General Fuller’s Career-Ending Message for Americans

By
Fred
J. Eckert

One of America’s top generals in Afghanistan was fired
last Friday for making “inappropriate public remarks.”

Major General Peter Fuller’s career-destroying offense
was to publicly criticize Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai for saying during
an October 22^nd interview with Pakistani news media that that if the
U.S. and Pakistan got into a war, he and Afghanistan would side with Pakistan in
fighting against the United States.  The general’s critical comments were made
during an interview Thursday with the left-leaning news website
Politico.

“Why don’t you just poke me in the eye with a needle?
You’ve got to be kidding me. … I’m sorry, we just gave you $11.6 billion, and
now you’re telling me, ‘I don’t really care?’ ” Fuller
said.

General Fuller also referred to Karzai’s being
“erratic,” expressed hope that Afghanistan’s next leader will be more
“articulate,” said he thought Afghan government leaders are “isolated from
reality” in their expectations of what America should expend in that country,
and said those Afghan leaders “don’t appreciate” the sacrifice that the United
States is making in “blood and treasure” for the people of their
country.

The general could have — but didn’t — mention that
Karzai is forever demanding apologies from us; that he has referred to the U.S.
and other foreign soldiers protecting him and  his country as “occupiers;” that
he has publicly threatened to join the Taliban; that he now and then demands our
“immediate” withdrawal; that his is a highly corrupt operation; that he is
scheming to dismantle his country’s constitution to perpetuate himself in power;
that when an October 29^th Taliban suicide bombing attack against a
NATO bus in Kabul resulted in the deaths of some thirteen persons, most of them
Americans, Karzai again insulted us by expressed condolences only for the four
who were Afghans; and that it took our leaning on him to extract belated
inclusion of the Americans and others.

The elite media is treating as a fairly big story
General Fuller’s being fired for saying what he said in public.  Fair enough.
But what the elite media have been missing and continue to miss — and likely
will keep right on missing — is the bigger story of the bigger picture
here.

Everything General Fuller said that got him fired is
true and needs to be understood by the public and by the media.  Bear in mind
that General Fuller, a man who has served our country as a U.S. Army officer for
more than 30 years, was the deputy commander charged with turning Afghan’s
military into an effective fighting force.  Knowing this, there is something
lacking in anyone’s sense of patriotism who does not understand and share the
general’s annoyance and frustration about Karzai’s revealing that he would have
no qualms about ordering Afghan soldiers trained by Americans to fight and kill
Americans.

And yet…it is not the place of General
Fuller to presume without authorization to make and conduct U.S. foreign policy.
Clearly he crossed the line.  Thus, it is beside the point and matters not one
bit that what he said in public is true and very likely echoes what the superior
officer who fired him and just about every other American military official in
Afghanistan says in private.

We can expect that most of the debate about the firing
of General Fuller will center on the point just made and answered.  Big
mistake.

The firing of General Fuller raises a much larger
unanswered question, the question that should have been raised and discussed in
the media all along from the very moment that Hamid Karzai publicly made his
inappropriate, insulting remarks at which General Fuller and every other clear
thinking American rightly takes great offense: what should U.S. leaders say and
do when a foreign leader who owes his country’s freedom, and perhaps even his
own life, to American goodness acts towards America as one would act towards an
enemy?

This bigger question remains unanswered in the public
mind — because the media does not discuss it, does not bother to put the
question to those who should be made to answer it.

What did the president of the United States say or do
about Karzai’s volunteering a promise to fight against us?  No one seems to have
any idea.  A good guess is that Barack Obama either went golfing or went
fundraising, but that’s only a guess.  Did Obama issue a statement expressing
his displeasure and calling upon Karzai to apologize and retract?  No.  Did the
media ask him why not?  No.

What did the Obama administration’s secretary of state
say or do?  Hillary Clinton says she promptly called the U.S. ambassador to
Afghanistan and asked him to “go in and figure out what it means,” “it” being
these words uttered by Karzai on Pakistani media: “If fighting starts between
Pakistan and the U.S., we are beside Pakistan.”

Now, most people would take Karzai’s statement as
unequivocally declaring which side he would take in a war between America and
Pakistan — and that it would be against us.  Pakistan’s double-dealing
government understood it — and loved it.

But when the president of the United States is so
weak, apparently his secretary of state felt that the best course was to try to
protect him from embarrassing himself yet another time.  So Secretary Clinton
covered for Karzai, claiming that his remarks were “taken out of context and
misunderstood.”  She gets it that what nowadays passes for journalism is not
likely to run interference against a Democratic administration’s attempt to
hoodwink the American people.

What never got properly reported — because the media
never pressed the matter — is that the Obama State Department contends that
Karzai was merely making the observation that Afghanistan and Pakistan are
nextdoor neighbors, and thus, anyone fleeing Pakistan during a war with the U.S.
would not have to travel far to find welcome refuge.  This is not a joke.  This
is Obama administration foreign policy in action. Try to imagine how the media
would have played this had Condoleezza Rice resorted to such a cockamamie claim
to spare George W. Bush from having to act in the face of such an affront to
American honor.

Did Karzai ever issue a clarification explaining just
why it is a “misunderstanding” to think he said what he said, that he would side
with Pakistan against us in a war?  No.  Did the U.S. government demand it of
him?  No.  Why don’t the U.S. media ask?  Can’t they figure how to track down
the ambassador of Afghanistan in Washington?  Do you think the Pakistanis
believe that Karzai didn’t mean it when he said he’d side with them against us?
Shouldn’t the elite media ask?

