Not Obama's Fault...
Our National Security
Government Spending
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Stop the EU Bailout!
Representative Mike Pence (R, IN) has introduced a bill that would prevent US taxpayter dollars from going to the IMF (International Monetary Fund) bailout for Greece. Instead, it required that countries like Greece cut spending and put their physical house in order.
Frankly, why should the United States bail out Greece? We face our own set of problems and would have to borrow the money to give to Greece. Does that make ANY SENSE? We're facing record unemployment and a deficit crisis of our own. Why should WE be forced to bear the risk of other nations that have spent recklessly?
This bill does not permanently prohibit the IMF from lending to these troubled nations. It simply prohibits the United States from participating in the European bailout. Doesn't this make sense America?
Ask yourself these questions: Who is the IMF? Where are they? How do you contact them? What countries do they represent? Why put them in charge of our Country? Can we afford another $20 BILLION in debt?
Action To Take
Contact your representative and tell them to give full support for this legislation. We cannot afford ANY MORE BAILOUTS!
Frankly, why should the United States bail out Greece? We face our own set of problems and would have to borrow the money to give to Greece. Does that make ANY SENSE? We're facing record unemployment and a deficit crisis of our own. Why should WE be forced to bear the risk of other nations that have spent recklessly?
This bill does not permanently prohibit the IMF from lending to these troubled nations. It simply prohibits the United States from participating in the European bailout. Doesn't this make sense America?
Ask yourself these questions: Who is the IMF? Where are they? How do you contact them? What countries do they represent? Why put them in charge of our Country? Can we afford another $20 BILLION in debt?
Action To Take
Contact your representative and tell them to give full support for this legislation. We cannot afford ANY MORE BAILOUTS!
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Featured Article - Supreme Nomination
Obama’s Supreme Court pick looks wobbly on freedom of speech
by Jacob Sullum - senior editor at Reason.com and a nationally syndicated columnist.
"Last month New York Times legal writer Adam Liptak said two recent Supreme Court cases 'suggest that the Roberts Court is prepared to adopt a robustly libertarian view of the constitutional protection of free speech.' Elena Kagan, President Obama’s nominee to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, was on the losing side in both.
As solicitor general, of course, Kagan has an obligation to defend federal laws against constitutional challenges. But her pro-censorship positions went beyond the call of duty. Together with some of her academic writings, her arguments in these cases provide grounds to worry that she will be even less inclined than Stevens, who has a mixed First Amendment record, to support freedom of speech.
Defending a 1999 federal ban on depictions of animal cruelty, Kagan boldly asked the Supreme Court to recognize a new category of speech that, along with such historical exceptions as defamation, incitement, and obscenity, is entirely outside the scope of the First Amendment. 'Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection,' she wrote, 'depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.'
Writing for the 8-to-1 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts called this claim 'startling and dangerous,' adding: 'The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.'
Defending federal restrictions on political speech by corporations, Kagan tried to paper over an equally startling claim by Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, who had told the Court that the Federal Election Commission could ban books in the name of preventing the appearance of corruption. 'The government's answer has changed,' she said during a second round of oral arguments in September. But it later became clear that she agreed with Stewart, although she tried to reassure the Court by emphasizing that so far the FEC had not tried to ban any books.
There is evidence in Kagan's academic articles that her overzealous defenses of federal censorship were more than a function of her job. In a 1993 essay published by The University of Chicago Law Review, for instance, she suggested how supporters of bans on pornography and "hate speech" could pursue their goals despite that pesky First Amendment. Her proposals included bans on "works that are both sexually explicit and sexually violent," a redefinition of obscenity to focus on material deemed harmful to women (which would then be unprotected—an idea that anticipated Kagan's argument in the animal cruelty case), "hate crime" laws that boost penalties for existing offenses when they’re motivated by bigotry, and laws "prohibiting carefully defined kinds of harassment, threats, or intimidation."
More fundamentally, Kagan's understanding of First Amendment law, described most fully in a 1996 University of Chicago Law Review article, suggests a tolerance for censorship when it is appropriately disguised by euphemisms. In Kagan's view, the main goal of First Amendment doctrine is not to maximize freedom or promote robust debate but to ferret out impermissible motives for speech restrictions.
While the government may constitutionally restrict speech based on "neutrally conceived harms," Kagan says, it may not restrict speech based on "hostility toward ideas." But as she herself more or less acknowledges, this distinction ultimately collapses because people are hostile to ideas they consider harmful.
