OK–it’s time to just come out and say it. So-called liberals must be desperate, because–with regard to the Ground Zero mosque (as with so many other past cultural issues)–Barack Obama has sided against the American people–again. How do I know this to be true? Well, let’s just look at the steady stream of hysterical op-eds coming out of The New York Times slandering the American people as racist, Islamaphobic, unpatriotic dumb-dumbs. (Yes, I know, so-called liberals must be pretty desperate to play the patriotism card–I thought they thought that patriotism was gauche.)

For instance, last weekend, TV entertainer, Dick Cavett, wrote a column titled, Real Americans, Please Stand Up. (Did you get that? If you disagree with him about the Ground Zero mosque, you aren’t a “real American”.) In this op-ed, Cavett goes on to lament how “ashamed of us” he is, and he even goes so far as to write the following insanity–

As a war kid, I also heard an uncle of mine endorse a sentiment attributed to our Admiral “Bull” Halsey: “If I met a pregnant Japanese woman, I’d kick her in the belly.”

So now, not only am I not a “real American”, but I want to kick pregnant Japanese women in the belly.

Oh, but Mr. Cavett is not alone in his inane ramblings. On Sunday, theater critic, Frank Rich, wrote a column titled, How Fox Betrayed Petraeus, and on Monday cultural writer, Nicholas Kristof, wrote a column titled, Taking bin Laden’s Side.

Now, just from the titles of these op-eds alone, it should be painfully obvious what The New York Times is trying to do–i.e., “otherize” all opponents of the Ground Zero mosque as bigoted, anti-American rednecks with the worst possible motives. However, all of these columns were rich in over the top rhetoric, but deeply lacking in any information about the previous troubling, statements from Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (the man behind the mosque), or the fact that that Iman Rauf has not been at all transparent about where the money’s coming from to build this mosque at Ground Zero. So, for flat out slandering the American people as anti-American bigots–and being disingenuous as to why they are really upset about the Ground Zero mosque–The New York Times deserves to wear “The Cone of Shame”. Read the rest of this entry »

[This diary was re-posted with the full permission of the author, Steph C, and was originally posted at Hillbillypolitics.]

There have been a lot of knee jerk reactions to the Ground Zero Mosque/Cultural Center. I’ve had my own, which was troubling as I generally don’t care about others’ religion except in the general sense of wanting everyone to go to Heaven. Why we’ve had such visceral reactions is not easy to put into words and most will fail at putting it into words, though I’ll give it a try.

Our understanding of Islam is that it is not “just a religion” but a whole system of government and economics as well as religion. This runs counter to the main argument being used by both sides. To date, the framers of the debate on the Ground Zero Mosque, have designated freedom of religion as the hill to die on. The problem with this approach is that it allows those debating to avoid the big issues lurking underneath.

Just as we Christians have different doctrinal flavors (Lutheran, Baptist, Episcopal, Catholic, and so on) so does Islam. The particular “flavor” of Islam that is being promoted with the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque is that of Wahhabism and Sharia Law.

The would-be builders are seeking money from Saudi Arabia and Iran among other nations that practice the above described religion, which isn’t just a religion. In addition, those builders/backers refuse to give any assurances that this new “cultural center” won’t be a repeat of this one (emphasis mine). Read the rest of this entry »

(H/T to Allahpundit of Hot Air.)

Recently on The O’Reilly Factor, a moderate Canadian Muslim woman by the name of Raheel Raza spoke out against building the now infamous Ground Zero mosque. (She has previously written about her feelings as well.) First of all, her performance on O’Reilly’s show tonight was gangbusters. She blew him away with her extremely well articulated reasoning for being against the building of the Ground Zero mosque. To be specific, Ms. Raza stated that, “It’s confrontational, it’s in bad faith, and it doesn’t set up any real dialogue or discussion on tolerance.” Then, she went on to further state that, “Bleeding heart, white liberals don’t understand the battle that moderate Muslims face and how radical Islam has grown since 9/11 because of political correctness.” She was so terrific and spot-on that she, literally, left Bill O’Reilly speechless–all he could respond with was, “What a great answer!”. (You can watch Ms. Raza’s entire interview in the embed below.)

