Gordon Brown denies claims that money from an "anti-extremist" fund was given to two schools with alleged links to Islamic extremists…. From BBC News. Full story

This site may contain information about: educatif. The blog is also related to: teachers.

Beware folks, there is a general election next year, this could be an attempt to win votes. Cynical old me!

A political row has broken out over claims public money was given to two schools which, the Tories say, have links to Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Tory leader David Cameron suggested money from an “anti-extremist fund” had been given to “extremists”.

But Schools Secretary Ed Balls accused the Conservatives of “playing politics” and making “untrue” allegations.Hizb ut-Tahrir said it did not run any school and accused Mr Cameron of “bare-faced lies”.The row began at prime minister’s questions on Wednesday when Mr Cameron accused the government of allowing the funding of extremism.He said two schools had been established by “an extremist Islamist foundation” which he said was a “front” for Hizb ut-Tahrir – a legal organisation that former PM Tony Blair had said he would ban.

Mr Cameron asked Prime Minister Gordon Brown: “How can you have an anti-extremist fund that results in a Labour local authority handing out money to extremists?”

“They have secured a total of £113,000 of government money, some of which was from the Pathfinder scheme, whose objective is meant to be preventing violent extremism.”

Full story BBC

A political row breaks out over claims public money was given to two schools which have links to Hizb ut-Tahrir…. From BBC News. Full story

This site may contain information about: college. The blog is also related to: elementary education.

وَمَن يَهْدِ اللَّهُ فَهُوَ الْمُهْتَدِ ۖ وَمَن يُضْلِلْ فَلَن تَجِدَ لَهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِن دُونِهِ ۖ وَنَحْشُرُهُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ عَلَىٰ وُجُوهِهِمْ عُمْيًا وَبُكْمًا وَصُمًّا ۖ مَّأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ ۖ كُلَّمَا خَبَتْ زِدْنَاهُمْ سَعِيرًا

And he whom Allah guides, he is led aright; but he whom He sends astray, for such you will find no Auliya’ (helpers and protectors), besides Him, and We shall gather them together on the Day of Resurrection on their faces, blind, dumb and deaf; their abode will be Hell; whenever it abates, We shall increase for them the fierceness of the Fire.

[Al Isra : 97]

A rare and most comprehensive documentary on Abdul Rasheed Ghazi and massacre in Lal [Red] Masjid including all relevant events.

Part 1 of 7

Part 2 of 7

Part 3 of 7

Part 4 of 7

Part 5 of 7

Part 6 of 7

Part 7 of 7

وَمَن يَهْدِ اللَّهُ فَهُوَ الْمُهْتَدِ ۖ وَمَن يُضْلِلْ فَلَن تَجِدَ لَهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِن دُونِهِ ۖ وَنَحْشُرُهُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ عَلَىٰ وُجُوهِهِمْ عُمْيًا وَبُكْمًا وَصُمًّا ۖ مَّأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ ۖ كُلَّمَا خَبَتْ زِدْنَاهُمْ سَعِيرًا

And he whom Allah guides, he is led aright; but he whom He sends astray, for such you will find no Auliya’ (helpers and protectors), besides Him, and We shall gather them together on the Day of Resurrection on their faces, blind, dumb and deaf; their abode will be Hell; whenever it abates, We shall increase for them the fierceness of the Fire.

[Al Isra : 97]

A rare and most comprehensive documentary on Abdul Rasheed Ghazi and massacre in Lal [Red] Masjid including all relevant events.

Part 1 of 7

Part 2 of 7

Part 3 of 7

Part 4 of 7

Part 5 of 7

Part 6 of 7

Part 7 of 7

Questions Regarding The Fort Hood Massacre
By Chuck Baldwin
November 20, 2009

This column is archived at:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091120.html

By now, virtually everyone has read and reread the copious news accounts of
the terrible shooting a few weeks ago at Fort Hood, Texas. This column will
not attempt to add new details to what is already a highly scrutinized
tragedy. However, I do want to pose three basic questions that, to me, are
extremely glaring and, for the most part, absent from the discussion.

Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?

After all, this is a military base; more than that, it is an Army base that
emphasizes the training and equipping of frontline, combat-ready soldiers.
For the most part, these were not clerks or cooks; these were combat troops.
Fort Hood is home to the 1st Cavalry Division (the largest Division in the
Army). Troops stationed at Fort Hood have engaged the enemy in virtually
every hot theater of war to which American forces have been deployed. In
recent conflicts that means Somalia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
Without a doubt, these are among America’s bravest and best.

So, how is it that these intensely trained, disciplined, rugged, highly
qualified warriors are not allowed to carry their own weapons on base? This
makes about as much sense as the policy forbidding airline pilots from
carrying their own handguns on board commercial airliners, or teachers not
being allowed to carry their own handguns in the classroom. After all,
judges are granted the authority to carry their own firearms into the
courtroom. If we can trust lawyers, we should be able to trust soldiers,
airline pilots, and teachers.

Question 2:  If the federal government–including the Department of Homeland
Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of
technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers;
and myriad Patriot Act-type laws–could not protect US soldiers on one of
the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in
America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous
laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so
that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons? Or is it
that, because Hasan was a Muslim, the politically correct nincompoops in
charge gave him a pass?

Consider: we have learned that the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, had
attempted to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda; that
numerous classmates of Hasan had reported his anti-American views, which,
according to a column written by Dennis Prager, “included his giving a
presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that
Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution”; and that Hasan had a long
history of pro-Islamic, anti-American activity. All of which begs an answer
to the question, How could such an individual not only be allowed in the US
military, but also be allowed to advance to the rank of Major?

I think most of my readers have the answer to this question figured out: we
have an out-of-control, politically correct federal government that only
senses danger from conservatives, libertarians, Christians, pro-lifers, Tea
Party protesters, and anti-UN, anti-IRS, pro-Second Amendment activists–and
supporters of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, of course. To this politically
correct federal leviathan today, anti-American jihadists, militant Black
Panthers, or illegal aliens who have committed felonious crimes in Mexico
pose no risk to anyone, and must be “understood.”

