Expect More Islamist Attacks

Human Events

Attacks like the one that killed two American airmen at Frankfurt Airport last Wednesday will increase because Islamist terrorism is surging, especially among lone wolfs.  The only solution is to defeat extremists and their hosts, which could take decades if we have the will.

American service members such as those murdered last week will continue to be the Islamists’ primary target.  Our troops symbolize America’s foreign policy, which offends many Islamists, and they are the most visible American government representatives at home and abroad.

That Islamists are targeting our troops more frequently at home is an important fact for the House of Representatives to consider during hearings this week on the radicalization of American Muslims.

Continue reading

Democrat Resigns after Facebook Remark about Sarah Palin’s Death

CNS News

Concord, N.H. (AP) – A New Hampshire Democrat has quit the state legislature after cracking a joke on Facebook about Sarah Palin’s death.

Rep. Timothy Horrigan of Durham posted a comment Wednesday that a “dead Palin wd be even more dangerous than a live one” and she “is all about her myth & if she was dead she cdn’t commit any more gaffes.”

Horrigan apologized Thursday and resigned. He is also discontinuing his re-election campaign.

The state Democratic Party chairman calls the remarks “out of line.”

Another New Hampshire Democrat has also been criticized this week for a Facebook comment about Palin, the former governor of Alaska. House candidate Keith Halloran apologized Thursday for posting a death wish for Palin in response to a post about the plane crash that killed former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens.

Source:

Sarah Palin Outs Darth Vader

American Thinker

Darth Vader is out of the closet…and we have Sarah Palin to thank.


The intrepid crusader from the north cut to the heart of Obamacare a year ago, slashing through the professor-speak and government gobbledygook with a searing summary on Facebook of its bottom line: “death panels.” With those words, the grounds for debate had shifted, the mainstream media ideological blackout was circumvented and now, although it may have been Obama’s new head of Medicare, Harvard’s Dr. Donald Berwick, who stepped on the shuttle at Boston’s Logan International Airport, it is Darth Vader who has exited at Reagan National.

Is Obama Violating The Hatch Act?

The Obama File


Bill Levinson says Whitehouse.gov is using taxpayer dollars to endorse Democratic candidates, and to promote the partisan website Barackobama.com.

Obama is, as the head of his party, certainly entitled to give campaign speeches on behalf of Democratic candidates such as Martha Coakley, an individual who advanced her career by keeping an innocent man (Amirault) in prison.  We suspect, however, that he cannot legally use taxpayer money for this purpose.  Whitehouse.gov, is the property of the United States Government, and, as such, is the property of America’s taxpayers.  Several pages at this website endorse the election or re-election of Democratic candidates, and one recommends that people visit Organizing for America (barackobama.com).

Levinson is not an attorney and cannot say whether it is or is not legal to use a website belongong to the Federal government to host electioneering speeches that Obama delivered legally in other venues such as campaign rallies, but he questions the practice and invites attorneys to weigh in on the subject.  The Hatch Act says, subject to the provisions of subsection (b), “…an employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may not — (1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.”  This suggests that Obama or any other elected official can campaign for a party member, but cannot use government resources such as Congressional franking privileges, government-owned websites, or similar resources for this purpose.  We also question a pitch for barackobama.com (Organizing for America) at Whitehouse.gov.

Obama gave a speech on behalf of New Jersey’s governor Jon Corzine, and a copy of this speech is hosted at Whitehouse.gov.  It is depicted as a “press release,” but it nonetheless uses a U.S. Government website to advocate the election of a political candidate.

And, here is a Whitehouse.gov-hosted page in which Obama campaigns for Deval Patrick of Massachusetts.

And, this page contains material that supports Martha Coakley and attacks her Republican opponent.

Again, it would certainly be acceptable for Obama or one of his people to make this kind of statement at a Coakley for Senate rally that was paid for with non-tax-deductible contributions, but we question whether it should appear on a website that is paid for by the U.S. Government.  We encourage our readers to download these web pages so they don’t “disappear,” and for attorneys to weigh in on whether this is a problem.

Finally, we come to the issue of using a U.S. Government website to link to a partisan website such as the Democratic National Committee, or Organizing for America.

As bad as this may be, it’s not nearly as bad as Obama illegally using Justice department attorneys, and campaign funds to conceal his bona fides from the American People.

Now, you can add the $1 million spent to shuttle Obama to Boston to campaign for Martha Coakley — Air Force One, the escort fighters, the armored vehicles, the Secret Service, etc., etc., etc.