Folks, what this woman did on O’Reilly’s show took guts–I’m not going to mince words. You know that she’s going to catch all kinds of hell when she gets back home from “tolerant liberals” who can’t tolerate any apostasy from their PC ideology. We need to give Ms. Raza, and moderate Muslims like her with the courage to speak out against radical Islam, as much support as possible. It’s the right thing to do.

Update: This diary was originally posted a week ago in a Live Wire for The Minority Report, but it looks like I was quite prescient when I wrote that Raheel Raza was going to “catch hell” when she went back home to Canada. Yesterday, Kathy Shaidle of NewsReal reported that Ms. Raza has already received a threatening phone call from the property owner of the Ground Zero mosque. Again, now more than ever, the Raheel Razas of the Muslim world–with the fortitude to take a stand against radical Islam–need and deserve our support.



Y’all know the drill. When the story first broke regarding General Stanley McChrystal supposedly “committing an act of insubordination” by trashing President Obama to Rolling Stone magazine, the conventional wisdom was to say that “he should be fired”. Well, then, after reading Michael Rulle’s excellent article titled, “Has Anyone Actually Read the Rolling Stone Article?”, it became apparent to me that A.) most of the general public and the mainstream media had not read the infamous article, and B.) that it is foolish to take anything that the MSM says at face value. In other words, this whole story began to stink as though a skunk had scurried across the backyard. Read the rest of this entry »

From mkhammer

Obama’s many faces on terrorists & Miranda rights… Once again, the presidents actions don’t match his words!

Cross posted from Upload Liberty.com

ObamaDems don’t care about winning wars, honoring the troops, deterring terrorists, creating non-government jobs or allowing anyone to secure a loan in this country without their prior approval.

This is the first in a series, focusing on the governing concept of President Barack Obama that we identified early in his Administration and dubbed “expostfactObamalism”, due to ObamaDems’ attempts last Spring, to retroactively tax AIG-bonuses at a 90% confiscatory rate and to criminalize the enhanced interrogation techniques and the giving of legal advice justifying same, that CIA agents and Justice Department lawyers used to keep us safe after 911.

The recent decision to provide Khalid Sheik Mohamed (pictured, courtesy of TMR) with a civilian trial and return to the scene of his horrific handiwork near Ground Zero in New York City inspired the need to return to this issue, given its departure from fundamental American principles and comparability to the the regular criminalization of politics by Third World banana republics.

Actions of this kind so violate fundamental fairness that  the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions explicitly state, for example, that:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. – US Const. Art. 1, sec. 9

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made. – Texas Const. Art. 1, sec. 16

U.S. Supreme Court precedents have severely limited the applicability of these concepts to criminalization of deeds deemed legal at the time, but have allowed their applicability, at least in the criminal realm to similarly-situated groups rather than just named individuals. However, our culture and traditions have, until the rise of the ObamaDems, have mostly followed the concepts embodied by the most detailed language of the Lone Star State’s language cited above.

Our purpose today, is to re-introduce the concept of expostfactObamalism in a number of contexts, which we will revisit over the coming week in more detail, as indicated below:

KSM trial in NYC

Possibly the most vile and cynical action taken by the liberal Democratic Administration, the decision to refuse to accept a guilty plea from the mastermind of 911 is a direct assault on previous administration. Such a trial serves no useful purpose as Attorney General Eric Holder (in the role of Janet Reno as Bill Clinton’s Waco raid foil) admits that KSM can be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant.

KSM was about to be convicted and executed under the rights-sensitive, U.S. Supreme Court-demanded, Democratic Party majority passed and signed  by Obama into law, military tribunals at Gitmo. The result of civilian trial in NYC can produce no better outcome, and promises to be a show trial that indicts President George W. Bush et al, with KSM and the other four terrorist defendants testifying essentially as witnesses corroborating the “testimony” of candidate Barack Obama’s campaign criticisms of the United States at war.