When NATO and American commander in Afghanistan, Gen.
John
R. Allen,
explained that he was firing General Peter Fuller because of “inappropriate
public comments,” he may not have caught the irony.  General Fuller’s
“inappropriate public comments” were a reaction to Karzai’s wildly
“inappropriate public comments” that insulted our country and are an affront to
any and every American who has aided the people of
Afghanistan.

General Allen also used the word “unfortunate” in his
statement announcing the firing of General Fuller.  It is indeed unfortunate for
us all that it was General Fuller rather than President Obama who took Hamid
Karzai to task for insulting America.

A president worthy of respect would have been man
enough to take Karzai to task himself and not permit this sad spectacle of a
long-serving soldier ruining his career for defending American honor when the
president should have but didn’t.

Barack Obama should have picked up the phone and told
Hamid Karzai something like this: “I am alerting you that your life is
suddenly in much greater danger and I urge you to take prompt action to lessen
this increased danger. I expect you to appear on television and radio at the
earliest possible opportunity and announce to the world that not only would you
never side against America in a war but, rather, you would stand with us. Until
you have done this, I have ordered the complete withholding of all personal
safety protection provided by US military that you, your family and your
colleagues have relied upon to keep you alive.  The other affected parties are
being informed of this in private.  As soon as I learn that you have taken this
step necessary to correct your insult to my country I will restore protection —
but not one moment sooner. If you do not act swiftly, I shall begin working on
drafting eulogy remarks.  Have a nice day.”

I wonder — don’t you? — which, if any, of the
Republican candidates for president would handle things in such a firm and
highly persuasive manner.

Don’t you wish that someone in the media — hey, it
could certainly be one of the conservative outlets — would approach Barack
Obama or at least his press secretary plus each of the Republican presidential
contenders, point to the firing of General Fuller, and then raise the big
question this whole issue needs discussed and answered?
Namely:

What should U.S. leaders say and do when a foreign
leader who owes his country’s freedom and perhaps even his own life to American
goodness acts towards America as one would act towards an
enemy?

It would be foolish of the media and the rest of us to
now only focus on whether General Fuller should have taken it upon himself to be
the one to publicly confront Harmed Karzai over his reprehensible insult to
America (already asked and answered).

It’s time to demand that the current president of the
United States and anyone who might be president come 20 January 2013 be asked —
and forced to answer — how they would deal with such an affront to American
honor.

Fred J. Eckert is a former
conservative Republican congressman from New York and twice served as a U.S.
ambassador (to the U.N. and to Fiji) under President Reagan, who called him “a
good friend and valuable advisor.”  He’s retired and lives with his wife in
Raleigh, NC.

The Worst President Since Before the Civil War

By Steve
McCann

Three years ago, the people of the United States
elected someone who has turned out to be the worst president since the pre-Civil
War era.  Barack Obama, whether in economic matters, domestic affairs or
international relations, has been an abject failure and has severely jeopardized
the future of the American people.

This must be the focus and message of those seeking
the Republican presidential nomination, who must not allow themselves to be
focused on demeaning each other and sidetracked by falling for the usual tactics
of the Democrat and media smear machines (epitomized by the latest specious
attack on Herman Cain).

A cursory examination of Obama’s overall record
compared with other presidents reveals someone driven purely by statist
ideology, whose narcissism renders him incapable of change regardless of the
long-term consequences.  He does not seem to care what happens to the American
people.

Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt faced far worse
economic conditions when they came into office than were in play when Barack
Obama was elected president.  Yet with one a fiscal conservative (Ronald Reagan)
and the other (Franklin Roosevelt) a liberal Democrat, even though they pursued
differing solutions to the dilemmas at hand, neither put the nation squarely and
inexorably on the road to bankruptcy and second-class status.

Barack Obama and his apologists continuously claim
that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression and that if it
were not for his policies presently in place, matters would be far worse.  The
reality is that he did not inherit the worst economy since the 1930s, and his
policies have diminished the standard of living for the majority of
Americans.

The actual factors in play for Barack Obama, Ronald
Reagan, and Franklin Roosevelt when they assumed office were as
follows:

	Annual GDP Growth	Unemployment Rate	Inflation
Barack Obama	1.1%	6.7%	1.0%
Ronald Reagan	.1	7.6	12.6
Franklin Roosevelt	-13.0	24.0	-10.0

For the average American, the employment numbers are
the most critical.  The following chart is a side by side comparison of the
employment situation for Barack Obama as of Election Day 2008 versus the present
day after three years of his failed policies:

	November 2008	October 2011	Difference
Unemployment Rate	6.7%	9.1%	+35.8%
Total Employment	144.25 million	140.07 million	-4.18 million
Employment-Goods Producing sector	20.9 million	18.1 million	-2.8 million
Part-time Workers (Only Jobs Available)	1.57 million	2.9 million	+84.7%
Unemployed 27 Weeks or more	2.2 million	6.3 million	+4.1 million
Avg. Weekly Wage (inflation adjusted)	$654.03	$655.87	+.2%

(http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm#current)

How does Barack Obama compare to some of his
predecessors, who inherited far more severe financial crises?  As a further
comparison, while he did not inherit a financial crisis, Jimmy Carter is
included, as he is considered by many the worst president in the post-World War
II era, and many of his policies triggered the massive recession and inflation
inherited by Ronald Reagan.