Source:

Obamas Throw A Party Every 3 Days

The Obama File

Gateway Pundit reminds us that Back in January 2009, before he signed his failed $787 billion stimulus bill into law, Barack Obama told America that everyone must sacrifice for the greater good.  Everyone must have “some skin in the game.”

What he meant, of course, was that everyone would have to sacrifice to lift American out of the worst recession since the Great Depression — except for Barack and Michelle Obama.

Now we learn that the the Obama White House has held one party every three days in first year of Obama reign.

Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) reported:

“Let the good times roll” — and roll they have at the Obama White House, while nearly 11% of the workforce remains unemployed, nearly four million Americans are losing their homes, and terrorists ride the open skies.

In fact, according to the Chicago Tribune, the stylish Ms. Rogers and the party-hearty First Couple hosted no less than 170 parties and social events through December 3 of 2009.  And that does not even include the 17 parties and 11 open houses — feting more than 50,000 guests — ABC News reported the Obamas hosted throughout the Holiday Season.

For those not counting, that means by January, 2010, Ms. Rogers had staged one gala White House event every three days throughout the first year of the Obama Administration, making the once austere Executive Mansion look more like party central.

Source:

From Barack to Barry to Steve Dunahm (and not in that order)

DefendUSx

Steve Dunham came up in a lot of searches linked to Barry, could never quite figure that out .. maybe this explains it. Like his Mother, Obama, too, must have several Aliases. It just wouldn’t be a family tradition otherwise.

An intrepid citizen-researcher has confirmed that the man who goes by the name “Barack Hussein Obama II,” has an original vital record kept by the Hawaii Department of Health, which bears the name “Steve Dunham.”

The citizen researcher began her quest, following two lines of research: 1) the fact that the name Steve Dunham appears in records associated with Obama’s alleged mother, Stanley Ann Dunham; and 2) the fact that Obama himself is said to have quipped that his middle name was “Steve” (as some of his followers know cf. YYouhan’s comment).

The quip is recorded to have taken place during the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, on Oct. 16, 2009, and was reported by Real Clear Politics in the 4th video segment at their site, at the 1:37 mark.. The video at YouTube can be viewed thorugh this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkBQf4FJi-o&feature=player_embedded, or at 1:31 in another version of the video, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SkFjTCscM4 . Here is the second version, look for it at 1:30 ff..

See videos and rest of this interesting commentary at The Post and Email

Obama and the Vampire Congress

Family Security Matters

Michelle Malkin

Meet the Beltway bloodsuckers. They convene in the dead of night, when most ordinary mortals have left work and let their guard down or are lying asleep in bed. Pale-faced and insatiable, the nocturnal thieves do their nefarious business in backrooms and secret chambers. Their primary victims? Taxpayers, the free market and deliberative democracy.
Democratic leaders have been promising the most ethical, transparent, open and engaged administration for years. Instead, they have delivered a bleak and creepy legislative environment that could double as a “Twilight” movie set.
Skulking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rammed the government health care takeover package through under the cover of darkness before Thanksgiving and Christmas. House Democratic leaders forbade debate on all but one amendment not authored by themselves. The Senate Finance Committee killed a GOP amendment that would have required Demcare to be available online for 72 hours before the committee voted. Reid and his Volterra-style henchmen cut last-minute cash-for-cloture deals behind closed doors.
And now House and Senate Democratic leaders are reportedly preparing to cut dissenters out of the reconciliation process by bypassing the formal conference committee.
In Hill parlance, this legislative shortcut is called “ping-ponging.” A better game analogy: dodgeball. With mounting opposition from both conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats, President Obama’s water-carriers must use every trick in the book to speed the final merging and passage of the bill before the end of the month.
The hypocrisy reeks stronger than rotting garlic. In 2006, House Democrats asserted that “House-Senate conferences are a critical part of the deliberative process because they produce the final legislative product that will become the law of the land.” That same year, Reid railed on the Senate floor against informal deal-making that circumvented the conference committee process — and he attacked the use of manager’s amendments to avoid public scrutiny:
“Of course, nobody can see the manager’s amendment. It is composed of over 40 amendments. How could anyone vote for a piece of legislation such as that — a manager’s amendment with 42 separate amendments? Now, these amendments were not put in a conference committee. People complain about that. But at least in a conference committee, you have people working together, sticking things in. … Here, you have one person making a decision as to what is going to be in the manager’s amendment. There is no way to know what is in it.”
But four years later, it was Reid who snuck his 383-page manager’s amendment — stuffed with payoffs, special breaks and concessions on health care — into the Senate hopper on the Saturday before Christmas break. Four years later, it is Reid stifling the open, collaborative conference committee process he so fiercely championed.
Where’s Barack Obama? As a candidate, he promised repeatedly to broadcast legislative negotiations on C-SPAN “so that the American people can see what the choices are” and “so that the public will be part of the conversation and will see the choices that are being made.” But the most transparent presidential administration ever is shrugging its shoulders. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs pooh-poohed C-SPAN’s request to allow electronic media coverage of the Demcare negotiations.
Instead, Gibbs thinks Americans should be grateful for what they got last month: “The Senate did a lot of their voting at 1:00 and 2:00 in the morning on C-SPAN. … And I think if you watched that debate — I don’t know — I wasn’t up at 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning for a lot of those votes, but I think if the American public had watched … you’d have seen quite a bit of public hearing and public airing.” And if you missed the middle-of-the-night broadcasts, tough noogies.
Team Obama’s contempt for meaningful transparency has been on display from Day One. A year ago this month, Obama broke his vaunted open government pledge with the very first bill he signed into law. On Jan. 29, 2009, the White House boasted that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act had been posted online for review. Except: Obama had already signed it — in violation of his “sunlight before signing” pledge to post legislation for public comment on the White House website five days before he sealed any deal.
From the stimulus to the health care takeover to holiday bailouts for bankrupt financial behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it’s been all backrooms and blackouts ever since. The Prince of Darkness at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is perfectly happy with his Vampire Congress. Wraiths of a sunshine-evading feather flock together.