As Prager quotes NPR’s Tom Gjelten: since Hasan had never been in combat, he
must have suffered from “pre-traumatic stress disorder.” No, I’m not
kidding. That’s what he said. (I’ll pause while you pick yourself up off the
floor from laughing.)

To the politically correct crowd running things in Washington, D.C., anyone
coming from a socialistic, Big Government, or anti-American point of view is
harmless, and anyone coming from a conservative, Christian, constitutional,
or pro-American point of view is dangerous. Can one imagine how the
mainstream media, federal police agencies, and the Southern Poverty Law
Center would have reacted had Hasan shouted “Jesus is greatest!” instead of
what he really said, “Allah is greatest!” right before opening fire?

If one rejects the notion that political correctness favoring Muslims (and
every other minority in the United States) had anything to do with the Fort
Hood shooting, then we are back to the original question: If the federal
government–including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of
Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of
thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot
Act-type laws–could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly
secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can
anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when
politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might
pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons?

Are we now really supposed to believe that all these Patriot Act-type laws,
which allow the federal government to trash the Constitution and Bill of
Rights–and poke its ubiquitous and meddlesome nose into every corner and
crevice of our lives–are actually doing anything to make us safer? You’ve
got to be kidding! The only thing they are doing is stealing our liberties.
If the Fort Hood massacre proves anything, it proves that.

Question 3: How could one man (with no combat experience) armed with only
two handguns fire over 100 rounds (demanding he reload at least 3 times)
into a crowd of scores and hundreds of fearless combat-trained warriors? I
must confess: this is the question that bothers me the most.

According to the official story, Hasan was the only shooter, and he was
allowed to fire at will into a crowd of America’s finest warriors for at
least 4 minutes, reloading at least 3 times, firing over 100 rounds of
ammunition, killing 13 people, and wounding over 30–and was finally taken
out by civilian police officers AFTER EXITING THE BUILDING. I’ve got to tell
you: I cannot get my brain around this one.

Again, these soldiers are warriors. They not only know how to fight, they
know how to fight unarmed. They are trained to risk their lives. They are
trained to do whatever is necessary to take out the enemy. Had even a small
group of soldiers rushed the shooter (especially if they came at him from
multiple directions) there is no way that Hasan would not have been
subdued–and most likely killed. Yes, a few of the on-rushers would have
been hit, but Hasan could not have gotten them all. That is a fact! And yet,
we are supposed to believe that Hasan was not only unmolested by soldiers
inside the building, but he was allowed to leave the building entirely, and
then get shot by civilian policemen? Again, this explanation makes
absolutely no sense to me. None.

Initial reports said there were multiple shooters. If that was the case, the
scenario is much more plausible. If multiple shooters had opened fire from
various vantage points–especially if they had rifles–it would have made
unarmed resistance extremely difficult. That scenario would make sense. The
“one shooter with two handguns” explanation makes no sense.

I realize that no unarmed man wants to rush an armed attacker. Of course,
some who would do so would probably die, but again, these are trained
warriors. Furthermore, this was an all-or-nothing, kill-or-be-killed
environment: something these men are trained for. If untrained civilian
passengers on flight 93 on 9/11 could rush and thwart armed attackers on
board a commercial airliner from a narrow aisle way and stop a hijacking–a
task infinitely more difficult than for a group of highly trained
professional soldiers outnumbering an attacker by scores or hundreds in a
large building–tell me again how Hasan was able to open fire with only two
handguns, kill and wound scores of people, and calmly walk out of the
building unscathed? Again, this makes no sense.

Of course, all of the above is predicated upon the public accounts of the
events being a truthful representation of what actually occurred. Which,
after trying to comprehend the plausibility of what we are being told, is
becoming increasingly difficult to believe. But then again, I haven’t
believed much that the federal government or major news media has told me
since John F. Kennedy was assassinated. And I must say, this story serves
only to further fuel my skepticism.

P.S. And one more time: we are shipping THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS now: 50 of
America’s great historical documents in one volume. Our supply will last
only a couple of weeks. These make terrific Christmas gifts and can be found
only here:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html

Or, to read my initial column that describes THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, go to:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091113.html

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

This email editorial cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender
includes contact information and a method of removal.

To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/subscribe.php

To unsubscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/unsubscribe.php

Chuck Baldwin’s commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished,
reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not
charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact
and that full credit is given and that Chuck’s web site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or
advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for
permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an
interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address
is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida, 32526. When responding, please
include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all
respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.

Please visit Chuck’s web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

At hearings on Thursday, some Senators characterized the suspect as a homegrown extremist who slipped past law enforcement and military authorities.

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/us/politics/20hood.html

Okay, so in the instance I am about to refer to it wasn’t an actual terrorist, at least not one who has performed an attack himself, but simply an Islamic extremist who could arguably be the inspiration for Major Nidal Hasan’s attack on the Fort Hood army base. In all of the recent articles that I have read about Hasan, it seems that the evidence may point to some type of religious motivation originating from Islamic sources, but I am not going to make a conclusive claim about that yet.

Anwar al-Awlaki

What I am getting at is the extremist that he was in contact with prior to the Fort Hood incident, Anwar al-Awlaki. al-Awlaki was a cleric at the mosque that Hasan worshipped at in Virginia, and has since moved to Yemen. This is a man who regularly preaches jihad on America and runs a web site to promote his cause. The reason I am writing this post is a single sentence from the November 14 edition of The Economist.

It said, “In a blog after the attacks, Mr al-Awlaki called Major Hasan a hero.”

This struck me as funny that even the Islamic extremists have adapted to the new media environment and use the power of the internet to get their message heard. We tend to have this picture of Islam in our head of a tall, dark man in a Middle Eastern desert living in a cave and having the technology of an early hominid. This is obviously no longer true, if it ever was. As we can see, it is not even the simple videos that Osama bin Laden would record and send for the U.S. to see, they have moved beyond that.

Hasan may or may not have been religiously motivated, that is not at issue here. But al-Awlaki is what is of interest. People have causes, both rational and irrational, and they will use the necessary tools to get their voice heard. The internet is currently the best option available for that. One can get thousands of hits per day on a blog or web site. It is an excellent tool and even those who we don’t want to use it to their advantage have figured out how they can promote themselves in a more effective manner.

