21 February 2010

Janet Planet's Looking the Wrong Way Again

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Feb 21, 5:31 PM (ET)By EILEEN SULLIVAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says terrorists who are U.S. citizens or live in the country legally and plot against the U.S. are just as big of a concern as international terrorists. She says that when she started as secretary a year ago, the focus was largely on international terrorists who want to harm U.S. interests. But in the past year, more of the violent extremism that has been seen overseas is showing up in the U.S. She says officials need to drill down and analyze the factors that make a young person, raised in the U.S., migrate to extremist beliefs and actions. Napolitano was speaking to governors who are in Washington for their annual conference.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100221/D9E0R8H02.html


How much you wanna bet the definition for "domestic terrorist" will be very elastic in the hands of Janet (No Borders) Planet.  Don't think it would be a big leap to think that it might include anybody who watches Fox news, listens to talk radio, or votes conservative, do you?  She's been warming up to this for a while.  Remember when she asserted that our own guys coming home from war were "dangerous" to us?  Planet's got a disturbing habit of being paranoid about the good guys, and not paying any attention whatsoever to the unchecked populations crossing our southern border or the people with their laundry on their heads who tell us, over and over again that they want to kill us.



Thomas Sowell has it Right on Obama

thomassowell_b2.jpg
Dismantling America 
By Thomas Sowell
October 27, 2009
Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers-- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.

How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.

We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.

How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.

Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.

Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God damn America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government-- people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.  Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.

Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year-- each bill more than a thousand pages long-- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question-- and the biggest question for this generation.

---
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.

Glenn Beck's CPAC Keynote Speech

See Glenn Beck's CPAC Keynote speech here, via an interesting blogger I happened upon this morning.

That Crazy Kid!

During the NH primary, Obama actively supported this man.  Even took time out from his schedule in the Granite State to get on the phone to help his campaign.  Who is he?  An Islamic extremist leader in Kenya, Raila Odinga.  I mean, I know it was, like, I dunno... years ago... I mean, he was just a kid, after all, but shouldn't it matter?  Pshaw.  When Obama went to Kenya and campaigned for him on the ground there, it was waaay back in two thousand...six.  That was, like, one, two, three, four whole years ago!  I'm sure a lot's changed since then...   New York Sun article on Obama and Raila Odinga, below.


Section: Opinion > Printer-Friendly Version

The Kenya Connection

By DANIEL JOHNSON | January 10, 2008
As he reminded us again after losing narrowly to Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, Barack Obama likes to evoke Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech.

We must all hope that, like King's, Mr. Obama's dream is "deeply rooted in the American dream." But before giving him the keys to the White House, Americans might like to know a little more about the content of Mr. Obama's dream.

Let me propose an unlikely place to start looking: Kenya. Even in the midst of the primaries, the horrific scenes from that country since the disputed election on December 27 will not have escaped most people. In particular, the burning of a church with up to 50 men, women, and children inside, while machete-armed mobs slaughter up to 600 more people, have evoked memories of the Rwandan genocide of 1994.

Who is behind these massacres? The opposition leader, Raila Odinga, has had a good press in the West, after he accused the president, Mwai Kibaki, of rigging the election. But the victims of the recent violence have mostly been members of Mr. Kibaki's tribe, the Kikuyu, while those who have gone berserk are supporters of Mr. Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement, which is dominated by the rival Luo tribe.

Whether Mr. Odinga has ordered his men to commit murder and arson is unclear. But his own background does not exactly suggest enthusiasm for democracy and the rule of law. Mr. Odinga's father, Oginga Odinga, led the Communist opposition during the Cold War and Raila Odinga was educated in Communist East Germany.

In 1982 he was implicated in a failed coup against the then president Daniel Arap Moi. His eldest son is named after Fidel Castro and his daughter after Winnie Mandela.

Even more sinister has been Mr. Odinga's electoral pact with the National Muslim Leaders' Forum — a hardline Islamist organization that represents Kenya's Muslim minority. According to this document, dated August 29, 2007, Mr. Odinga promised the Muslim leaders that, if elected, he would establish Sharia courts, not only in the northern and coastal regions where Kenyan Muslims are concentrated, but throughout the country.

He also promised to impose Muslim dress codes on women, ban alcohol and pork, indoctrinate children, ban Christian preaching, and dismiss the Commissioner of Police "who has allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists."

In short, Mr. Odinga in effect offered to Islamize Kenya in return for Muslim votes, despite the fact that Muslims make up only 10% of the population, compared to the 80% who are Christian. Mr. Odinga himself is nominally an Anglican, yet he signed a document that refers to Islam throughout as "the one true religion" and denigrates Christians as "worshippers of the cross."

Whether it is likely, as Mr. Odinga claims, that his party won the election with such a program, only to have it stolen by Mr. Kibaki, I cannot say. Nor am I qualified to speculate about why Mr. Odinga threw in his lot with the Islamists. It should certainly concern us that one of Africa's most stable and pro-Western countries is apparently threatened with the same grim fate that has befallen other East African states, such as Sudan and Somalia.

What, you will be asking by now, what does any of this have to do with Barack Obama? Well, Mr. Obama's father came from Kenya and his son is proud to call himself a Luo. His Kenyan relations boast that, even if they cannot get a Luo into the Kenyan presidential residence, they can look forward to a Luo in the White House.

Indeed, the connection may be even closer than a tribal one. Mr. Odinga even claims that Mr. Obama is his cousin, because the senator's father was Mr. Odinga's maternal uncle. Whether or not this true, the two men are friends and political allies.

In August 2006, Mr. Obama visited Kenya and spoke in support of Mr. Odinga's candidacy at rallies in Nairobi. The Web site Atlas Shrugs has even posted a photograph of the two men side by side. More recently, Mr. Odinga says that Mr. Obama interrupted his campaigning in New Hampshire to have a telephone conversation with his African cousin about the constitutional crisis in Kenya.

What should Americans make of Mr. Obama's Kenyan connection? If he has been putting tribal or family considerations above America's national interest by supporting Mr. Odinga's anti-Western candidacy, it raises serious questions about his judgement.

At the time of his visit in 2006, President Kibaki's spokesman complained that Mr. Obama was behaving like a "stooge" of Mr. Odinga — which was at best undignified for a visiting American senator, and at worst unwarranted interference in the internal politics of another country.

Even more serious are the doubts raised by Mr. Obama's attitude toward Islam, which has so far received much less scrutiny than might be expected in a post-September 11 presidential election.
If Mr. Obama did not know about Mr. Odinga's electoral deal with the Kenyan Islamists when he offered his support, then he should have known. If he did know, then he is guilty of lending the prestige of his office to America's enemies in the global war on terror. We need to know exactly what Mr. Obama knew about Mr. Odinga, and precisely when he knew it.

Obama: Redistribution of Wealth, FORCED by Gov't Regulation is "Neighborly"

"What's the big deal?" Obama LITERALLY says here. "What's the big deal?" "What's the big deal?" I'll tell you what the big deal is! IT'S SOCIALISM! It's ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL. Helooooooo? Anybody LISTENING out there??????? Only the first minute or so is relevant here. The rest is on the issue of his birth certificate. BTW: When explaining to my children what taxes are, and why grownups hate them, I explained the concept of redistribution of wealth to my children this way: What if you got 100 on a test and the kid next to you got a 60. The teacher walks over with a pencil and changes both scores to 80 so you're both the same and every body is even. How do you feel? THAT'S REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. And for the record: I'm not anti-tax. We need to have some sort of system in place for all of us to have "skin in the game" of keeping us safe, etc. It's the CONFISCATORY taxes I object to!

9 Minutes of My Life I'll Never Get Back...

Rachel Maddow spends nearly nine minutes here proving NOTHING, but I have liberal friends who will tell me "But she had video clips so I believe her."  I hate to trot out the tired old theme of OUT OF CONTEXT, but she has taken these clips COMPLETELY out of context. It won't seem that way, because she will say that his seemingly contradictory statements come from the same show, as proof of something... I'll get to that.

She asserts that Beck lies when he says he never said that one big snowstorm disproves global warming then plays clips of him making fun of the snowstorm when the earth is supposedly warming... What she DOESN'T play are clips of him saying, and there are MANY, that "weather" isn't "climate" AND COUNTLESS clips of members of the cult of global warming asserting that weather IS climate, like Robert Kennedy, just last year, saying that "DC WILL NEVER SEE SNOW AGAIN" (or words to that effect.)

She asserts that Beck has pointed to weather many times as proof that global warming doesn't exist.  That's right.  He points out cold weather.  He points out warm weather.  She can play those clips all day long and it will SEEM, to the woefully uninformed, that she is RIGHT and that Beck, is indeed lying.

WRONG.

Charles Krauthammer got it right, and is the underpinning of Beck's comments that Maddow says are contradictory.  If she played his entire 13 minute rant (or however long it was, I happened to hear it live) you would have heard it.  Krauthammer, who holds a medical degree, said, in essence, that in science, if something proves everything, then it proves nothing.  The global warming (now climate change - there's your sign right there) freaks are the ones running around calling EVERY WEATHER EVENT a sign of global warming.  LOOK IT UP.  I'm not going to do it, it's a waste of my time.  Just writing this blog piece is damned near a waste of my time because this whole thing is so RIDICULOUS. I just can't take these limousine liberals sniffing that Maddow is so smart and reasoned because she has "clips."  Uh-huh.

THERE IS NO SETTLED SCIENCE ON THIS.  NONE.  And the science that was supposedly settled is now so hopelessly corrupted that it's a JOKE.

Watch this is you must.  It's almost unbearable because her pomposity is rooted in an assertion that is fundamentally flawed, so it's kinda painful to see her flailing about, but I leave it here so that you can watch and make your own conclusions if you must...but let me repeat:  It's the climate change cult that points to every weather event as proof of their corrupted science and THAT is what Beck is making fun of here!  AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!