Whether the issue is pornography, bigotry, dogfight videos, or political ads sponsored by corporations, would-be censors always claim the speech they want to outlaw causes harm. Without a theory about what sort of harm (if any) can justify speech restrictions, we are left with the "ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits" that the First Amendment was intended to prevent."
Action To Take
Tell your Senators to vote "NO" because she won't defend the 1st Amendment.
by Jacob Sullum - senior editor at Reason.com and a nationally syndicated columnist.
"Last month New York Times legal writer Adam Liptak said two recent Supreme Court cases 'suggest that the Roberts Court is prepared to adopt a robustly libertarian view of the constitutional protection of free speech.' Elena Kagan, President Obama’s nominee to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, was on the losing side in both.
As solicitor general, of course, Kagan has an obligation to defend federal laws against constitutional challenges. But her pro-censorship positions went beyond the call of duty. Together with some of her academic writings, her arguments in these cases provide grounds to worry that she will be even less inclined than Stevens, who has a mixed First Amendment record, to support freedom of speech.
Defending a 1999 federal ban on depictions of animal cruelty, Kagan boldly asked the Supreme Court to recognize a new category of speech that, along with such historical exceptions as defamation, incitement, and obscenity, is entirely outside the scope of the First Amendment. 'Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection,' she wrote, 'depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.'
Writing for the 8-to-1 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts called this claim 'startling and dangerous,' adding: 'The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.'
Defending federal restrictions on political speech by corporations, Kagan tried to paper over an equally startling claim by Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, who had told the Court that the Federal Election Commission could ban books in the name of preventing the appearance of corruption. 'The government's answer has changed,' she said during a second round of oral arguments in September. But it later became clear that she agreed with Stewart, although she tried to reassure the Court by emphasizing that so far the FEC had not tried to ban any books.
There is evidence in Kagan's academic articles that her overzealous defenses of federal censorship were more than a function of her job. In a 1993 essay published by The University of Chicago Law Review, for instance, she suggested how supporters of bans on pornography and "hate speech" could pursue their goals despite that pesky First Amendment. Her proposals included bans on "works that are both sexually explicit and sexually violent," a redefinition of obscenity to focus on material deemed harmful to women (which would then be unprotected—an idea that anticipated Kagan's argument in the animal cruelty case), "hate crime" laws that boost penalties for existing offenses when they’re motivated by bigotry, and laws "prohibiting carefully defined kinds of harassment, threats, or intimidation."
More fundamentally, Kagan's understanding of First Amendment law, described most fully in a 1996 University of Chicago Law Review article, suggests a tolerance for censorship when it is appropriately disguised by euphemisms. In Kagan's view, the main goal of First Amendment doctrine is not to maximize freedom or promote robust debate but to ferret out impermissible motives for speech restrictions.
While the government may constitutionally restrict speech based on "neutrally conceived harms," Kagan says, it may not restrict speech based on "hostility toward ideas." But as she herself more or less acknowledges, this distinction ultimately collapses because people are hostile to ideas they consider harmful.
Whether the issue is pornography, bigotry, dogfight videos, or political ads sponsored by corporations, would-be censors always claim the speech they want to outlaw causes harm. Without a theory about what sort of harm (if any) can justify speech restrictions, we are left with the "ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits" that the First Amendment was intended to prevent."
Action To Take
Tell your Senators to vote "NO" because she won't defend the 1st Amendment.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Featured Article - What About the Cap & Trade bill
Renewable energy: good or bad for seniors?
by 60 Plus Association
"What’s wrong with renewable energy? Well, on the surface, nothing. Any comprehensive energy policy needs to include renewable energy to ensure energy independence for our nation over the long term.
But, the key to increased reliance upon renewable energy is its gradual implementation, over the long term. America’s energy providers have invested billions into our current energy providing infrastructure – all paid for by you through your monthly utility bills. Further investments need to be made to effectively and reliably produce and utilize renewable energy resources.
The cost of those needed investments: hundreds of billions of dollars. Renewable resources are much more expensive than our current energy-producing assets, and in these uncertain economic times, an aggressive renewable energy standard (RES) will result in a sharp increase in utility bills when people can least afford them. Worse, energy costs are regressive, meaning, the less one earns the higher percentage of his or her income is spent – which generally describes seniors who live on fixed incomes.