Dragon Age: Origins is a recently released game that is one of the precious few to address the effects of organized religion on its world in a non-cynical manner. Instead of being set in a world steeped in nothing but ancient traditions and esoteric ritual, developer Bioware has merged such religious conceits into the “current” storyline of its game in a way that much more reflects reality.

The subtle but brilliant difference here is that every competing faction, every sect that follows the game’s equivalent of Jesus, has a very, very good reason for doing so, for their traditions evolving the way they have, even though most all of them claim a common source.

Most video game RPGs treat organized religion as either a superfluous element of a game’s backstory, or as a huge evil organization that must be destroyed. Here faith systems become the driving force behind the entire plot, finally.

Fort Hood, Texas. Home of the United States Army 1ST Cavalry Division. Second to None!!

AMERICAN SOLDIERS ATTACKED AT HOME IN AMERICA!!

Soldiers coming back from the war and Soldiers preparing to go back to the frontlines, are killed by a muslim extremist whose patience paid off. The likes of Geraldo Rivera along with muslim groups and sympathizers are calling it a “stress related “mass” killing”. Obama and his “female partner” are using this “mass killing” as a kodak moment. Pelosi and her gang of pathetic pieces of human inconvenience are more concerned about socializing healthcare than they are securing the United States of America. All the while, General McCrystal awaits Obama’s decision on whether or not he gets the additional Soldiers he needs to fight these pathetic, witless, koran reading womb rejects.

Gees, I don’t know!! Maybe now would be a great time to SEND the 40 thousand Soldiers to Afghanistan. Better yet!! Why not deploy the United States Armed Forces throughout the continental United States? We need protection too! But from who? Hmmmmm! Is it our current government? Is it muslims?

Oh, I am sorry!! That sounds a lot like martial law, huh?

Okay then, will the real Nidal Malik Hasan please stand up? Uh oh, did I say stand up? I meant sit up and just breathe, your fate awaits.

The murderer, the islamic jihadist, the perpetrator of fraud, the anti- American muslim, the valueless piece of human waste and the epitome of a real and true muslim. This is the real Hasan contrary to what his family, fellow muslims,  Geraldo Rivera and his media support network might say.

THIS IS NOT STRESS; HASAN WAS NOT STRESSED!! If you media pro’s are looking for an argument that will enable your ratings based on your theory of stress, this time and rest assured, you are barking up the wrong tree. Obviously, you know not of what you speak.

Hasan NEVER, I say again, NEVER went to the war zone.

NEVER went headfirst into a foxhole dodging a mortar round or two.

NEVER fired a single round defending himself and fellow soldiers.

NEVER took cover from enemy small arms fire.

NEVER returned fire in defense of his position.

He has no claim nor the merit to align himself with the PTSD identifier.

Hasan, like ALL muslims, played on American values winning the hearts and minds of Obama and others, called himself American while singing the national anthem to “prove” he is a legitimate American.

Have the muslims really pulled the wool over the America’s eyes or what?

Hasan’s  jihadist charade wasn’t due to stress, it was his “allahu akbar” trash that sprang from his lips that solidified his True intent. Those of us who have been in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, know what’s coming when “allahu akbar” is announced. Hell!!!

The United States Armed Forces should now do what should have been done a long time ago, quarantine and lock up any and all muslims in the United States Armed Forces. Period!! Prevailing circumstances and justifiable cause win out. Then of course, the civilian side of America should follow suit and round up any and all muslims as dictated by the Constitution of the United States. We are at war with muslims and their islamic jihadism. The security of the United States preempts any and all “civil rights” these muslims enjoy as they only cry as an American when it suits their needs and “desires”.

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has called for an investigation into whether or not the Army “missed signs that Hasan embraced extremist views of islamic ideology”. Nice try Joe, but it is your fellow Congressmen who endorse enlistments and military service as being a “volunteer, come as you are policy”. No profiling or prejudice. An act of Congress Joe!! You know what that means Joe, no argument or “note of protest” allowed. C’mon Joe, you know the ACLU would challenge every effort to keep America safe. So, why waste your time unless of course you have the American Soldier at your side?

The ACLU has endorsed opening up our streets and neighborhoods to these terrorists. The ACLU is the ACLU. Open borders. Safe havens in American cities for illegals. Criminal rights preferred over victims rights. Ban the American flag. Ban the Catholic or Christian cross.

US Army recruiters and recruits are shot dead in front of recruiting stations. American sons and daughters are being killed by terrorists and illegals and what does our country do? They give these inbred rejects “Rights”.

Remember, it was Janet Napolitano who issued a statement to federal, state and municipal law enforcement agencies warning them of “returning war veterans becoming extremists”. Oh, but the muslim radical extremists are poster children of what America really is and should be? I think this is worth an LOL, don’t you?

Piss on you Napolitano!! You slap the American military in the face, spit on them, while at the same time caressing islam right on the ass. Great Job!! You wouldn’t by any chance be one of those 72 virgins, would you?

The United States Armed Forces serve with their hands tied while bent over. Of course there are military officers, especially in the upper echelon, who prefer to keep their mouths shut for fear of not getting that “political appointment”. And so we are a “nice, obedient military” who for all intent and purpose, gets the shaft both at home and abroad and especially after service. How fruitful!!

Many cheers to you, Napolitano, you were right. There are extremists among our military. My apologies! There is however, one teeny weeny problem. The extremists are the ones we are fighting against in the Middle East. Incidentally, they have infiltrated our military exactly how they infiltrate their own military and police forces in their respective countries. But you knew that, didn’t you?

How ironic, jihadism in the US military.

Jihadism in the US Government, from the Oval Office down to the office of Eric Holder, Attorney General at large, who is offering civil and judicial rights to America’s enemy right here in New York City.

That is so sweet of this government!!

Abu Gharaib was worse, wasn’t it?

Of course it was! American soldiers are dirty, anti human by nature, and murderers at large. And to think I was a part of that. Securing America and fighting for her very existence. How stupid of me!! Those muslims, I could hug em all!!

The American military is the worst of the worst as it violates the many rights of other countries and their people. Saddam Hussein was a prince compared to the American Soldier. Bin Laden is a hero who risked it all to prove that America is the Great Satan. Both Hussein and Bin Laden wanted nothing more than peace. Hasan proved this by killing 12 American Soldiers and obiding by the very comic book, the “Koran”, that Bin Laden and Hussein swore by.

Extremism? Nah!! Just a burdened element of your society, Napolitano.

Muslims “stress” too!! Really!

Strapping an IED to your body and then the possibility of detonating a bit early would stress me out. I would want to kill as many innocent folks as I could. It’s just part of the “game”. Hasan would agree with me. Which is why he used bullets instead.

Should we send a get well card to Hasan? After all, the poor guy is now paralyzed and we should show our American “heart”.

What really bothers me is the fact that Hasan’s relative stated unequivically, that Hasan was/is a “good” American. Well duh, anybody can be a “good” American. But to prove it…

Am I slow or what?

Not once, since 9/11, have I heard one single muslim say “I am a proud American AND I will defend the United States of America against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. Including fellow muslims or “islamic nut jobs”. Not One!!

If you listen to muslims very closely, you will only hear them say “the koran or islam does not “promote” or “condone” the killing of “innocent” women and children”. Words to ease the mind or just interpretation? Muslims NEVER actually condemn any act of terrorism with honor or integrity. In fact, they never mention men or buildings or collateral damage as “who or what is not to be harmed according to the koran and its teaching”.

How blind are you people?

Liberals, I can understand their ignorance. But Republicans or Conservatives? Is Fox news that convincing?

Are O’Reilly and Limbaugh really that iconic? Look, I am as Republican and/or Conservative as any one person can be, but I do not rely on media that continually promotes its own ratings and skirts the issues.

It is called “attention to detail”. Without it, anything goes.

Hasan did what he did based on simple American beliefs and values. America indulges  complacency. The so-called conservative media allows complacency out of the need for simple “argumentation” so as to create or blindside the Real and True American into a power rating struggle amongst media outlets.

When Limbaugh makes a comment like “I resign the position of being America’s Conservative leader”, two questions come to mind. First, who appointed you the Conservative leader? Second, what makes you compatible with the Republican Conservative agenda? Certainly not your dim witted wit.

If conservative media was true to its intent, then they would be going for the throat. Literally!! Instead, they boast about ratings, waiting for “something” to happen that they could capitalize on with “armchair experts” whose only vested interest is public relations and noteriety. These media talk and information shows use others to argue a point, while the “personalities” use “researchers” to do the important stuff like get facts to make an argument.

This does not require an Einstein I.Q..

Here are some points that will weed out the “fake” republicans or self proclaimed conservatives:

1 – Conservative media highlights the illegal alien issue by using “nice” words and phrases like “illegals cost the American tax payers billions of dollars a year and we need immigration reform now”. Or, “illegals have been killing Americans with their drugs, alcohol abuse and murder”.

Tell me something I don’t know!!

Like: “Put the US military on the border; do away with the Posse Comitatus act; seize any and all assets of the Mexican government and KEEP it as a “down payment” to pay back the American tax payer; round up, detain and criminally charge ALL illegals whether they are fresh out of the womb or drinking Geritol; SEND THEM BACK…………

2- Conservative media is a constant voice when it comes to the economy. They say things like: “All of the money from the bailout has yet to be dispersed”; “Where is all of the money going?”; The banks are beginning to pay their share of the bailout money back”; “the bailout money was supposed to save or create jobs”; “there is no “credit” or “financial relief” for the hard working American family”.

Again, Duh!!!

Why not try blasting the government for its intentional abuse of the American taxpayer. The government should have frozen ALL credit reporting activity and and levied fines against ALL financial institutions who continue to report negative credit activity. Establish as non binding, the three credit reporting companies who have done more harm than good to people and families and have created their own version of credit reporting without due process and making money from people who are or have been struggling. Require them to request in writing, permission to release any information for fee or free to companies who request it whether for credit purchases or employment; require banks to stop charging overdraft fees, ATM fees, checking fees, and late fees; banks will be charged by the consumer fees of inconvenience; false charge fees; wrongful entry fees and uncashed check fees among others; with the money that has exchanged hands between the government and financial, income tax should be frozen for one year based on economic status and all income should be tax free…..

Wishful thinking? No! Just plain, simple logic minus the backbone.

Terrorists can be afforded rights, money and health care much like their illegal counterparts, yet the broke, struggling, American taxpayer foots the tab. FOR EVERYTHING!!! For the simpleminded, it is called SOCIALISM which is designed to require a people to “DEPEND” on its government or dictatorship.

This is a 1+1 and if you can’t figure that out, you have more issues than you think. Stick with the liberal, bleeding heart, ill fated venture, you deserve it!!!

Hasan is due a firing squad, “whoever get’s to him first”.Go for the throat!! But you liberals want to give him a chance so the assumption is, a possible rehabilitation program, right? Right!!

As Real and True Americans, we must begin to take matters into our own hands. Politics and media are not concerned about America, but only what they can “reap or steal” from it. This is not about “how” we deal with muslims, the economy, terrorists, illegals, financial fraud against hard working Americans and anti-Americanism in all its forms, this is about “what” we are going to do about it.

Unless we have the fortitude and courage to stand beside the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ignoring political correctness, then we are going in a “one way, bad way”, with no return. America is my country and I am going to take her back.

The Hasans and bin Ladens of the world, the banks of the world, the criminals of the world and the politically correct must all be aware. We are coming and it will be on our time, not yours. We have seen enough. You show no respect, you get no respect……

Hasan has proven that with terrorism, comes hell, and with hell, comes a government of no courage or values……….a government that continues to fine tune its own terroristic tendencies. Think people, think.

May islam burn in hell as it has disrupted the American dream and our future. Kind of like what the American government has done recently.

Stand up America!! We are not extremists, we are just extremely mad and will now focus on our American future that the current “government” forbids. We don’t rant, we speak with intensity and logic. Remember those who have given us this opportunity, not the Hasans…and Obama’s.

My friend Evan pointed out some surprising facts last week.  At least they were surprising to me.  Did you know that PETA has killed thousands of animals?  That is, at least according to this source (and it does cite its sources).*

Here are some more facts:

—According to PETA—this is a quote—“Silk Production Causes Painful Death for Insects”.  Ergo, “Don’t buy silk....”