(Note: The Bureau of Labor Statistics changed its
method of calculating the unemployment rate in 1994.  Therefore, in order to
make this a more valid comparison, those workers the BLS considers discouraged
and marginally attached to the labor force and therefore not part of the
unemployment rate calculation have been added below.)

	Unemployment Rate as of Election Day	Unemployment Rate Three years later	Difference
Barack Obama	7.9%	10.75%	-36%
Ronald Reagan	7.6	8.3	–  9
Jimmy Carter	7.8	5.9	+24
Franklin Roosevelt	24.1	20.1	+17

Barack Obama has chosen uncontrolled and unbridled
government spending, much of it directed to his cronies and fellow ideologues,
as his solution to restarting the economy.  This has created an enormous amount
of new debt for the nation with nothing to show for it.  One of his
predecessors, Franklin Roosevelt, also chose that route as part of his plan to
rescue the American economy.  However, he never took it to the extreme that
Obama has done, with the aid of his allies in the Democratic Party.  During
Obama’s tenure, he has added over $4,000 billion ($4 trillion) to the national
debt.

Using the historical actual deficits as a percentage
of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) applied to today’s GDP, the comparison would
be as follows (Herbert Hoover has been added, as he faced the actual massive
collapse of the economy in 1929, the first year of his term.)

	Average Deficit as % of GDP First Three Years of Term	(2011 Dollars) Additional National Debt
Barack Obama	9.23%	$4,005 Billion
Ronald Reagan	4.08	1,800
Franklin Roosevelt	3.50	1,531
Jimmy Carter	2.27	986
Herbert Hoover	.01	15

(http://www.usgovernmentspending.com)

The ultimate measure of the success or failure of a
president’s economic policies is the growth of the nation’s Gross Domestic
Product while facing economic headwinds.  Here, too, Barack Obama cannot measure
up to those who faced enormous challenges, as his policies and regulatory
obsession have shown him to be an anti-capitalist ideologue with more in common
with the Occupy Wall Street Movement than with the American
people.

	Barack Obama	Ronald Reagan	Franklin Roosevelt
Actual inflation adjusted GDP Growth First Three Years	.3%	13.7%	23.4%

It should be noted that Franklin Roosevelt, after
re-election in 1936, began to pursue more statist policies including demonizing
the rich, higher taxes, passing union-friendly legislation, and additional
government spending, so that by the third year of his second term, the GDP had
contracted by 6.5% and unemployment rose to 19.0% from a low of 14.0% in 1937.
Yet the annual budget deficit as a percent of GDP averaged 3.85% for Roosevelt’s
first two terms as compared to Obama’s 9.23% to date.  (http://www.shmoop.com/great-depression/statistics.html)

By any measure, Barack Obama is not only a failure in
his economic policies, but he is, in the aggregate, the worst steward of the
American economy since economic measurements began to be
recorded.

It is little wonder that his re-election strategy is
centered on demonizing his potential opponents and deliberately appealing to the
base nature of the human race — greed and envy — as manifested in his class
warfare rhetoric.  This is a record that cannot be defended under any
circumstances, and one the Republicans must focus upon and unceasingly bring it
before the American people.

Morning Bell: Debunking Obama’s Latest Jobs Myth

Morning Bell: Debunking Obama’s Latest Jobs Myth

Posted By Mike Brownfield On November 3, 2011 @ 9:37 am In Enterprise and Free Markets | No Comments

Imagine a high-speed train zooming down hundreds of miles of glistening train track stretching across sunny California, connecting Anaheim to San Francisco. It’s a bullet train dream, and it’s a prime example of President Barack Obama’s latest plan to create jobs in America. The trouble is that this dream is far from reality.

The Los Angeles Times reported this week ^[1] that the California high-speed train–which is funded in part by $3 billion in federal grants from President Obama’s stimulus–is now expected to cost $98 billion, twice what was expected, and will take an additional 13 years to complete, extending the project to 2033. Questions remain about where the funding will come from, whether the project is viable, and whether the projected ridership will even materialize.

But projects like these are central to President Obama’s plan to put Americans back to work. Speaking yesterday from Georgetown Waterfront Park in Washington, D.C., Obama declared ^[2] that his plan will “put hundreds of thousands of construction workers back on the job rebuilding our roads, our airports, our bridges and our transit systems.” And that is, of course, all at the expense of the American taxpayers.

The President once called these projects “shovel ready,” meaning that as soon as money arrived from the federal government, workers could be on the job. He made it sound as easy as flipping a switch, but unfortunately it didn’t work as planned. Despite a $787 billion stimulus package, America’s economy continues to languish with 14 million out of work and a 9.1 percent unemployment rate. The President joked ^[3], “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” Though he didn’t use the phrase “shovel-ready” in his remarks yesterday, the implication was still there. If Congress approves his jobs plan, he argued, all the construction workers sitting on the sidelines will be put back to work overnight.

But that’s not the way things work in the real world. Associated Press and Congressional Research Service reports ^[4] show that infrastructure spending does not create jobs and, in fact, can even have a negative effect. Heritage’s Patrick Knudsen explains ^[5]:

Building and repairing roads and bridges neither creates net job growth nor boosts the economy in the near term.

First, increasing government spending on these projects simply moves resources from one place to another — it may employ construction workers, but only by reducing jobs in other sectors. Further, the money never gets out the door soon enough to promote near-term job growth.