As we have oft repeated, Dems say and do for free, what the terrorists would gladly pay them to say and do. We suspect the irony of Mohamed echoing the words of ObamaDems, including Barack Hussein Obama and other ObamaDems, will not be lost on the American people.

Jobs summit fraud

The stimulus wasn’t, but could have been. Even the Keynesian part wasn’t. We know this because now ObamaDems are post-2009 Election Day in Virginia and know that they don’t have enough wealth to spread around to cover the stench of the fact that Dems Don’t Care about the poor and middle class.

If ObamaDems cared about actual people having actual jobs (save for government and union jobs), they would have front-loaded the recovery act with shovel-ready jobs. That they didn’t is an admission that they only care about the perception of progress on jobs leading up to Election Day 2010.

If they cared about creating jobs, they would celebrate the cooling Earth of the past 11 years, breathe a sigh of relief that we discovered the fraud of the global warming/climate change claim, and accept the reality of oil as the now and indefinite future fuel of prosperity and liberty. Read George Will, here.

We will have extensive coverage of this issue after the President’s address to the nation on Tuesday, but suffice to point out for now that:

• Obama is whining about the deficit and consequent lack of resources after his $1.8T first budget deficit, squandered the moment and our currency on a government growthulus bill posing as a stimulus;
•  ObamaDems reject any and all of the proven supply-side policies that produced the Reagan-Clinton 25-year recovery and tie all proposals for tax relief to crony capitalism that requires investors to follow the advice of federal bureaucrats;
• Seeks to monopolize mortgage, student and small business loans within the federal government’s discretion in order to enforce the above; and
• Creates two Americas that John Edwards never hinted at, i.e. One Union, One Non-Union, and guess which gets the shaft.

The non-surge in Afghanistan is expost facto pre-911 mentality

West Point address admits ObamaDems’ Bushlied Era and campaign claims that the Afghan war was one of necessity was a fraud

Charles Krauthammer’s paraphrase of Winston Churchill as Obama:

We shall fight in the air, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields, we shall fight in the hills — for 18 months. Then we start packing for home.

President Obama’s cynical use of West Point cadets as props for his diatribes, insults and lies against his predecessor as Commander in Chief (and oh, btw, I am sending 30,000 more of you chumps into war) showed just what a small man he is. I got through two pages of the eight-page transcript before having to write this column, the main follow-up to which will detail the vile hurlings from Obama’s mouth later in the week. For now, consider:

1. No mention of victory
2. Enemies of liberty described as mere ”extremists”, never terrorists
3. No praise for Iraq victory
4. Blames Cold War muhajadeen strategy that defeated the Evil Empire, for 911. We “allowed” 911 to happen
5. Blames Taliban resurgence on Iraq War
6. Lies concerning supposed denials of Afghan Theater troop requests by then Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld
7. Ad nauseum ad infinitum….in next column

 The AJC’s Jim Wooten Thinking Right:

It is tacky and disrespectful of the Office of the President for the Commander-in-Chief to assemble his troops, as Obama did at West Point, and use the occasion to trash their former Commander-in-Chief. This is the action of a small-bore leader.

We were told during the Bushlied Era, that we had to get Usama bin Laden, but now, not so much. But a war tax? We need that.

More later, every day this week…

But before we conclude part one, one comment on the relatively strong support the President has received from prominent Republicans, like Newt Gingrich, for his decision to send 30K troops to Afghanistan. Newt, like Karl Rove and Bill Kristol, disagree with exit strategies that telegraph to allies and enemies alike that we haven’t the stomach to finish the job, but do think that General Petraeus can win the war with the extra troops.

I was asked by an Astute Conservative Political Observer in Alabama is Newt had gone over to the dark side due to his praise of Obama’s decision on the increase of troops in Afghanistan.