Daryl Bassett, Director of Empower Consumers, said it best in his April 23, 2009 testimony before the House Committee on Energy & Commerce:
“Older Americans are disproportionately affected by higher energy costs. As a share of income, households headed by a person age 65 or older spend more on energy bills than younger households. As CRS recently reported, ‘Older households account for approximately 20% of our nation’s total consumption on energy-related products. Although in actual dollar terms older households spend slightly less on energy-related consumption than households headed by a person under age 65, they spend a higher share of their income on energy-related expenditures.’ …In this sense, a federal RES behaves like a regressive income tax.”
Last June, the U.S. House of Representatives barely passed a federal RES that would require a mandated percentage of energy to be produced from renewable resources. Again, a laudable goal, but one that will have a serious negative impact for many of our retired citizens, especially since this legislation did not include adequate cost-containment measures to ensure consumers don’t get hit with massive increases in their energy costs."
by 60 Plus Association
"What’s wrong with renewable energy? Well, on the surface, nothing. Any comprehensive energy policy needs to include renewable energy to ensure energy independence for our nation over the long term.
But, the key to increased reliance upon renewable energy is its gradual implementation, over the long term. America’s energy providers have invested billions into our current energy providing infrastructure – all paid for by you through your monthly utility bills. Further investments need to be made to effectively and reliably produce and utilize renewable energy resources.
The cost of those needed investments: hundreds of billions of dollars. Renewable resources are much more expensive than our current energy-producing assets, and in these uncertain economic times, an aggressive renewable energy standard (RES) will result in a sharp increase in utility bills when people can least afford them. Worse, energy costs are regressive, meaning, the less one earns the higher percentage of his or her income is spent – which generally describes seniors who live on fixed incomes.
Daryl Bassett, Director of Empower Consumers, said it best in his April 23, 2009 testimony before the House Committee on Energy & Commerce:
“Older Americans are disproportionately affected by higher energy costs. As a share of income, households headed by a person age 65 or older spend more on energy bills than younger households. As CRS recently reported, ‘Older households account for approximately 20% of our nation’s total consumption on energy-related products. Although in actual dollar terms older households spend slightly less on energy-related consumption than households headed by a person under age 65, they spend a higher share of their income on energy-related expenditures.’ …In this sense, a federal RES behaves like a regressive income tax.”
Last June, the U.S. House of Representatives barely passed a federal RES that would require a mandated percentage of energy to be produced from renewable resources. Again, a laudable goal, but one that will have a serious negative impact for many of our retired citizens, especially since this legislation did not include adequate cost-containment measures to ensure consumers don’t get hit with massive increases in their energy costs."
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Progressive "Logic"
The latest argument against the new Arizona law is that according to MSNBC it is "A crime to be Illegal." HUH? That's the gist of the liberal lame Stream media's message to Americans. According to the Washington Post, "Arizona's law makes what is already a federal offense, being in the country illegally, a state offense." So why is it racist to enforce Federal law? Really, think about it. Why the outrage? They are using the logic of a two year old to try and condemn the new law.
Let's face it, Progressive politicians support open borders and they are not bothered by ILLEGAL immigration. They actually want ILLEGALS to get amnesty so they can give them entitlements and get their votes to continue the freebies. The Federal government is not sufficiently enforcing the law, and now Progressives are outraged that Arizona just might.
Obama recently bashed the new law saying that it was "misguided" and he warned that "it threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness." So in affect, he has helped stir-up the controversy by using factually inaccurate statements and by making false accusations. Isn't that dangerous? Shouldn't the President set a better example? Shouldn't the President be trying to unify the nation instead of dividing it? As a result of his speech, thousands took the streets in protest of the new law. Obama IS PART OF THE PROBLEM! He is ignoring his responsibility to enforce the Federal law. (So did Bush and Clinton).
The Progressive's historical outrage speaks volumes. Let's hope Americans are listening and remember to vote-out these illogical trouble makers.
Let's face it, Progressive politicians support open borders and they are not bothered by ILLEGAL immigration. They actually want ILLEGALS to get amnesty so they can give them entitlements and get their votes to continue the freebies. The Federal government is not sufficiently enforcing the law, and now Progressives are outraged that Arizona just might.
Obama recently bashed the new law saying that it was "misguided" and he warned that "it threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness." So in affect, he has helped stir-up the controversy by using factually inaccurate statements and by making false accusations. Isn't that dangerous? Shouldn't the President set a better example? Shouldn't the President be trying to unify the nation instead of dividing it? As a result of his speech, thousands took the streets in protest of the new law. Obama IS PART OF THE PROBLEM! He is ignoring his responsibility to enforce the Federal law. (So did Bush and Clinton).