—Another PETA Web site admonishes us, “don’t buy wool.”  (Evan says, “ask any shepherd what happens to a sheep that doesn’t get sheared for the summer”.)

—PETA further admonishes, “Never patronize zoos.”  (If you read the rest of that page, for balance, also read at a minimum a commentary by the president of the Saint Louis Zoo.)

—A blog that PETA’s search feature points me to (and that’s owned by PETA, in any event) at least implies that the blind and other handicapped shouldn’t have the benefit of assistance animals.  (“Why can’t these assistance dogs be replaced with humans who are paid for their services...?”)  Sure enough, further investigation reveals that a writer for the The New Yorker interviewed the president and co-founder of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, and learned that

She regards the use of Seeing Eye dogs as an abdication of human responsibility and, because they live as “servants” and are denied the companionship of other dogs, she is wholly opposed to their use.  She has had at least one dog taken from its owner.

(This and other highly interesting excerpts are available here; an article abstract is available on The New Yorker’s own Web site here.  The New Yorker site won’t let you see the whole article unless you have a subscription, but I have access to a Lexis-Nexis subscription, and I’ve confirmed that these words are indeed contained in that article.  The article is “The Extremist: The woman behind the most successful radical group in America”, April 14th, 2003, page 52, by Michael Specter.)

Here’s another interesting fact.  As it happens, this is the next sentence in the article:  “Among her most frequently cited statements is: ‘When it comes to feelings like hunger, pain, and thirst, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.’”**

Huh.  Isn’t that interesting?

Look, I’m as much in favor of preventing cruelty to animals as the next guy, and if it seems appropriate to the majority in any given state to pass laws saying that cows can’t be kept in a pen so small they can’t sit down, chickens have to be able to flap their wings, etc., that’s fine.  It’s one thing to be in favor of treating our animal chattels humanely, but it’s quite another to say that animals are morally or metaphysically our equals.  They’re not.  I won’t try to get into that whole discussion here, but I will ask, for anyone inclined to go down PETA’s path, how far are you willing to go?  If meat is murder, and killing silkworms is murder, is stepping on an ant or a worm on the sidewalk murder?  If a worm is on the same level as a human being, why limit your compassion to the animal kingdom?  Isn’t that just another arbitrary boundary?  Is baking bread murder?  It slaughters billions of innocent yeast cells.  What about washing hands and killing all those bacteria?  If meat is murder, do we have a moral obligation to send police out into the African veldt to keep the lion from preying on the zebra?

Or think of it this way.  Maddox (formerly of maddox.xmission.com) once pointed out—in what may be the only time he has ever seriously cited a source—that modern harvesting equipment kills huge numbers of field animals every year.  (Warning: Maddox is funny but vulgar.  Here’s his article about whether vegetarianism is murder.  The source he cites is Time magazine, this article, on this page.)  Anyway, do we need a source?  Long before modern farming machinery, Robert Burns famously described inadvertently almost killing a mouse while plowing a field, in his ode “To a Mouse”.  Do you believe that agriculture is a grave societal evil, on the order of genocide or slavery?  Should we ban the motorized combine, and even the simple eighteenth-century plough, with all deliberate speed?

Perhaps the most surprising fact was that there are also objections to PETA that properly have nothing to do with animal “rights”.  At some point, Evan asked, “Is it a victory to get people to reconsider eating meat if you treat women like pieces of it?”  It sounded as if PETA had made a practice of exploiting women (and men’s lust) to sell their product, so to speak (the product being their mad ideology).  Sure enough, the same New Yorker article confirms in plain terms, “Naked women also play a central role in PETA’s demonstrations and advertisements....”

I had never heard of any of this, but the very next day, I went downtown and happened to see two of these PETA girls standing on the street corner.  They were holding signs saying “Leather is a fashion felony” (or something like that) and wearing “police” uniforms, faithfully reproduced right down to such authentic details as fishnet stockings.  (Even if you’re OK with the objectification of women, shouldn’t PETA picket itself for promoting fishing or something?)

OK, so PETA wants to change the rules, to “think outside the box”:  Instead of a rational appeal (animals are humans’ equals; therefore you shouldn’t kill them for leather) or even a straightforward emotional one (look at this cute animal; therefore you shouldn’t kill them for leather), PETA tries to hitch its crusade to men’s sex drives.  In response, I have a modest proposal.  Let’s change the rules.

Maddox once suggested (again, warning: vulgarity), “sponsor a vegetarian”—if you commit to eating three times as much meat as you normally would for as long as your friend is vegetarian, in theory, you can completely neutralize his efforts to reduce the slaughter of animals.  I don’t recommend that.  More modestly, my suggestion is that every time you see a PETA publicity stunt involving girls who look as if they should be told to go put some clothes on, instead, go out and get some new clothes for yourself, made of leather or other “felonious” materials.  If successful, such a plan would cause every such PETA stunt to lead to more, rather than less, material support for the leather industry, the fur industry, etc.

Because I saw those girls downtown, today I bought myself a shiny new leather jacket (well, shiny used leather jacket).  I’ve never owned a leather jacket before (unless you count my leather-sleeved high-school letter jacket), but I think I’m going to like it.  What will you buy the next time you see unethical advertising for the ethical treatment of animals?

Being ethical doesn’t have to be painfully expensive, either.  There’s no reason you have to purchase the most expensive leather jacket you can find (or even the second-most-expensive); apparently you can get new leather jackets that look pretty sweet for under two hundred dollars, or even forty if they’re really on sale.  Also, thrift-store buys totally count.

It doesn’t have to be a leather jacket, of course; even a leather watchband would do (and again, no need to get the most expensive one you can find; apparently even a basic ten-dollar watch can meet your cow-killing needs).  Correction (November 16th, 2009): An alert reader points out that the band of that watch, upon closer inspection, is made of faux leather, but apparently you can still kill cows with a watch under twenty-five dollars (with a band made of “genuine pink leather”, whatever that is).  At that point, though, you’re not getting many square inches of cowhide per dollar; for just thirty dollars more, you can have a whole fedora made of leather, and really get your money’s worth.