No, he hasn’t, although some of his actions on climate change, support for moderates in contested GOP primaries and other actions do show he has been inside the Beltway too long.

However, the main lesson to be drawn from this exercise as contrasted with the behavior of Democrats (including then Senator Obama who refused to vote the fund the troops as a campaign game of chicken with Hillary) is the consistency of Republicans in supporting Commanders in Chiefs and troops in the Field.

By contrast, Democrats use war and the troops as political issues and pawns.

Dems are vile.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed

Actual words of Koran justify murder, the Bible does not

Strict Constructionism is civilization’s friend when applied to the U.S. Constitution and the Bible. Not so when applied to the Koran and other authoritative writings of Islam.

The latter fact is a major factor in the rise of Islamist terror, as the plain and obvious meaning of the actual words of Allah in the Koran lend credibility to those the extremists in the Muslim and Arab worlds and at the same time put peace-loving Muslims on the defensive. It appears that the only thing that reverses their respective roles in their homeland is when a liberty loving Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States is provoked to defend America, and post-regime change, empowers those that have “re-interpreted” Islam’s admonitions of “jihad”.

It appears that when American power kills enough of those that are actually faithful to the words of the book shared my all Muslims as Holy, the “reformationists” choose soccer and pizza over burka-garbed teen suicide pizza-parlor bombing as sport.

Three Blind Mice and/or See, Hear and Speak no Evil Monkeys?

Since 911 concentrated this Baptist mind, I have long contended that one can’t be a good Muslim and a good American, that is, if the actual words of the Book matter to you. For instance, consider these passages from a column that suggests that those who deny the clear import of the words are “Still Willfully Blind”:

At his blog today, Andrew Bostom, a scholar of jihadism, cites the following passage from “Reliance of the Traveler,” a widely distributed manual of Islamic law produced by al-Azhar University in Egypt, the most authoritative interpreters of theology and sharia jurisprudence in Sunni Islam, the dominant tradition among the world’s Muslims:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and, is etymologically derived from the word, mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion [of Islam]…The scriptural basis for jihad is such Koranic verses as “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216); “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89); “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36); and such hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] as the one related by (Sahih) Bukhari and (Sahih) Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And the final reckoning is with Allah”; and the hadith by (Sahih) Muslim, “To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

As Dr. Bostom points out, the first hadith referred to in the passage — the one in which Mohammed explains that Allah has commanded the Muslims to fight non-Muslims — was cited by Nidal Hasan in slide 43 of the June 7, 2007 presentation that Jonah discusses in his excellent column today.

How long will the Three Blind Mice of moderate Muslims, the political left (see liberals and Democrats) and our Commander in Chief keep their hands over their eyes and ears and refuse to speak of evil by its name? Must Hyde Park in Chicago of Honolulu be vaporized before the Apologizer-and-Inappropriate-Bower-before-Potentates-and-Emperors-in-Chief gets reality?

It is these same leftist mice and monkeys that spew a political correctness (see cowardly liars) of violent tendency equivalence between the Koran and the Bible; Christianity and Islam; and Osama bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh. The blindness required for such dismissive scoffing would render Stevie Wonder 20/20, as once has to ignore the actual words of the respective holy books; travel back centuries to find Christian church leaders justifying anything approaching justification for murder; ignore the disconnect between what authorities within the respective churches say and don’t say about individuals’ self-justifications for murders vs the position of the respective churches (Christian church leaders and neatly ALL Christians denounce all murder and especially including forced conversion based murder or infidel extermination. Islams leaders are mostly mute); and the exponentially large disparity in the numbers of victims.

In fact, when the left cites those non-Muslim terrorists that they say prove equivalence with Islam, they really help prove my point as the exceptions prove the rule. All they have are the OKC bombing, a few (2-3 incidents since 1973) of abortion clinic bombings and 1-2 murders of abortionists, with victims numbering less than 200. All this despite the fact that a majority of Americans are pro-life. The non-violence of the pro-lifers is self defining.