The Progressive's historical outrage speaks volumes. Let's hope Americans are listening and remember to vote-out these illogical trouble makers.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Duties of the President
The Founding Fathers clearly spelled-out the duties of the President of the United States. None of these duties mentions the government take-over of GM, the banks, credit unions, home mortgages, college loans, public healthcare, or Wall Street. Nor is there any mention of appointing Czars without Congress confirming them. And finally, they do NOT give the President authority to determine the salaries for employees of private companies or let him determine who is "to big to fail." See for yourself…
Taken from the Constitution, here are the duties of the President:
Taken from the Constitution, here are the duties of the President:
- Provision 148, Article 11.2.1: "Before he can assume the duties of his office, the President must take the following oath: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
- Provision 149, Article 11.1.8: "The President shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States and of the militia of several states when they are called into active service by the federal government."
- Provision 150, Article 11.2.1: "The President may require the opinion, in writing, of the principle officers who superintend the various bureaus and agencies, or other services of the executive department. Such officers shall be required to report to the President any pertinent information he may desire concerning those duties and responsibilities assigned to any office."
- Provision 151, Article 11.2.1: "The People of the states empower the President to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States."
- Provision 152, Article 11.2.1: "The President shall not have power to grant reprieve or pardon in the case of impeachment proceedings brought against a judge or officer of the executive branch."
- Provision153, Article 11.2.2: "The President shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided that two-thirds of the Senators who are present concur with the provisions thereof."
- Provision 154, Article 11.2.2: "The President shall nominate and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States not otherwise provided for in this Constitution."
- Provision 155, Article 11.2.2: "The Congress may, by law, delegate to the President, the various courts, or the heads of departments authority to appoint inferior officers."
- Provision 156, Article 11.2.3: "The President shall have power to fill vacancies which occur while the Senate is in recess, but such commissions shall expire at the end of the next session if the appointment has not been confirmed by the Senate."
- Provision 157, Article 11.3: "The President shall, from time to time, give the Congress a report on the stat of the union."
- Provision 158, Article 11.3: "The President shall recommend to the Congress such measures as he shall consider necessary and expedient to improve the general welfare of the nation."
- Provision 159, Article 11.3: "On extraordinary occasions, the President may call together both the House of Representatives and the Senate in a special session."
- Provision 160, Article 11.3: "Should the House and the Senate disagree as to the date of their adjournment, the President may designate the time when their adjournment shall take place."
- Provision 161, Article 11.3: "The President shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers from foreign nations."
- Provision 162, Article 11.3: "The President shall see that the federal laws are faithfully administered and executed."
- Provision 163, Article 11.3: "The President shall commission all officers of the United States."
- Provision 164, Article 11.4: "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be subject to removal from office on impeachment for, and on conviction of, treason, bribery, of other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Featured Article - Are We Safe? Ha Ha
OBAMA NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY: HOPE THEIR BOMBS DON'T WORK
by Ann Coulter, conservative political commentator and author
'It took Faisal Shahzad trying to set a car bomb in Times Square to get President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to finally use the word "terrorism." (And not referring to Tea Party activists!)
This is a major policy shift for a president who spent a month telling Americans not to "jump to conclusions" after Army doctor Nidal Malik Hasan reportedly jumped on a desk, shouted "Allahu Akbar!" and began shooting up Fort Hood.
After last weekend, now Obama is even threatening to pronounce it "Pack-i-stan" instead of "Pock-i-stahn." We know Obama is taking terrorism seriously because he took a break from his "Hope, Change & Chuckles" tour on the comedy circuit to denounce terrorists.
In a bit of macho posturing this week, Obama declared that -- contrary to the terrorists' wishes -- Americans "will not be terrorized, we will not cower in fear, we will not be intimidated."
First of all, having the Transportation Security Administration wanding infants, taking applesauce away from 93-year-old dementia patients, and forcing all Americans to produce their shoes, computers and containers with up to 3 ounces of liquid in Ziploc bags for special screening pretty much blows that "not intimidated" look Obama wants America to adopt.
"Intimidated"? How about "absolutely terrified"?
Second, it would be a little easier for the rest of us not to live in fear if the president's entire national security strategy didn't depend on average citizens happening to notice a smoldering SUV in Times Square or smoke coming from a fellow airline passenger's crotch.
