No.

Red State

I am hearing from multiple, prominent people that the Republicans in Washington are seriously thinking of caving and having an on camera sit down with Barack Obama even though their pre-conditions for a meeting will not be met.

Why?

Because the GOP does not want to be seen as the Party of No.

Right now the federal government is headed into its fourth straight day of closure due to weather. The nation has not stopped operating. The markets are open. The citizenry is working. Kids are going to school. Washington may be ground to a halt, but the free people of the country are working, productive, and far better off than if bureaucrats could make it into office.

In other words, the people are doing just fine without Washington being open for business. Why then do we need more of Washington? Why then do we need more government?

If the GOP meets with Barack Obama, they will be compromising for more government at a time the people want less government. That is the fatal flaw that undermines any on camera appearance. People are not saying we can’t do better. What people are saying is that Washington will make things worse.

Unless Barack Obama is prepared to unleash the free market to drive down health care costs — a sign he could only send by rejected the pre-existing plans, which are filled with government growth and mandates — there is no point to meet with him.

The GOP should not worry about being seen as the Party of No. It was saying “No” to Obama’s agenda that got Scott Brown elected. The GOP should worry about about being seen as capitulators and compromisers willing to sell out the American people for a seat at the table or a better image with the press.

Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” The GOP should remember the American people still think that and know the GOP is all too happy to be from the government.

Mitch McConnell and John Boehner need to tell Barack Obama, “No.”

Source:

Ahmadinejad Says Iran Is Now a ‘Nuclear State’

AFP/Press TV

Fox News

Feb. 11: Iran’s official English-language TV station shows President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressing crowds gathered in Azadi Square.

TEHRAN, Iran —  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed Thursday that Iran has produced its first batch of uranium enriched to a higher level, saying his country will not be bullied by the West into curtailing its nuclear program a day after the U.S. imposed new sanctions.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated to hundreds of thousands of cheering Iranians on the anniversary of the 1979 foundation of the Islamic republic that the country was now a “nuclear state,” an announcement he’s made before. He insisted that Iran had no intention of building nuclear weapons.

It was not clear how much enriched material had actually been produced just two days after the process was announced to have started.

The United States and some of its allies accuse Tehran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to build nuclear weapons but Tehran denies the charge, saying the program is just geared toward generating electricity.

“I want to announce with a loud voice here that the first package of 20 percent fuel was produced and provided to the scientists,” he said.

Enriching uranium produces fuel for a nuclear power plants but can also be used to create material for atomic weapons if enriched further to 90 percent or more.

//

“We have the capability to enrich uranium more than 20 percent or 80 percent but we don’t enrich (to this level) because we don’t need it,” he said in a speech broadcast live on state television.

Iran announced Tuesday it was beginning the process of enriching its uranium stockpile to a higher level. The international community reacted by starting the process to impose new sanctions on Iran.

The U.S. Treasury Department went ahead on Wednesday and froze the assets in U.S. jurisdictions of a Revolutionary Guard general and four subsidiaries of a construction firm he runs for their alleged involvement in producing and spreading weapons of mass destruction.

Tehran has said it wants to further enrich the uranium — which is still substantially below the 90 percent plus level used in the fissile core of nuclear warheads — as a part of a plan to fuel its research reactor that provides medical isotopes to hundreds of thousands of Iranians undergoing cancer treatment.

But the West says Tehran is not capable of turning the material into the fuel rods needed by the reactor. Instead it fears that Iran wants to enrich the uranium to make nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad reiterated Iran’s position that it was not seeking to build nuclear weapons.

“When we say we do not manufacture the bomb, we mean it, and we do not believe in manufacturing a bomb,” he told the crowd. “If we wanted to manufacture a bomb, we would announce it.”

“We told them the Iranian nation will never give in to bullying and illogical remarks,” he said.

Western powers blame Iran for rejecting an internationally endorsed plan to export its low enriched uranium to have it further enriched abroad and returned to the country in the form of fuel rods for the Tehran reactor.

Iran, in turn, asserts it had no choice but to start enriching to higher levels because its suggested changes to the international plan were rejected.

The president said Iran will triple the production of its low-enriched uranium in the future but didn’t elaborate.

“God willing, daily production (of low enriched uranium) will be tripled,” he said.

A confidential document from the U.N. nuclear agency shared Wednesday with The Associated Press said Iran’s initial effort at higher enrichment is modest, using only a small amount of feedstock and a fraction of its capacities.

The document, relying on onsite reports from International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, also cited Iranian experts at the country’s enrichment plant at Natanz as saying that only about 10 kilograms — 22 pounds — of low enriched uranium had been fed into the cascade for further enrichment.

Source:

The U.S. Government: Willfully Blind to the Jihad

by Pamela Geller

They knew. Two years before the Fort Hood jihad massacre, the Army knew of jihadis in its ranks — and did nothing.

Investigative reporter Bill Gertz has revealed: “Almost two years before the deadly Fort Hood shooting by a radicalized Muslim officer, the U.S. Army was explicitly warned that jihadism — Islamic holy war — was a serious problem and threat to personnel in the U.S., according to participants at a major Army-sponsored conference.”