A Sham Of A Process For A Sham Of A Bill

The Heritage Foundation

Speaking at a town hall meeting on August 21, 2008, in Chester, Virginia, then-candidate Barack Obama promised the American people: “I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies … what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents … And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.” The participants around Obama’s fictional big table may have changed depending on where he was speaking, but throughout his campaign the essential promise was always there: “negotiations televised on C-SPAN.”

Of course, Obama already broke this promise to the American people months ago. According to PoliFact, the backroom deals Obama cut with drug companies and hospitals last July already violated this pledge. But those were just preliminary negotiations. Surely when it came time for the final health care bill passage in Congress, Obama and his allies would welcome some transparency into the process? No such luck.

Politico is reporting that President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will meet at the White House today (joined by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) via conference call) to set the parameters for reconciling the House and Senate versions of health care legislation. However, instead of proceeding with the usual public and open conference committee process, the White House is going to take a very active role in secret behind-closed-door meetings between the House and Senate. The Sunlight Foundation explains the implications for the American people: “Both House and Senate rules require that all conference committee meetings be open to the public unless a majority of conferees votes in open session to close the meetings. Senate rules require all conference committee reports be publicly available for at least 48 hours prior to a final vote. Without conference, there is no mechanism to provide for openness in the final discussions regarding the health care bill.”

And there is plenty of reason the American people should demand transparency in the final stages of the legislative process. We previously identified Six Key Differences between the House and Senate bills, all of which deserve their own public debate. But one issue in particular is in desperate need of the disinfectant powers of sunlight: Sen. Ben Nelson’s (D-NE) deal exempting Nebraska from the costs of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.

Last week, after a group of 13 state attorneys general promised to file suit against Obamacare should the Nelson deal become law, Nelson called South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster to “call off the dogs.” According to McMaster’s office, Nelson said the deal was not his idea, was simply a “marker” placed in the bill, and that the issue would be fixed by extending the same Medicaid exemption to all states. Will the budget-busting Medicaid problem get “fixed” for all states? If so, how? The American people deserve to know.

There is more than one reason the American people have turned solidly against President Obama’s health plan. Americans believe Obama’s plan will increase their health care costs, decrease the quality of their health care, raise their taxes, and increase the deficit. And as former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has admitted, Obamacare is not real health care reform. No wonder President Obama wants as little public input as possible.

Quick Hits:

  • CSPAN has sent a letter to the House and Senate asking that they “open all important negotiations” to electronic media coverage.
  • Democrats in favor of amnesty have agreed to vote for President Barack Obama’s health care legislation in exchange for an Obama promise for amnesty legislation later this year.
  • California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is going to seek a federal bailout to help close the $21 billion deficit his state faces over the next 18 months.
  • The number of Americans filing for personal bankruptcy rose by nearly a third in 2009.
  • According to the British government, MI5 told American intelligence agents more than a year ago that the Detroit bomber had links to extremists.