There’s also no reason it has to be leather.  We all know these PETA types would disapprove of your buying fur at least as much.  Maybe there’s a lady in your life who would enjoy a new mink coat? 

If we take PETA at their word, silk must be just as good as leather and fur—it’s all murder, right?  You could buy a silk coat, or a silk scarf, or a silk necktie.

For that matter, according to PETA, wool is out, too, right?  Which means it’s in.  There may not be a more inexpensive way to be ethical than by buying a warm woolen coat, hat, scarf, or other article.

The possibilities are endless.  Use your imagination!

Finally, here’s another surprising fact:  People pronounce PETA’s name “pita”—not “pet-a”, which is how I always assumed it was pronounced until I actually heard it pronounced.  It’s funny, they actually make the “E” in “PETA” lowercase in their logo, as if to help people get the pronunciation right—but if all the other letters are capital and the “e” is lowercase, if anything, doesn’t that suggest a short “eh” sound?  Also, apparently they don’t like the word “pet”—again from the New Yorker article: “At lunch, dozens of employees slip out to spend some time with their companion animals.  (Nobody at PETA would ever use the word ‘pet.’)”—but they sure have them; so why not call their organization “pet-a”?  The alternative—“pita”—is halfway to a delicious, lamb-filled gyro.

* In an effort further to evaluate the credibility of the source, I tried searching for it on PETA’s Web site, peta.org—to see whether PETA had responded to the accusation—and found it only in users’ discussion forums (all trace of which seems to have been erased from the PETA Web site itself) and in PETA’s “PETA in the News” section.  The latter links us to this news story, which mentions petakillsanimals.com and says, “PETA isn’t shy about responding on its own Web site, consumer deception.com....”  (On the contrary, I would say that PETA is shy—it responds not on its own Web site, peta.org, but on a separate Web site created for the purpose, consumerdeception.com, which nowhere mentions that it has any connection with PETA, much less that it is PETA’s “own Web site”—but never mind.)  Take a look at PETA’s anti-anti-PETA Web site yourself, but it looks to me like exclusively ad hominem attacks on the guy who apparently runs petakillsanimals.com—in other words, no substantive response to his actual criticisms of PETA.

After more searching, I was finally able to turn up two pages where PETA responds generally to the criticism about its killing of animals, without naming the critics.  (Warning: These pages include very disgusting photographs of animals.)  On these pages (here and here, if you want to see them—you’ve been warned), PETA says or implies that the reason it kills so many of the animals it takes in (more than 90% of them, according to petakillsanimals.com) is that “most” of them “come from miserable conditions”—they’ve been starved, they have various disgusting wounds and diseases, etc.—and are essentially unadoptable.

** With the qualifier “When it comes to...”, that sentence could be interpreted as making a very narrow statement about whether animals feel pain, etc., but the rest of the paragraph, and what Miss Newkirk says elsewhere in the article, confirms that she considers animals to have just as much moral worth as people, if not more.

My friend Evan pointed out some surprising facts last week.  At least they were surprising to me.  Did you know that PETA has killed thousands of animals?  That is, at least according to this source (and it does cite its sources).*

Here are some more facts:

—According to PETA—this is a quote—“Silk Production Causes Painful Death for Insects”.  Ergo, “Don’t buy silk....”

—Another PETA Web site admonishes us, “don’t buy wool.”  (Evan says, “ask any shepherd what happens to a sheep that doesn’t get sheared for the summer”.)

—PETA further admonishes, “Never patronize zoos.”  (If you read the rest of that page, for balance, also read at a minimum a commentary by the president of the Saint Louis Zoo.)

—A blog that PETA’s search feature points me to (and that’s owned by PETA, in any event) at least implies that the blind and other handicapped shouldn’t have the benefit of assistance animals.  (“Why can’t these assistance dogs be replaced with humans who are paid for their services...?”)  Sure enough, further investigation reveals that a writer for the The New Yorker interviewed the president and co-founder of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, and learned that

She regards the use of Seeing Eye dogs as an abdication of human responsibility and, because they live as “servants” and are denied the companionship of other dogs, she is wholly opposed to their use.  She has had at least one dog taken from its owner.

(This and other highly interesting excerpts are available here; an article abstract is available on The New Yorker’s own Web site here.  The New Yorker site won’t let you see the whole article unless you have a subscription, but I have access to a Lexis-Nexis subscription, and I’ve confirmed that these words are indeed contained in that article.  The article is “The Extremist: The woman behind the most successful radical group in America”, April 14th, 2003, page 52, by Michael Specter.)

Here’s another interesting fact.  As it happens, this is the next sentence in the article:  “Among her most frequently cited statements is: ‘When it comes to feelings like hunger, pain, and thirst, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.’”**

Huh.  Isn’t that interesting?

Look, I’m as much in favor of preventing cruelty to animals as the next guy, and if it seems appropriate to the majority in any given state to pass laws saying that cows can’t be kept in a pen so small they can’t sit down, chickens have to be able to flap their wings, etc., that’s fine.  It’s one thing to be in favor of treating our animal chattels humanely, but it’s quite another to say that animals are morally or metaphysically our equals.  They’re not.  I won’t try to get into that whole discussion here, but I will ask, for anyone inclined to go down PETA’s path, how far are you willing to go?  If meat is murder, and killing silkworms is murder, is stepping on an ant or a worm on the sidewalk murder?  If a worm is on the same level as a human being, why limit your compassion to the animal kingdom?  Isn’t that just another arbitrary boundary?  Is baking bread murder?  It slaughters billions of innocent yeast cells.  What about washing hands and killing all those bacteria?  If meat is murder, do we have a moral obligation to send police out into the African veldt to keep the lion from preying on the zebra?

Or think of it this way.  Maddox (formerly of maddox.xmission.com) once pointed out—in what may have been the only time he has ever seriously cited a source—that modern harvesting equipment kills huge numbers of field animals every year.  (Warning: Maddox is funny but vulgar.  Here’s his article about whether vegetarianism is murder.  The source he cites is Time magazine, this article, on this page.)  Anyway, do we need a source?  Long before modern farming machinery, Robert Burns famously described inadvertently almost killing a mouse while plowing a field, in his ode “To a Mouse”.  Do you believe that agriculture is a grave societal evil, on the order of genocide or slavery?  Should we ban the motorized combine, and even the simple eighteenth-century plough, with all deliberate speed?