Over 350 Army officials involved in counterterror efforts attended this February 2008 conference. One of the speakers, Lt. Colonel Joseph Myers, explains the topic of his lecture: “I noted that because of our lack of understanding of Islamic doctrines, Islamic Jihad and my view that our counterintelligence function is broken, outdated and being usurped in some cases by public affairs and equal opportunity officials, we were going to get soldiers killed in America, on our own bases for that professional ignorance.”

And that’s just what happened at Fort Hood.

What makes this so profoundly disturbing is that it shows that senior level officials knew. They were explicitly warned that jihadism — Islamic holy war — was a serious problem and a threat to military personnel and civilians alike. And still they did nothing. Not only did they do nothing, but they left known jihadis like Nidal Hasan, who murdered thirteen Americans at Fort Hood in his jihad attack of November 2009, in place and unsupervised.

They knew. And still they sacrificed Americans.

Major Hasan’s June 2007 power-point presentation, which he presented to fellow doctors on grand rounds instead of giving the lecture on psychiatry they had been expecting, is accurate as a description of how mainstream Muslims have always understood Islamic jihad. It reflects the absolute rules of Islam that have been established by scholarly consensus. It is an accurate religious document, reflecting accurately Islam’s absolute law. Hasan got nothing wrong.

Christianity does not teach its adherents jihad. The objective of Christianity or Judaism is not rooted in the murder of non-believers and the absolute mandate to murder, maim and destroy until the world lives under their religious law. That is Islam. That is its goal. Muslims know this. That is why you do not see blowback and protest and outrage from the Muslims against the horrible unrelenting Islamic attacks across the world. That is why you do not hear Muslims calling out for the violence prescribed in the Qur’an to be expunged. Islamic tradition says that the end times won’t come until Muslims murder Jews wholesale: religiously mandated genocide.

If I know this, why don’t our senior level officials at the Pentagon, the FBI, and the CIA know this?

Last month the Pentagon released its report on Major Nidal Hasan’s Fort Hood massacre. The report described the massacre as a systemic breakdown within the military that permitted this Muslim Army psychiatrist, now charged with killing thirteen people, to advance through the ranks despite concerns from his superiors about his anti-American, pro-jihad statements and actions.

There is nothing wacky or extreme or radical about Hasan’s devotion to Islam. What is wacky, extreme and suicidal is the Pentagon’s review of Hasan’s jihad without mentioning or addressing Islam, and the objective of our mortal enemy – to establish Dar al Islam in Israel, Europe, and America. Nowhere does the Pentagon’s Fort Hood report discuss jihad and the ideology that mandates and commands good Muslims to wage jihad against non-Muslims.

This is surrender. And it isn’t limited just to the Fort Hood report. Did you know in the FBI’s Counter-Terrorism Manual, the word jihad is not to be found? Not once.

This is no accident. This is happening because for decades the Muslim Brotherhood (i.e., the Muslim American Society, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, etc.), has infiltrated every agency and institution at the highest levels, and they control what is said and how it can be said.

Islam has achieved absolute intellectual dominance. The Muslim Brotherhood groups in the United States control the narrative. They control information and how it is processed at senior levels of the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, and the various branches of the military.

And so they knew about the jihadis in the ranks, and did nothing. Will the thirteen dead at Fort Hood move the American people to rise up and demand an end to the Muslim Brotherhood influence in our government? If that happens, they will not have died in vain.

Source:

Obama’s Revisionist History of Terrorism

Canada Free Press

By Daniel Greenfield  Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Since taking office, Obama’s key objective on terrorism has been to transform the public perception of it from an international military conflict, to a limited domestic criminal problem. Renaming terrorism to the bureaucratically euphonious term, “Man Caused Disasters” was straight out of the first rule in the textbook of organizational coverups, to phrase your sentences so that the identity of the perpetrators of the crisis remain as vague as possible. Focusing on everything but terrorism, while shutting down Gitmo and dispatching top Al Qaeda terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to civilian trials, was meant to restore the illusion of normalcy, while doing away with the terrorism focus of the Bush Administration.

There was a reason that once in office, Obama showed a very limited interest in pushing for the prosecutions of Bush Administration officials, as the left wing expected him to. Unlike them, Obama understood that the best way to shift the conversation was by avoiding the topic, not by confronting it head on… because while the American people may have turned on the Republicans, they were more likely to support a tough on terror approach, than not. Main Street America was a long way from ACLU headquarters, and so Obama decided that the best way to win the debate on terrorism… was not to have it all.

Seeing how fast Cheney’s numbers shot up by simply calling him out on terrorism, could have only stiffened Obama’s resolve to avoid the issue. But the issue refused to avoid him, whether it was demands that he come to a decision on Afghanistan, a renewed wave of terrorist attacks on American soil or a growing backlash from New York over holding the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trials in the city—Islamic “man caused disasters” just refused to go away.