Trading Terrorist Rights for American Lives

OBAMA’S TERROR FRIENDLY ADMINISTRATION IS A “SYSTEMATIC FAILURE”

The Post & E-Mail

News Summary & Analysis by JB Williams

(Jan. 2, 2010) — On Christmas Day, 2009, the first of many terror chickens to come, came home to roost when a Nigerian member of Al Qaeda climbed aboard a US commercial flight headed from Amsterdam to Detroit and attempted to set off a chemical bomb mid-flight.

Once again, civilians found themselves in the position of having to provide for their own safety and security as the folks whose primary purpose is to provide for the common defense of the people, came up sorely lacking.

Had it not been for a handful of brave patriots willing to take matters into their own hands, Flight 253 could have ended the futures of everyone on board.

This is what we should expect in a nation that puts its soldiers on trial for taking their oath seriously in the war on terror abroad, while the Obama administration offers known enemy combatants civil rights in criminal courts, by no means designed to handle the complexities of war.

In fact, when the administration sees patriotic American citizens and former military personnel as “potential domestic terrorists” – and known terrorists as mere “criminals,” this is the best outcome we can hope for…

Predictably, Obama was quick on the trigger when taking aim at the agencies responsible for securing commercial flights. As Jim Meyers reports at Newsmax, Obama told reporters: “A systemic failure has occurred, and I consider that totally unacceptable.”

Referring to the early signals, he said: “Had this critical information been shared, it could have been compiled with other intelligence and a fuller, clearer picture of the suspect would have emerged. The warning signs would have triggered red flags, and the suspect would have never been allowed to board that plane for America.”

Obama is the “systemic failure.” He and his terror-friendly administration, including US Attorney General Eric Holder, who was engaged in the legal defense on known terrorists before being named the head of the US Justice system by Barack Obama, have great difficulty separating “acts of war” from “criminal behaviors” – and – terrorists from US soldiers or even average American citizens for that matter.

As Meyers points out in his Newsmax report based upon a story in the liberal New York Times, “two federal officials told the paper that U.S. intelligence was aware that a Nigerian Muslim was preparing an attack, yet officials did nothing to give warning of such an attack.”

The paper reported Wednesday: “Two officials said the government had intelligence from Yemen before Friday that leaders of a branch of Al Qaeda were talking about ‘a Nigerian’ being prepared for a terrorist attack.”“But despite those signals, the administration never raised a terror alert, and would-be bomber Abdulmutallab was allowed to board a plane bound for the United States.”

Gee… I wonder why an administration that sees average citizens as “potential terrorists” and actual terrorists as “common criminals” would hesitate to warn the people of the impending danger that lurks within a nation not at all serious about an enemy just as committed to death and destruction today as they were on September 11, 2001.

We are talking about the same folks who still refuse to admit that our nation is at war with extreme Islam around the globe – that we have numerous terror training facilities right here on American soil – or that the Jihadist in Ft. Hood was in fact an Al Qaeda operative in regular contact with known Al Qaeda cells in Yemen, up until he shouted “Allah Akbar” before killing a dozen unarmed soldiers at Ft. Hood.

Despite the fact that Americans in part, elected Obama on the false belief that Bush and Cheney made America “less safe” by their semi-aggressive “war on terror,” the Washington Times now reports that 85% of Americans now expect terrorist attacks to be successful on American soil in 2010. That’s a cheerful thought full of “hope” for the New Year, huh…

For a “change,” I agree with 85% of Americans…

Still, one is compelled to ask why those responsible for making certain that someone like Abdulmutallab is unable to climb aboard a US commercial flight, chose not to do so?

This is the real point isn’t it? Someone “in-the-know” chose NOT to share that information with people who could have and allegedly would have stopped Abdulmutallab from climbing aboard Flight 253. It was NOT an “intelligence failure” like 9/11/01… The guy’s own father reported his son MIA after making direct threats against the west.

He reported it to the US Embassy in Yemen, and there was plenty of time to react, had that information been shared with the appropriate agencies. Why wasn’t it?

While we’re at it, why is our federal government treating American soldiers like “enemy combatants” in military courts while offering civilians criminal courts and US Civil Rights to known enemy combatants captured on the battle field?

And here’s the biggest question of all – Why aren’t American citizens demanding answers to these and many more obvious questions?

As Democrat John F. Kennedy said so well – “A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

In October of 2008, I wrote a column titled Terrorists, Terrorism and Obama and nobody listened. Voters had been convinced by the leftist lame stream press that even a nobody with life-long ties to terrorists, communists and third world thugs, would be “better than Bush.”