But perhaps the most surprising fact was that there are also objections to PETA that properly have nothing to do with animal “rights”.  At some point, Evan asked, “Is it a victory to get people to reconsider eating meat if you treat women like pieces of it?”  It sounded as if PETA had made a practice of exploiting women (and men’s lust) to sell their product (the product being their mad ideology).  Sure enough, the same New Yorker article confirms in plain terms, “Naked women also play a central role in PETA’s demonstrations and advertisements....”

I’d had no idea, but the very next day, I went downtown and happened to see two of these PETA girls standing on the street corner.  They were holding signs saying “Leather is a fashion felony,” or something like that, and wearing “police” uniforms, faithfully reproduced right down to such authentic details as fishnet stockings.  (Even if you’re OK with the objectification of women, shouldn’t PETA be picketing itself for promoting fishing or something?)

OK, so PETA wants to change the rules, to “think outside the box”:  Instead of a rational appeal (animals are humans’ equals; therefore you shouldn’t kill them for leather) or even a straightforward emotional one (look at this cute animal; therefore you shouldn’t kill them for leather), PETA tries to hitch its crusade to men’s sex drives.  In response, I have a modest proposal.  Let’s change the rules.

Maddox once suggested (again, warning: vulgarity), “sponsor a vegetarian”—if you commit to eating three times as much meat as you normally would for as long as your friend is vegetarian, in theory, you can completely neutralize his efforts to reduce the slaughter of animals.  I don’t recommend that.  More modestly, my suggestion is that every time you see a PETA publicity stunt involving girls who look as if they should be told to go put some clothes on, instead, go out and get yourself some new clothes made of leather or other “felonious” materials.  If successful, such a plan would cause every such PETA stunt to lead to more, rather than less, material support for the leather industry, the fur industry, etc.

Because I saw those girls downtown, today I bought myself a shiny new leather jacket (well, shiny used leather jacket).  I’ve never owned a leather jacket before (unless you count my leather-sleeved high-school letter jacket), but I think I’m going to like it.  What will you buy the next time you see unethical advertising for the ethical treatment of animals?

Being ethical doesn’t have to be painfully expensive, either.  There’s no reason you have to purchase the most expensive leather jacket you can find (or even the second-most-expensive); apparently you can get new leather jackets that look pretty sweet for under two hundred dollars, or even under forty if they’re really on sale.  Also, thrift-store buys totally count.

Of course it doesn’t have to be a leather jacket; a leather watchband would do (and again, no need to get the most expensive one you can find; apparently even a basic ten-dollar watch can meet your cow-killing needs).

There’s also no reason it has to be leather.  We all know these PETA types would disapprove of your buying fur at least as much.  Maybe there’s a lady in your life who would enjoy a new mink coat? 

If we take PETA at their word, silk must be just as good as leather and fur—it’s all murder, right?  You could buy a silk coat, or a silk scarf, or a silk necktie.

For that matter, according to PETA, wool is out, too, right?  Which means it’s in.  There may not be a more inexpensive way to be ethical than by buying a warm woolen coat, hat, scarf, or other article.

The possibilities are endless.  Use your imagination!

Finally, here’s another surprising fact:  People pronounce PETA’s name “pita”—not “pet-a”, which is how I always assumed it was pronounced until I actually heard it pronounced.  It’s funny, they actually make the “E” in “PETA” lowercase in their logo, as if to help people get the pronunciation right—but if all the other letters are capital and the “e” is lowercase, if anything, doesn’t that suggest a short “eh” sound?  Also, apparently they don’t like the word “pet”—again from the New Yorker article: “At lunch, dozens of employees slip out to spend some time with their companion animals.  (Nobody at PETA would ever use the word ‘pet.’)”—but they sure have them; so why not call their organization “pet-a”?  The alternative—”pita”—is halfway to a delicious, lamb-filled gyro.

* In an effort further to evaluate the credibility of the source, I tried searching for it on PETA’s Web site, peta.org—to see whether PETA had responded to the accusation—and found it only in users’ discussion forums (all trace of which seems to have been erased from the PETA Web site itself) and in PETA’s “PETA in the News” section.  The latter links us to this news story, which mentions petakillsanimals.com and says, “PETA isn’t shy about responding on its own Web site, consumer deception.com....”  (On the contrary, I would say that PETA is shy—it responds not on its own Web site, peta.org, but on a separate Web site created for the purpose, consumerdeception.com, which nowhere mentions that it has any connection with PETA, much less that it is PETA’s “own Web site”—but never mind.)  Take a look at PETA’s anti-anti-PETA Web site yourself, but it looks to me like exclusively ad hominem attacks on the guy who apparently runs petakillsanimals.com—in other words, no substantive response to his actual criticisms of PETA.

After more searching, I was finally able to turn up two pages where PETA responds generally to the criticism about its killing of animals, without naming the critics.  (Warning: These pages include very disgusting photographs of animals.)  On these pages (here and here, if you want to see them—you’ve been warned), PETA says or implies that the reason it kills so many of the animals it takes in (more than 90% of them, according to petakillsanimals.com) is that “most” of them “come from miserable conditions”—they’ve been starved, they have various disgusting wounds and diseases, etc.—and are essentially unadoptable.

** With the qualifier “When it comes to...”, that sentence could be interpreted as making a very narrow statement about whether animals feel pain, etc., but the rest of the paragraph, and what Miss Newkirk says elsewhere in the article, confirms that she considers animals to have just as much moral worth as people, if not more.

Nidal Malik Hasan, I won’t address him by rank because he never earned it. This is a typical case of an individual being moved along because of his religion and ethnicity. Had he been a Christian he would have been discharged years ago and the media, if they said anything at all, would have made him out to be a madman. A religious zealot. Some kind of extremist. Well here’s how it’s shaking down. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS is biting us in the butt right now. Not in the future as everyone is fond of saying.