And then there’s the President’s flawed argument that since others are doing it, the United States should be, too. “How do we sit back and watch China and Europe build the best bridges and high-speed railroads and gleaming new airports, and we’re doing nothing?” he asks. It’s not a new line of argument from the President, and it leaves out some very important facts.

Dating all the way back to the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama spoke of the need to “invest” in infrastructure in order to be competitive with the likes of China. At the time, Jim Geraghty reported at National Review Online ^[6] that while Obama puts China on a pedestal, he entirely overlooks some serious problems with transportation in China–namely, stories of severe power shortages affecting the country’s exports, an episode where 500,000 train passengers were left stranded for days, and outbreaks of violence where airplane travelers were left grounded without accommodation. And that’s not to mention the working conditions under which China builds its infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Europe, which heavily subsidizes its passenger rail systems, receives a poor return on its investment. Heritage’s Ron Utt explains ^[7] that despite massive spending, passengers are opting for more efficient transportation in the air:

In Europe as a whole (EU-27), rail accounted for only 6.1 percent of passenger travel in 2007, including travel by air and sea. Buses accounted for 8.3 percent of the market, and air travel accounted for 8.8 percent. Despite Europe’s huge investment in passenger rail, its market share declined from 6.6 percent in 1995 to 6.1 percent in 2007. Over that same period, commercial air increased its share from 6.3 percent to 8.8 percent. By providing faster service and competitive prices, it took passengers away from rail, buses, and autos.

But to hear President Obama tell the story, building a European- or Chinese-style infrastructure is the key to the future–and to creating new jobs. Workers are ready to go, and all they need is your money to get started. But this is something we tried once already with the last stimulus, it didn’t work, and it’s not going to work this time, either. Obama’s infrastructure plan is a train that shouldn’t leave the station, headed for a bridge to nowhere, and jobs are the last thing that it will deliver.

Quick Hits:

• Thousands of Occupy Wall Street protesters rioted in Oakland yesterday evening — shutting down a busy port, taking over abandoned buildings, setting fires, burning American flags, and destroying ATMs ^[8].
• Europe’s leaders threatened to halt aid to Greece ^[9] until after it votes on a referendum to meet its commitments to the Eurozone. Meanwhile, Greece’s government is reportedly ^[9] “on the brink of collapse.”
• The Obama Administration considered bailing out solar company Solyndra ^[10] just before it went bankrupt. The Energy Department would have taken on some of its debt in return for a partial stake in the company.
• Amazon.com is offering to process sales-tax collection ^[11] for merchants who sell products through its site all for a fee equal to 2.9 percent of the taxes collected. Previously, Amazon lobbied against the imposition of sales taxes on online transactions.
• The State Department has purchased more than $70,000 worth ^[12] of President Barack Obama’s two books for Christmas “gratuities” and stocking of “key libraries” abroad.

Texas Gun Instructor Refuses to Teach Muslims How to Handle Firearms

A customer watches an assault rifle equipped with a high capacity drum magazine and grenade launcher at a gun expo in El Paso, Texas, on March 13, 2011. (credit: STR/AFP/Getty Images)

Filed under

News, Politics

Related tags

Crockett Keller, guns, Muslims, president obama, Texas

MASON, Texas (AP) — On a YouTube clip that has gone viral, brash Texas handgun instructor Crockett Keller defiantly tells Muslims and non-Christian Arabs he won’t teach them how to handle a firearm.

State officials see the ad as possible discrimination, and may revoke Keller’s instructor license.

Tens of thousands of YouTube viewers have watched the $175 ad for Keller’s business in the small community of Mason, which has won him a handful of admirers but that embarrassed locals say misrepresents their community. Muslim groups dismissed the 65-year-old as a bigot.

Among the couple of thousand residents in the Central Texas town, Keller has other reputations.

“He’s a character and likes attention,” said Diane Eames, a jeweler with a downtown shop in Mason’s quaint town square.

Keller has received plenty of attention since his radio spot on a rural country music station in Mason County, about 100 miles east of Austin, went viral on the Internet. Keller said he whipped up the script on his iPad in 10 minutes. The ad quit airing last week.

“If you are a socialist liberal and/or voted for the current campaigner-in-chief, please do not take this class,” Keller says in the ad’s closing seconds, also taking a swipe at President Barack Obama. “You’ve already proven that you cannot make a knowledgeable and prudent decision as required under the law. Also, if you are a non-Christian Arab or Muslim, I will not teach you this class. Once again, with no shame, I am Crockett Keller.”

The Texas Council on American-Islamic Relations called the ad ugly rhetoric undeserving of media attention. Others have called Keller’s phone number from the ad to personally tell him worse, including alleged death threats.

The Texas Department of Public Safety is now investigating whether to revoke or suspend Keller’s license to teach concealed handgun courses.

“Conduct by an instructor that denied service to individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion would place that instructor’s certification by the Department at risk of suspension or revocation,” the department said in a statement.

Inside a remote highway cabin on the edge of the Llano River, where a draped, full-size cannon is parked across from his desk, Keller said he was inspired to make the ad after being “flabbergasted” by a couple neighbors who left the state to campaign for Obama. As for refusing to teach Muslims, Keller described that as an afterthought tacked onto the spot, which he couldn’t remember but said was likely generated from something in the news.

“I got to thinking, ‘Hmm, I’m arming the enemy,’” Keller said.

Of course, even Keller knows that Muslims were unlikely to show up at his door asking to take his $100 course.