I even asked in a column, Who is باراك حسين أوباما ? – Copy and paste this into your Google translator software. If you still don’t know who and what we elected, there may be no hope for you or the future of this once free and prosperous nation.

It didn’t take a Harvard grad to see it coming, but still, few listened. Obama’s entire past remains in hiding almost a year into his unconstitutional presidency.

A year and countless unconstitutional anti-American administrative decisions later, most Americans still aren’t listening and as a result, their future looks grim so long as they fail to ask the right questions and demand truthful answers.

Forget about where Obama may or may not have been born. This is a side show aimed at misdirecting public attention and allowing the global left to pass off all dissenters as nothing more than crackpot conspiracy theorists, while the real conspiracy continues to unfold right under our noses.

Obama is unconstitutional by bloodline. The issue of natural born Citizen is a statement of bloodline, under natural law, not birth place under common law. Obama’s father was at no time a citizen of the United States. Obama inherited his name, his religion and his citizenship from his father.

So ask again – Why are Obama & Co. friendlier towards known terrorists than towards average American citizens simply upset by the current destruction of their free republic?

If you understand that you are asking this question of an Arab-Muslim, not an African-Christian, then you can probably figure out the correct answer all on your own. Obama was born and raised Muslim, not Christian. His so-called “Christian church” in Chicago is actually a “Black Nationalist Church,” which explains the racist rants of his life-long pastor, Rev. Wright.

But if you still think you are dealing with some new age Marxist Messiah planning to unite the world with American assets, then I challenge you to come up with a single acceptable answer to the obvious questions posed in this column.

Only one more reasonable question remains… How insane does it have to get before the American people wake up, take note and take action?

Since 85% of Americans expect successful terror attacks on USA soil in 2010, it’s clear that 85% of Americans understand that we are indeed, still at war with international Islamic terror. So, why did they elect leaders hell-bent upon helping those terrorists succeed?

Now most Americans are able to see the anti-American Marxist “change” Obama had in mind for America. So, at what point do the people awake and arise in defense of this great nation?

I worry that JFK was right about something else – “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

Cut off from legislators, ignored by the White House, denied access to the courts and mocked by the leftist press, all peaceful solutions are quickly vanishing. When all peaceful means of redress are exhausted, only violent remedies will remain. Those who have denied the people a peaceful solution will be responsible for the violent solution that follows. I don’t call for it, but anyone who knows Americans well could predict it.

85% of the people are right. We will see successful terror strikes on US soil in 2010 and that’s because the current leadership in Washington DC is committed to that end. Their reaction to the events of 12-25-09 was also predictable.

“It’s becoming clear that the system that has been in place for years now is not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we collect and the knowledge we have.” – Obama

No… the system Bush had in place prevented a second, third and fourth wave of terror attacks on US soil and took the fight to the enemy abroad. That system did indeed stop any further attacks on US soil for the seven years that followed 9/11/01.

It’s the new system of terror appeasements and support, both here and abroad, put in place by Obama, Holder and Napolitano which has made terror attacks on US soil inevitable again.

The attempted bombing on Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit has touched off partisan squabbling in Washington. Republicans were sharply critical of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano after she declared on Sunday that “the system worked,” even though the bombing was thwarted only when Abdulmutallab’s device failed to detonate. (from the Newsmax column)

The Napolitano system failed and citizens were left to defend themselves on Flight 253.

In the days following the Flight 253 event, Al Qaeda leaders warned of 300 more bombers coming and counter-terrorism experts around the globe have placed the risk of massive nuclear, biological or chemical attacks on US soil at a 100% certainty. Only the hour and level of devastation are unknown.

This is what the American people voted for in 2008. 52% were dead wrong in November 2008, but 85% are dead right now. It will get worse before it can get any better.

The policies that allowed Abdulmutallab to board Flight 253 will allow countless others to advance their attacks on the US. The Obama military “Rules of Engagement” will cost many more American soldiers their lives, senselessly. Eric Holder’s Civil Rights for Terrorists campaign will set many known enemies of our nation free to kill again… and Americans will die to learn this lesson the hard way.

At the end of the day, you can’t win a war by refusing to acknowledge its existence. You can’t defeat extreme Islam by aiding and abetting Jihadists, and you can’t end the war on terror by refusing to fight the war on terror. You can only get more innocent people killed with such policies.

This is what we can look forward to in 2010. 85% of Americans know it and thanks to the 15% who don’t, all Americans will pay a heavy price for the decision of the 52% who put these folks in unbridled power.

Is it all just an accident, or does it all serve a “greater good?” You decide how the evidence adds up, but decide soon. The clock is ticking…