But after the car bomber, the diaper bomber and the Fort Hood shooter, it has become increasingly clear that Obama's only national defense strategy is: Let's hope their bombs don't work!
If only Dr. Hasan's gun had jammed at Fort Hood, that could have been another huge foreign policy success for Obama.
The administration's fingers-crossed strategy is a follow-up to Obama's earlier and less successful "Let's Make Them Love Us!" plan.
In the past year, Obama has repeatedly apologized to Muslims for America's "mistakes."
He has apologized to Iran for President Eisenhower's taking out loon Mohammad Mossadegh, before Mossadegh turned a comparatively civilized country into a Third World hellhole. You know, like the Ayatollah has.
He has apologized to the entire Muslim world for the French and English colonizing them -- i.e. building them flush toilets.
He promised to shut down Guantanamo. And he ordered the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to be tried in the same courthouse that tried Martha Stewart.
There was also Obama's 90-degree-bow tour of the East and Middle East. For his next visit, he plans to roll on his back and have his belly scratched like Fido.
Despite favorable reviews in The New York Times, none of this put an end to Islamic terrorism.
So now, I gather, our only strategy is to hope the terrorists' bombs keep fizzling.
There's no other line of defense. In the case of the Times Square car bomber, the Department of Homeland Security failed, the Immigration and Naturalization Service failed, the CIA failed and the TSA failed. (However, the Department of Alert T-Shirt Vendors came through with flying colors, as it always does.)
Only the New York Police Department, a New York street vendor and Shahzad's Rube Goldberg bomb (I do hope he's not offended by how Jewish that sounds -- Obama can apologize) prevented a major explosion in Times Square.
Even after the NYPD de-wired the smoking car bomb, produced enough information to identify the bomb-maker, and handed it all to federal law enforcement authorities tied up in a bow, the federal government's crack "no-fly" list failed to stop Shahzad from boarding a plane to Dubai.
To be fair, at Emirates Airlines, being on a "no-fly" list makes you eligible for pre-boarding.
Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security should consider creating a "Really, REALLY No-Fly" list.
Contrary to the wild excuses being made for the federal government on all the TV networks Monday night, it's now clear that this was not a wily plan of federal investigators to allow Shahzad to board the plane in order to nab his co-conspirators. It was a flub that nearly allowed Shahzad to escape.
Meanwhile, on that same Monday at JFK airport, approximately 100,000 passengers took off their shoes, coats, belts and sunglasses for airport security.
But the "highly trained federal force" The New York Times promised us on Oct. 28, 2001, when the paper demanded that airport security be federalized, failed to stop the only guy they needed to stop at JFK last Monday -- the one who planted a bomb in the middle of Times Square days earlier.
So why were 100,000 other passengers harassed and annoyed by the TSA?
The federal government didn't stop the diaper bomber from nearly detonating a bomb over Detroit. It didn't stop a guy on the "No Fly" list from boarding a plane and coming minutes away from getting out of the country.
If our only defense to terrorism is counting on alert civilians, how about not bothering them before they board airplanes, instead of harassing them with useless airport "security" procedures?
Both of the attempted bombers who sailed through airport security, I note, were young males of the Islamic faith. I wonder if we could develop a security plan based on that information?
And speaking of a "highly trained federal force," who's working at the INS these days? Who on earth made the decision to allow Shahzad the unparalleled privilege of becoming a U.S. citizen last year?
Our "Europeans Need Not Apply" immigration policies were absurd enough before 9/11. But after 19 foreign-born Muslims, legally admitted to the U.S., murdered 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania in a single day, couldn't we tighten up our admission policies toward people from countries still performing stonings and clitorectomies?
The NYPD can't be everyplace."
by Ann Coulter, conservative political commentator and author
'It took Faisal Shahzad trying to set a car bomb in Times Square to get President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to finally use the word "terrorism." (And not referring to Tea Party activists!)
This is a major policy shift for a president who spent a month telling Americans not to "jump to conclusions" after Army doctor Nidal Malik Hasan reportedly jumped on a desk, shouted "Allahu Akbar!" and began shooting up Fort Hood.
After last weekend, now Obama is even threatening to pronounce it "Pack-i-stan" instead of "Pock-i-stahn." We know Obama is taking terrorism seriously because he took a break from his "Hope, Change & Chuckles" tour on the comedy circuit to denounce terrorists.
In a bit of macho posturing this week, Obama declared that -- contrary to the terrorists' wishes -- Americans "will not be terrorized, we will not cower in fear, we will not be intimidated."
First of all, having the Transportation Security Administration wanding infants, taking applesauce away from 93-year-old dementia patients, and forcing all Americans to produce their shoes, computers and containers with up to 3 ounces of liquid in Ziploc bags for special screening pretty much blows that "not intimidated" look Obama wants America to adopt.
"Intimidated"? How about "absolutely terrified"?
Second, it would be a little easier for the rest of us not to live in fear if the president's entire national security strategy didn't depend on average citizens happening to notice a smoldering SUV in Times Square or smoke coming from a fellow airline passenger's crotch.
But after the car bomber, the diaper bomber and the Fort Hood shooter, it has become increasingly clear that Obama's only national defense strategy is: Let's hope their bombs don't work!
If only Dr. Hasan's gun had jammed at Fort Hood, that could have been another huge foreign policy success for Obama.
The administration's fingers-crossed strategy is a follow-up to Obama's earlier and less successful "Let's Make Them Love Us!" plan.
In the past year, Obama has repeatedly apologized to Muslims for America's "mistakes."
He has apologized to Iran for President Eisenhower's taking out loon Mohammad Mossadegh, before Mossadegh turned a comparatively civilized country into a Third World hellhole. You know, like the Ayatollah has.
He has apologized to the entire Muslim world for the French and English colonizing them -- i.e. building them flush toilets.
He promised to shut down Guantanamo. And he ordered the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to be tried in the same courthouse that tried Martha Stewart.
There was also Obama's 90-degree-bow tour of the East and Middle East. For his next visit, he plans to roll on his back and have his belly scratched like Fido.
Despite favorable reviews in The New York Times, none of this put an end to Islamic terrorism.
So now, I gather, our only strategy is to hope the terrorists' bombs keep fizzling.
There's no other line of defense. In the case of the Times Square car bomber, the Department of Homeland Security failed, the Immigration and Naturalization Service failed, the CIA failed and the TSA failed. (However, the Department of Alert T-Shirt Vendors came through with flying colors, as it always does.)
Only the New York Police Department, a New York street vendor and Shahzad's Rube Goldberg bomb (I do hope he's not offended by how Jewish that sounds -- Obama can apologize) prevented a major explosion in Times Square.
Even after the NYPD de-wired the smoking car bomb, produced enough information to identify the bomb-maker, and handed it all to federal law enforcement authorities tied up in a bow, the federal government's crack "no-fly" list failed to stop Shahzad from boarding a plane to Dubai.
To be fair, at Emirates Airlines, being on a "no-fly" list makes you eligible for pre-boarding.
Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security should consider creating a "Really, REALLY No-Fly" list.
Contrary to the wild excuses being made for the federal government on all the TV networks Monday night, it's now clear that this was not a wily plan of federal investigators to allow Shahzad to board the plane in order to nab his co-conspirators. It was a flub that nearly allowed Shahzad to escape.
Meanwhile, on that same Monday at JFK airport, approximately 100,000 passengers took off their shoes, coats, belts and sunglasses for airport security.
But the "highly trained federal force" The New York Times promised us on Oct. 28, 2001, when the paper demanded that airport security be federalized, failed to stop the only guy they needed to stop at JFK last Monday -- the one who planted a bomb in the middle of Times Square days earlier.
So why were 100,000 other passengers harassed and annoyed by the TSA?
The federal government didn't stop the diaper bomber from nearly detonating a bomb over Detroit. It didn't stop a guy on the "No Fly" list from boarding a plane and coming minutes away from getting out of the country.
If our only defense to terrorism is counting on alert civilians, how about not bothering them before they board airplanes, instead of harassing them with useless airport "security" procedures?
Both of the attempted bombers who sailed through airport security, I note, were young males of the Islamic faith. I wonder if we could develop a security plan based on that information?
And speaking of a "highly trained federal force," who's working at the INS these days? Who on earth made the decision to allow Shahzad the unparalleled privilege of becoming a U.S. citizen last year?
Our "Europeans Need Not Apply" immigration policies were absurd enough before 9/11. But after 19 foreign-born Muslims, legally admitted to the U.S., murdered 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania in a single day, couldn't we tighten up our admission policies toward people from countries still performing stonings and clitorectomies?
The NYPD can't be everyplace."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