Mason County, as Eames described it, is “white bread” — the population was 93 percent Caucasian in the latest census, and all Republican statewide candidates won with at least 70 percent of the vote in 2010. Keller said he wasn’t aware of any Muslims in Mason County, nor could a handful of locals name one.

Eames and Joyce Arnold, a real estate agent, said they worried about the radio spot embarrassing the city. Eames ran what she described as a successful sex-toy business in Mason before opening the jewelry store, and Scott Haupert, co-owner of the Sandstone Cellars Winery, said Mason is more tolerant than Keller’s comments would suggest.

“I voted for Obama and I’ll vote for Obama again,” said Haupert, an avowed Democrat. “If I signed up to take his gun control class, he would not reject me.”

But Keller has also won over some fans. As he spoke with a reporter in his cabin, rancher Clyde McCarley knocked on his door and asked about signing up for a class.

“It’s mighty dadgum interesting to me that some people can say anything they want, and you make a statement and they bring down the house on you,” McCarley said.

Mustafaa Carroll, executive director of the Texas Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the group is watching how the state responds to Keller’s ad and whether the agency revokes his instructor license.

“We try not to give too much credibility to some of these people who do outlandish things,” Carroll said. “But there are some issues that we do have to address.”

 

Barack Obama ‘Acting Stupidly’

Jeannie
DeAngelis

Without saying anything, Barack Obama’s silence speaks
louder than all his empty words. The President who likes to define himself as a
champion of racial equality and promoter of civility has thus far stood by in
silence as liberals attempt to lower the stature of Herman Cain by portraying
him as a conservative version of Stepin Fetchit.

By failing to address the prejudicial remarks directed
at Herman Cain, the President of the United States is revealing a side of
himself that reeks of a form of discriminatory selectiveness that should further
discredit his claim to be the purveyor of civility and racial
justice.

Who can forget the President’s response to the
supposed prejudice leveled against Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates?
Without the benefit of all the information surrounding the incident, Barack
Obama rushed before the cameras to publicly condemn Cambridge, Massachusetts
police officer Joseph Crowley and insinuated that, due to the color of his skin,
Gates was the target of racial profiling and victimized by ‘stupidity’ on the
part of law enforcement.

Recently the President spoke at the dedication of the
Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial.  It was there that he
described Dr.
King as “a black preacher with no official rank or title who somehow gave voice
to our deepest dreams and our most lasting ideals, a man who stirred our
conscience and thereby helped make our union more perfect.”

Yet, while Herman Cain, a man who fits a similar
description, is whacked by MSNBC analyst Karen Finney with a verbal billy club
and drenched with a fire hose of mean-spirited rhetoric that described him as
merely a “Black man who knows his place” – Barack Obama has remained
silent.

Where is the President’s usual predictable
indignation?  Why no public correction or call for mutual
respect?

At the Martin Luther King Memorial dedication, in an
attempt to portray himself as a great black leader, Obama didn’t hesitate to put
a self-referential spin on the narrative of Dr. King’s life, saying:
“Even after rising to prominence, even after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Dr.
King was vilified by many, denounced as a rabble rouser and an agitator, a
communist and a radical.”

Barack Obama had the temerity to place himself on the
same level as Martin Luther King Jr. and yet, soon after, he stood by while
left-wing pundits with zero content of character made racially humiliating
comments about Herman Cain that were based solely on the color of his
skin.

Thus far, Obama hasn’t said a word.  He has neither
corrected, condemned, nor cited mentor Saul Alinsky, whom he
quoted at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial dedication
when he said, “We can’t be discouraged by what is. We’ve got to keep pushing for
what ought to be.”

Maybe the President also believes that if a black
American such as Herman Cain is a conservative,  he should know his place and
that, especially in politics, they are nothing more than a stereotype, a
caricature.

When not diminishing the memory of Dr. King by
pretending to be much like him, Barack spends some of his off time making the
rounds collecting campaign contributions in Hollywood.  In the meantime, liberal
comedian David Letterman is on a mission to replace GW Bush with
Herman Cain as
the newest late-night-created Republican stammering idiot.

If any of the Letterman “Top
Ten Signs Herman Cain’s Campaign is in Trouble” were
applied to Barack Obama, the left would be picketing the Ed Sullivan Theatre and
demanding an Imus-style resignation.  If the butt of Dave’s jokes had been named
Henry (as in Professor Henry Gates), Obama would never have stood for Letterman
implying that Henry was “less fun-crazy and more crazy-crazy.”

It doesn’t end there either.  In the name of fairness
and economic equity the President, who insulted Tea Party activists by referring
to them as
racists and by using the vulgar sexual slang term
“tea
baggers” to describe American citizens, has yet to condemn
the behavior taking place within the ‘Occupy’ movement.

So far, Obama has not disassociated himself from a
protest infiltrated by prostitution,
public masturbation,
filth, violence,
and people fighting over money, blankets and food, nor has he called for
civility from a nationwide movement presently populated by ingrates that scream
police brutality after defecating on the bumpers of squad
cars.

Which brings us back to Obama’s disingenuous attempt
to convince people that he possesses a measure of righteousness that sets him
apart from mere mortals.

When it benefited him politically and he wanted to
paint the right as impolite, he hosted a civility conference in Tucson Arizona,
quoted Scripture, and called for a measure of tolerance he demands for himself
but is unwilling to extend to anyone else.

If Hollywood liberals promise to put cash in Obama’s
2012 campaign coffers, he casually overlooks demeaning comments directed toward
Herman Cain by asinine comedians because what would otherwise be viewed as
racially-tinged humor may instead help advance his cause.

If a group of deadbeat derelicts squat in public parks
and proceed to behave like savages, if the signs they carry support “sharing the
wealth” and condemn the wealthy, and in time for the next election hold the
promise of swaying the general public toward liberal policies, then by saying
nothing the President, America’s self-proclaimed purveyor of non-discrimination
and equal rights, is condoning rape, racism,
and barefaced anti-Semitism.

By exhibiting selective indignation and failing to
address the negative racial remarks directed at potential presidential
opponents, supporting the nationwide disgrace that is the ‘Occupy’ movement, and
choosing to associate with liberal comedians who make Herman Cain the butt of
racial jokes, President Barack Obama is proving he doesn’t understand the
responsibilities of his role, or understand his place as a
leader.

Author’s content: www.jeannie-ology.com

Morning Bell: Should America Carry the U.N.?

Morning Bell: Should America Carry the U.N.?

Posted By Ericka Andersen On October 28, 2011 @ 9:46 am In American Leadership | 5 Comments

The 39-story United Nations headquarters stands on the banks of the East River in Manhattan. But now the U.N. is planning the construction of a new building next door, with a price tag pegged at $400 million — and it could soar even higher ^[1]. And since U.S. taxpayers pay 22 percent of the U.N. budget, the costs for that new building will come right out of your pocket, leading to a very serious question: Just how far should the United States go in supporting the U.N. and international organizations like it?

The issue of a new building in New York isn’t the only U.N. story to make the headlines this year. Take the issue of Palestine, which over the summer formally requested U.N. membership. If Palestine were to succeed in its unilateral efforts, it would be detrimental to U.S. interests in the region, isolate Israel, and deal a major setback to Israeli-Palestinian peace prospects. And all of that would come at the hands of an international organization over which the United States can exert strong influence but cannot control.  If Palestine is granted member status at the U.N., American interests–along with those of its allies–will be seriously harmed, requiring an even greater vigilance and financial commitment to maintain leverage for U.S. priorities.  Again, the question is posed: When does our commitment to an international organization become a problem?

In the latest installment of Heritage’s “Understanding America” series, Brett Schaefer addresses America’s role as a member of international organizations. He explains that conflicting interests will nearly always hinder forward movement on issues of peace, security, and human rights — but that doesn’t negate the benefit of having a platform for achieving U.S. interests. Schaefer further explains the risks ^[2] of participation in these bodies:

Supporting international organizations is not without consequence. It is a burden, albeit sometimes a burden worth bearing. But refusing to recognize the limitations of international organizations and their potential to cause harm does a disservice to the American people.

Joining with friendly nations for a mutual benefit or avenue to problem solving can prove to be valuable for the United States, but America’s leaders must never sacrifice the greater American interest for the sake of compromise. When does our commitment to an international organization become a problem? That’s a question U.S. leaders must continually ask themselves. Schaefer ^[2] explains how the United States must seek to strike that balance:

If the United States is not to undermine its interests, it must abandon its default position of supporting and engaging with international organizations regardless of their performance. Instead, the U.S. must assess honestly whether each organization works, whether its mission is focused and attainable and not dependent on “good faith” that does not exist, and whether it advances U.S. interests.

International organizations are a tool to attain a goal, not an end in themselves. They are one way for the U.S. to defend its interests and to seek to address problems in concert with other nations. But they are not the only option, and their strengths and weaknesses should be clearly understood.

America played a key role in the founding of the U.N., so our stake in its success is important. But there are always risks in working with other nations — and each international organization relies at least in part on the good faith of those involved. However, each country’s own priorities come first, which is why American leadership must be eternally vigilant in assessing the record and actions of participating countries.

That is true when it comes to issues such as America’s financial commitment to the U.N., particularly as the organization considers constructing a costly new complex in Manhattan. And that vigilance is even more imperative on issues of international security and the promotion of ideals at odds with America’s interests abroad, as is the case with Palestine’s bid for recognition in the U.N.

In a 1985 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, President Ronald Reagan addressed the U.N.’s role head on–and the need for America to remain vigilant, noting, “The vision of the U.N. Charter–to spare succeeding generations this scourge of war–remains real. It still stirs our soul and warms our hearts, but it also demands of us a realism that is rock hard, clear-eyed, steady, and sure–a realism that understands the nations of the United Nations are not united.” Those words hold true today and should guide America’s understanding of its commitment to international organizations but also the realities and limitations of its engagement.

Willful blindness

Jerry Philipson

The United States Department of Justice, which
includes the Federal Bureau Of Investigation (the FBI) and the National Security
Division, has been
ordered to remove all references to Islam from any
examination of Islamic terror in its training materials and procedures. That
means investigation of the Islamic beliefs, motives and goals of Islamic
terrorists in the U.S. is verboten in the Department Of Justice and the rest of
the Federal Government because accurate, knowledgeable, honest and objective
discussion of Islam has been forbidden and is no longer possible there. Islam
cannot be examined in depth or criticized in any way, shape or form and woe
betide any government employee who does.

Beyond that, Islamic apologists and supremacists whose
purpose is to turn America into an Islamic state governed by Islamic Law are the
only people the government allows to speak about Islam to its employees and they
present a distorted and totally false portrait of it which has nothing to do
with reality and history and everything to do with bringing about the downfall
of the country.

These edicts come straight from the top, straight from
President Obama, and they are a clear, unequivocal threat to freedom of speech
and freedom of expression and the survival of the United States as a free,
democratic, secular, pluralistic nation. Thanks to Obama, the tyranny of Islam
has come to the Federal Government and if Americans aren’t careful it will come
to the rest of the country as well. It is entirely predictable that Obama will
attempt to extend these edicts in some form to the American people
themselves…if he is allowed to get away with it the United States is doomed,
pure and simple. Islam and Islamists are evil personified and the U.S. is in a
war for survival with them, even if Obama doesn’t want you to think so and won’t
allow you to say so.

Memo to Americans: vote the bum out of office and
fight him at every turn because if you don’t there won’t be an America
left.

And don’t forget, as America goes so goes the
world.

The Justice Department’s war on the truth

The Justice Department’s  war on the truth

---

Posted: October 25, 2011
3:31 pm Eastern

© 2011

 

The U.S. Department of Justice is becoming a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Obama administration is bowing to Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups and stopping the use of all training materials for law enforcement and  national security officials that refer to jihad and any and all references to  Islam. Yet Anwar al-Awlaki was a devout imam who preached the Quran. So  let me understand this: Obama executed Awlaki for preaching  jihad. That was all he did. Awlaki did not kill anyone. And yet Obama  orders law enforcement to drop all mention of jihad and the Islamic motivation  of terrorists. What’s the difference?

Why did he kill Awlaki?

The Justice Department held a seminar last week on  “Confronting Discrimination in the Post 9-11 Era.” Among the treacherous  conspirators indoctrinating believers and non-believers was the notorious Jew-hating pollster James Zogby and the ghastly leader of the  Muslim Brotherhood-tied Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Mohammed Magid.

James Lafferty, a board member of my organization, the American Freedom  Defense Initiative (AFDI), was there and reported: “Speaker after speaker  recited anecdote after anecdote which demonstrated that, except for the Justice  Department, law enforcement is conspiring with ‘bigoted’ Americans to suspend  the First Amendment protections of religious expression and free speech.”

The DOJ promised to fight that “bigotry” by changing training materials  designed to help law enforcement officials understand the jihad threat. Dwight  Holton, the U.S. attorney in Oregon, said: “I want to be perfectly clear about  this: Training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a  tendency toward violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to  everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice  stands for. They will not be tolerated.”

The only ones really responsible for the idea that Islam  is “a religion of violence or with a tendency toward violence” are the Muslims  who act violently and justify their violence by quoting the Quran. That isn’t  “bigotry.” It’s the truth.

This comes fresh on the heels of my recent WND column, “Obama’s  Department of Shariah,” describing how the DOJ is actively pursing cases to  gain special privileges for Muslims. In case after case, the Department of  Justice’s pursuit of the Shariah is surpassed only by that of the Supreme  Council of Al-Azhar, the most prestigious institution in Sunni Islam.

How can Obama enforce the blasphemy laws of the Shariah (do not criticize,  offend or speak truthfully about Islam) and order the killing of Imam Awlaki?  Think about that.

Banning study of the religious motivation of Muslim  terrorists has been a cornerstone of this national-security policy  throughout the Obama administration, but Obama orders the executions of those  who are proselytizing for and advancing what they present as pure Islam,  authentic Islam.

What is this policy? Perhaps Obama prefers the stealth  jihad, and the violent jihad only calls attention to  the true nature of Islamic law. Incoherent is a best-case scenario  explanation on this, but I do not believe that. In my book “The  Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America,” I give  the details of his pro-Islam leanings from the beginning of his career. And now  as president, on foreign policy, he has aided and abetted the overthrow of  secular governments. Libya, like Tunisia and Egypt, is heading toward becoming  an Islamic state. His anti-Israel policies have led to the increased isolation  of the tiny Jewish state, making it a ripe target for Islamic imperialists and  devout Muslims.

And his Department of Justice is on the offense against America. While doing  research for my book “Stop  the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance,” I  discovered some startling information about the full extent  of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the Department of Justice and its brazen  pro-Muslim activities, including the creation  of Muslim-majority legislative districts. And when I inquired  for documentation related to these activities, the DOJ’s response to me  indicated that the agency’s ties with Islamic supremacist groups are far more  extensive than anyone has realized. Nelson Hermilla of the DOJ responded,  telling me that my request involved 14,100 documents that I could only get by  paying $1,400.

It is a bombshell that there would be more than 14,000 documents identified  as a result of the FOIA request I made to the Department of Justice. I made a  relatively isolated request on a narrow topic the Civil Rights Division really  doesn’t even have direct jurisdiction over (“Muslim outreach”), and they come up  with over 14,000 documents.

Hermilla complained that “it is not clear in what manner the collection of  all five-year’s records might contribute to the general public understanding.”  That they would challenge the “public interest” aspect of my request is also  astounding. Given the recent coverage of the DOJ’s scuttling  of the prosecution of CAIR officials in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas funding  case, and its advocacy for the Muslim schoolteacher  who demanded a month off to go to Mecca and was given $75,000 in a  settlement, their claim is flimsy.

Hermilla is flouting the law by making me wait for eight months now since my  first request, making a mockery of Obama’s promise to run a transparent  administration and suppressing information that is critical for the American  public to know. They still have not turned over any of these documents.

Concurrently, DOJ whistleblower J. Christian Adams has  revealed that “all 10 new hires to the Justice  Department’s Criminal Section have far-left resumes.” Every hire Holder  is making is one that America will have to live with long after Obama is gone.  They have put in place the legal apparatus to pursue a  treasonous agenda.