Nidal Malik Hasan is a madman, a religious zealot and an extremist. This was a hate crime if ever there was one. The B. Hussein Obama military and the government propaganda centers (ABC, CNN, MSNBC et al) are spinning this as not his fault. Write this down and store it away to be opened in two years. This man won’t do any time. After a short stay in the booby hatch, where he knows how the system works, he will be out on the street to pedal his brand of crazy again. You see, he never intended to survive. He was going to be a martyr and get his 73 virgins, but our touchy feely police foiled his plot and just crippled him.

No matter how you spin it this guy committed serious crimes. But that’s not what really bothers me about this whole mess. No, what really bothers me is that he’s being refered to by our liberal media as an “Army Phsychiatrist” instead of the radical mooslim terrorist that he is.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid Haven’t Said Hasan Is Mass Murderer Or An ExtremistThe silence is now deafening from elitist progressive Barack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi. Harry Reid, the Democrats, and mainstream media regarding Major Nidal Malik Hasan.  Is Hasan an extremist or terrorist?  In Obama’s world there are no Muslim extremists just arrogant selfish Americans..more…

Also join us at MomsAndDadsBeHeard.org a new forum for you to express your views and concerns. Help us and be part of bringing our Great Christian country back.

First major terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Bush kept us safe for over 7 years and now we’ve been attacked again by an Islamic Jihadist TERRORIST.

The untold story: The 14th murder victim of the Fort Hood jihadi massacre – A little baby

Explaining Away Mass Murder – Charles Krauthammer

“So it turns out that the worst Islamist terrorist strike since 9/11 — an attack that killed twice as many Americans as were slain in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing — was not a terrorist attack at all. Just ask the FBI.” – Dare to call it TERRORISM – Andrew C. McCarthy

Same Old, Same Old at Fort Hood

Muslim soldier Nidal Hasan to fellow military doctors: “We love death more then (sic) you love life!”

Another trend that I have noticed about those Progressive’s from the left is how they love to label people. During the health care debate, T.E.A. (Taxed Enough Already) Party protesters were labeled everything under the sun. One of their favorites was to label anyone who went against Obama’s policies as an extremist.

Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid wasted little time in pinning the extremist label on those that attended T.E.A. party protests and town hall meetings. In the wake of the terrorist attack at Ft. Hood, Obama came out and told everyone not to jump to conclusions until all the facts were found.

You have peaceful T.E.A. Party protester being labeled extremist and they killed zero. You have an Islamic terrorist that killed 13 unarmed soldiers and wounded 29 more, yet Obama and the progressive left are afraid to pin the extremist label because of political correctness.

Obama did not want to jump into this debate, unlike the Gates debate where he jumped in without knowing any of the facts. The difference is that this case involve an extremist who was Muslim and Obama has apeasd the Muslim world since his first day in office.

Not a single peep from the White House. Not a single mention of terrorism or the labeling of extremist has seeped from those on the left. Instead we received all kinds of excuses for Nidal Malik Hasan crime. Obama said he “just snapped.” Really?

 Instead of extremist or terrorist, the alphabet-media referred to Hasan as a “shooter” or a “gunman.” He was troubled and harassed man. He had a bumper sticker scraped off his car. Hasan suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) even though he never served a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. Guess Hasan obtained PTSD via osmosis?

To Obama, the progressive left and the alphabet-media:

This was an act of terrorism. Hasan openly spoke about Islamic jihad to fellow soldiers. Hasan opened fire on unarmed soldiers, while shouting “Allahu Akbar” which is the typical cry for an Islamic terrorist just before they blow themselves up or gun down their victims.

American citizens are quickly labeled extremists for enacting their first amendment rights and speaking out against the Obama administration’s attempt to fundamentally change America. A Muslim terrorist kills 13 American soldiers and the politically correct progressives, lead by Obama, refuse to label Hasan a terrorist or extremist.

To me, that makes Obama and his progressive minions extremist. This is nothing new for Obama. He is use to being surrounded by radicals and extremists. Just another day at the Obama White House.

Extremism Spreads Across Indonesian Penal Code

This was an interesting article in the NYT a couple weeks ago regarding a radical minority of Islam in Indonesia making a big push towards passing a law allowing the stoning to death of those accused of adultery.  Local lawmakers in Aceh have simply accepted the law and even endorsed it for fear of being branded ‘bad Muslims.’ One Democratic party member even claims that he belives “stoning is against human rights,” but that he would have never “dared to say so explicitly in Parliament” for fear of being labeled an “infidel.”

This story makes me sick to my stomach. Unfortunately extremes of all sorts, not just Islam, are developing all around the world and being forced on people through fear and terror. It is beyond my mental ability to conceive how someone could actually believe it is just to stone someone to death.  I understand that every culture has differences in their belief systems, but this transcends basic human rights and is downright animalistic.

Obama Pelosi Call You An Extremist

Elitist progressive Barack Hussein Obama warned Democrats: “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit [Democratic voters] and it will encourage the extremists.” That was part of Obama’s speech to Democrats Saturday and he and Nancy Pelosi were garnering votes for Obamacare..more…

Moms, Dads, Grandparents need a place to vent about the direction our government is taking? Go to momsanddadsbeheard.org and speak out. Help us and be part of bringing our Great country back.

Nidal Malik Hasan is a TERRORIST…..

A terrorist attack occurred in Fort Hood Texas Thursday, November 5th, 2009.  Our nation is under attack by Islamic extremists. Our president is not very interested in keeping us safe.. He has made this very clear since this attack took place.

President Obama’s half assed speech on Thursday was far worse than any of his critics expected. It seemed almost sarcastic, almost like a parody or something..

Just 2 days following a terrorist attack on American soil, President Obama bullied members of  congress to commit yet ANOTHER attack on our freedom.

President Obama’s actions following 11/5 lead me to believe that not only is he unabashed of the events of that day, but perhaps he even ENDORSES this kind of behavior in our nation?.!

At the end of my “Tracking American Citizens” page, I said:

If you’re a conservative, you must understand how the Statist — and how the Obama administration in particular — sees you and your family. You are almost certainly a “rightwing extremist” and in all probability could be considered a “terrorist.”

Saturday, in his private pep talk to Democrats in support of the PelosiCare version of ObamaCare, Mr. Obama asked:

Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit [Democratic voters] and it will encourage the extremists.  [Source.]

He’s been very consistent on that point.