What of the numbers of victims of Islam, in the name of Islam, with mostly cricket chirps in protests from Mosques? 3000 on 911. Thousands of others since since Sirhan Sirhan gunned down RFK in 1968. Billions spent by the peace-loving to defend against terror. Israel under constant siege and the threat of extermination by Iran’s Mullahs in search of the end of time.

The Books

But DeVine Law, why so much emphasis on the words of the Koran, and how about those village genocides in the Old Testament? After all, look at all those years before the latter half of the 20th century when the Arab and Muslim worlds were mostly benign?

I could mention that America was born partly due to the refusal of Americans to pay tribute to Barbary Pirates (see Islamist terrorists). I could mention that the oil to fuel terror was not discovered in the Muslim world until well into the 20th Century. I could bring up the Cold War between two superpowers that kept the Islamists at bay (but at too high a price given the exponential evils and slaughter of Communism).

I do thank God that most Muslims eschew the real Prophet Muhammad and the actual words of the Koran in favor of a “reformed” Islam that makes kill mean pray and holy war mean strive to do right. Thank God for blind mice, up to a point.

But words matter, both in Holy Books and Constitutions. Men are flawed. Men have, at times twisted the words of the Bible to justify heinous acts. Yes, the numbers of religiously justified heinous acts are dwarfed by the numbers killed by godless Kaiserism, Hitlerism, Fascism, Socialism and Communism, throughout history. But one murder is one too many, no matter the justification, and given the civilization-essentials provided by faith, and especially the Judeo-Christian version, it is quite dangerous for the truth to be transmogrified.

The fact is that the actual words of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, are not only the eternal, spiritual soul-saving truth for believers, they also form the basis for the principles that have made Western Civilization the tolerant and prosperous miracle of history that it is.

No admonitions to murder in the Bible

Nowhere in the Bible will you find admonitions from God or anyone else to prospectively kill. You will find some history of past admonitions at particular times and places in the OT. Moreover, nowhere in the Bible will you find any calls to convert or be killed.

The Koran can make no such claim. For this reason, Islam will always be a danger. Words matter.

So, we conservatives, who properly insist that contracts of all kinds, from home mortgages, up to including Constitutions, be interpreted by the plain meaning and intent of the actual words, must pray that Muslims choose the equivalent of “activist judges” to call black, white for us to have peace.

The better alternative, of course, would be for them to convert to a Book whose strict construction produces peace. Let us pray. But in the meantime, I would be willing that some of our liberal friends that have re-written the US Constitution to justify abortion and the Bible to justify Government loving my neighbor with my money, apply the same logic to the Koran and make jihad mean scoring Goal in the World Cup.

God bless.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

From

White House Is Drafting Executive Order to Allow Indefinite Detention of Terror Suspects

The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, is drafting an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that bypassing Congress could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

After months of internal debate over how to close the facility in Cuba, White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the facility by the president’s January deadline.

SMITH: Leon Panetta intimated the former vice president was playing politics with national security issues. The former president has intoned his own displeasure with some of your policy changes. I think they feel like some of the things that you’ve done, in fact, are treacherous.

OBAMA: Well, I think when it comes to Vice President Cheney, he and I have a deep disagreement about what’s required to keep the American people safe. And I think that disagreement has been amply aired and certainly he has a right to voice his opinions. I would argue that our policies are making the American people safer, and that some of the policies that he’s promoted in the past have not.

Michael Barone has a great piece that speaks to this and other issues he sees with the Obama Administration:

But transferring large segments of the American economy from the private to the public sector has proved to be tougher than winning Democratic primaries and caucuses. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il have proved to be harder to charm than American mainstream media. It’s generally good for American presidents to have long-term strategies. But in setting public policy it’s important to get the details right. And in guiding the nation in a dangerous world it’s vital to adjust to face hard realities and adjust to unexpected events.