By moving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into the civilian legal system, Obama and Holder were undertaking to engineer a massive shift in how America dealt with terrorism. It was a shift that everyone from lawyers to liberal pundits to the nutroots had been pushing all along. It was the message on the earliest posters tacked up by left wing activists on the streets of Lower Manhattan, even as the ruins of the towers were still smoldering. The shift would transform terrorism from a conflict fought in defense of America, to an internal criminal matter for the legal system to deal with. The difference between the two lies in far more than just a matter of which judges get to sit on the bench and where the trial takes place, it cuts right to the issue of what is really happening here.

Treating Islamic terrorism as a criminal problem transforms it from an international threat, into something purely local, akin to an armed robbery or a murder or two. And as liberal doctrine would have it, crime is not really preventable except through social welfare policies. That is precisely the tack that European governments have taken on terrorism, working with Muslim communities to improve their economic and social status. That would have been the next stage for the Obama Administration, if a roadblock hadn’t risen up on the road to the New York trial.

Moving the trial into the legal system, transforms it from a popular campaign, into a technical matter for the courts. It denies the compelling interests of the American people in this trial, by making it an abstract thing, a matter of dueling legal citations. And what better way to deny the reality of the War on Terror, than by turning terrorists and their atrocities into abstract formulae for lawyers to pore over. The second rule of the organzational coverup, is to always make a crisis seem more abstract, and therefore less relevant.

Holding a civilian trial for the planner of the attacks of September 11, in lower Manhattan, would not only close the circle with the original Twin Tower bombers trials, but would assert that terrorism is a criminal problem, that there is no war, that the issues will be settled by using the same procedures used for Americans charged with a crime. That the situation is complete normal, and that there is no War on Terror.

In the Bush Administration’s narrative, America was at war with international terrorism. In the Obama Administration’s narrative, there was no war, only a legal matter for the courts to settle. In the Bush Administration’s narrative, the conflict was being fought to protect Americans and American interests. In the Obama Administration’s narrative, the case had nothing to do with Americans, only with processing a few more inmates through the bowels of the legal system.

Complete Story:

Obama’s BIRTH CERTIFICATION Amendment was in last 6 months Before He Announced His Run For Presidency

Anti-Mullah

By Butterdezillion

Here’s some new information – haven’t even added it to my blog yet.

According to http://uspolitics.about.com/od/senators/a/barack_obama.htm , Axelrod started videotaping Obama in 2003 for footage that he later used in Obama’s January 16, 2007 announcement that he would run for the presidency.

According to the UIPA responses received by Terri K and myself and the retention schedules for receipts, Obama’s amendment happened sometime between September of 2006 and January of 2007, since those records are to be retained for 3 years and receipts for fees to amend Obama’s vital records were denied to Terri K in September of 2006 and no longer existed when I requested them in January of 2010.

IOW, the DOH has revealed that in the last 6 months before Obama announced his run for the presidency he amended his birth record in Hawaii. That amendment was before the Factcheck COLB was printed in June of 2007 so if that COLB was legitimate it would definitely have had note of the amendment. So the Factcheck and Fight the Smears COLB’s are definitely forgeries and not just a COLB printed before the amendment was made.

Again, my conclusions are entirely based upon what the Hawaii Department of Health has stated in official responses to official UIPA requests and the laws, rules, and regulations which govern the records and statements they have made. If we take Hawaii at its word this is the natural conclusion we would make.

The certificate number and filing date that are mismatched according to the Nordyke certificate numbers and filing date confirm this also.

I haven’t checked this out yet, but the documentary requirements to amend a birth certificate 45 years after the birth would be hard to come by.

What kind of evidence would be sufficient to prove that a record in existence for 45 years and never corrected before had been wrong all along?

What would a person legitimately correct 45 years after the birth – after having used that birth certificate for 45 years whenever documentation was needed and never challenging the facts contained on it?

Source:

Did Obama Ever Attend Columbia University?

Greetings everyone,

I have composed a letter to all members, viewers and follows of American Grand Jury. The letter has been posted on the front page of our website. Please take a look. The letter outlines some of the details of the upcoming Columbia Trial being held in New York by Dr. James David Manning.

Here is an excerpt from the letter:

It is rare that an organization like American Grand Jury is given the opportunity to make a real impact on society. Such an opportunity is now before us and we must seize the moment.

On May 14th, the Atlah Ministries in Harlem, New York will sponsor an event that can literally change history. Dr. James David Manning has proposed that “we the people” put Columbia University on trial for conspiring to defraud America. Dr. Manning has made the charge that Columbia University issued a degree to Obama when in fact he never attended such college. The ramifications of this matter are overwhelming. If proven true, the fact that Obama conspired with Columbia to manufacture a fraudulent past would be labeled as “the crime of the century.”

Dr. Manning has invited American Grand Jury to participate in the trial. Our role would be that of an observer, investigative reporter and ultimately a presenter of charges.

end of excerpt..

Please read the entire letter here:

Another Obama Bowing Photo Found, This Time The Ukrainian President

Hot Air Pundit

This was when he was a U.S. Senator visiting the Ukraine

Obama greeting Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko during a visit with Republican Senator Dick Lugar

Source: