Oswald Moseley, dulls the people into a twilight land in which “Freedom is Slavery” and free speech too. 
Bruce Walker is the author of two books:  Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie and The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.