The American people should demand that the next president prosecute the  Muslim Brotherhood co-conspirators and pledge to purge their operatives in the  Department of Justice, Department of State and Department of  Defense.

Obama’s ‘tide of war’ idiocy

Jerry
Philipson

When President Obama announced the withdrawal of all
American troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 Friday, he said, “The tide of war
is receding,” and used this statement as justification for the decision to
leave.

The statement is one of the most idiotic, misleading
and just plain false statements Obama has made about the Middle East since he
took office. There have been many others but this one stands out for its
ignorance and duplicity.

The tide of war in the Middle East is most certainly
not receding. It is exactly the opposite and this is in large part because of
Obama’s feckless foreign policy and refusal to stand up for American interests
in the region and support American allies there.  Because of American weakness
and intransigence, a large-scale conflagration involving many players is
inevitable and this has to be placed on Obama’s shoulders.

American respect and influence in the Middle East has
been almost totally diminished since Obama took office.  All over the Middle
East America’s enemies are taking advantage of the vacuum that has been created
and are busily preparing for war on a grand scale, against the United States,
against Israel and against each other.  When Obama says “The tide of war is
receding” and using that as justification to pull American troops out of Iraq
he’s really saying that he doesn’t know what to do about the Middle East, that
he’s washing his hands of the place and that he’s abandoning America’s remaining
friends and allies there, like Israel and Saudi Arabia.  He’s also telling the
world that he’s willing to accept the rise of Islamism and Islamists throughout
the region even though this threatens the national security of the United States
itself because he doesn’t know what to do about that either.

So the tide of war is receding is
it?

Not in Iraq it isn’t. The country is embroiled in
sectarian and religious warfare which is only going to get worse once America
leaves, and the government there could easily collapse as a
result.

Not in Libya it isn’t.  The country is about to be
plunged into a bloody civil war now that there is no central authority holding
it together.

Not in Egypt it isn’t.  Ever since President Mubarak
was driven from office Egypt has become more antagonistic to the United States
and Israel, and that antagonism could easily lead to bloodshed and war in the
foreseeable future.

Not in Syria it isn’t.  Syrians are already fighting a
brutal civil war, with the regime showing no signs of backing down and ending
its vicious, pitiless repression.

Not in Iran it isn’t.  Iran is close to becoming a
nuclear power and is becoming more and more militaristic every day, especially
towards Israel and the US but really towards everyone else in the region too,
with results that are entirely predictable.

Not in Turkey it isn’t. The Turks are turning away
from the West and becoming more hostile and threatening as we
speak.

Noin Gaza and the West Bank it isn’t.  Palestinians
are becoming bolder by the minute and another intifada is virtually a foregone
conclusion.

Not in Israel it isn’t.  Israelis are feeling very
isolated and alone and may launch preemptive attacks as a matter of national
survival, especially against Iran.

Not in Saudi Arabia it isn’t.  The Saudis have been
begging the Americans for years to rid the Middle East of the Iranian threat to
them and everyone else.  They have come to the conclusion that America will do
no such thing and have decided to defend themselves if necessary, even if that
means nuclear war.

Not in Afghanistan it isn’t.  The war there is ongoing
and there can be no doubt that the country will implode once the United States
leaves.

Not anywhere that Islamists and Islamism are rising to
the fore it isn’t, which is to say everywhere in the Middle East except Israel.
Islamists and Islamism are mortal enemies of the United States and their rise
guarantees internecine warfare in the region and eventual war against the
US.

For a President of the United States to say that “The
tide of war is receding.” is beyond idiotic, misleading, false, ignorant and
blind. It is also very, very dangerous and severely compromises America’s
national security and way of life.  Obama is clearly unfit for office and the
sooner he’s drummed out of office the better.  Our survival depends on
it.

Mr. Obama, if we’re gonna start quoting The Beatles…

Stu Tarlowe

President Obama, in his remarks following the
announcement of the death of Muammar Gaddafi, said, “Libya will travel a long
and winding road to democracy.”

To many of us “of a certain age”, that phrase evokes
the Beatles tune “The Long and Winding Road.”

And, for me at least, hearing President Obama employ
the title of a Beatles tune put me in mind of any number of other Beatles tunes
that I can relate to Barack Obama and his presidency.

Mr. President, I’m Looking Through You, and
I’m seeing The Fool on the Hill.

When I think of what you’ve done, and what you’re
doing, to this great nation, I think Isn’t It a Pity.

Tell Me Why your wife Michelle acts
like Her Majesty, jetting Here, There and Everywhere with her
entourage and telling us to eat carrot sticks while she dines on Savoy
Truffle.

You have vilified some of our most productive citizens
by calling them Piggies and making Baby, You’re a Rich Man a
term of opprobrium. You Can’t Do That.

The Free Market system works, if you just Let It
Be. But you want to turn Wall Street into Penny
Lane.

Your economic policies make me want to yell
Help! and Run For Your Life. I’m afraid that When I’m
Sixty-Four I’ll still be working Eight Days a Week just to pay the
Taxman.

Plenty of folks who voted for you are already saying
I Should Have Known Better.

I hope that by the next election enough Americans wise
up and say Not a Second Time. They might even tell you to Get Back
(To Where You Once Belonged), whether that’s Indonesia or Back in the
USSR.

It Won’t Be Long before election time, and I
hope you’ll be singing I’m a Loser. Otherwise, I’ll Cry
Instead.