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.

From 

President Obama isn’t ready to back away from the state secrets privilege. Tomorrow, Justice Department lawyers are expected to notify a judge that it will not back away from its assertion of the privilege in the Al-Haramain case, even under the threat of sanctions. Judge Vaughn Walker, frustrated by months of delay from the government, said he might summarily rule in favor of Al-Haramain, the Islamic charity that’s suing the government over the legality of the National Security Agency’s domestic collection programs.

The government wants to force Walker’s hand by stonewallking. Walker could order the government to release a critical, highly-classified document, an order that could be — and would be — appealed to 2nd circuit court of appeals. Or, Walker could decide the case in favor of the plaintiffs, something that the plaintiffs don’t want … the case isn’t about money, for them, it’s about the legality of the NSA program. (The government could also make the case go away by accepting the summary judgment; they’d pay a few million bucks to the plaintiffs and wouldn’t have to disclose — or admit — anything.)

The more things change the more they stay the same!

As for the North Koreans, they laugh at The US Paper-Tigers and their flimsy memorandum. They issued a predictably stupid and obnoxious statement that made old Cold War Watchers yearn for the days when the Soviet Union issued these statements using well-written prose instead.

“Our army and people are fully ready for battle . . . against any reckless U.S. attempt for a pre-emptive attack,” the reclusive country’s state-run news agency said.

Imagine the Dear Leader’s chagrin when his Aide-Du-Poobah informed him that all the Americans did was issue another lame cease and desist letter. The quote “4.7 on the Frikkin’ Richter Scale, and all they can come up with is that?! Leonid Breshnev used to get front page headlines!” was not really attributed to the Dyspeptic Despot of Pyongyang, that’s just me being snarky.

Of course the recent missile test didn’t come without a long list of precursors. The Washinton Post does a good job of describing the list of provocative actions taken by North Korea this Spring.

North-South relations on the Korean Peninsula have deteriorated dramatically this spring. The North has launched a long-range missile, detained a South Korean national, kicked out U.N. nuclear inspectors, restarted a plutonium factory and halted six-nation negotiations on its nuclear program. It has also voided contracts with South Korean companies at the Kaesong industrial park, a jointly run operation just across the border from South Korea.

And yet Barack Obama thinks we should all get together and talk. Talking with our enemies always makes us stronger – provided that we actually have a gravaman for discussions. With North Korea, that gravaman does not exist. Ipso facto, President Obama’s preferred policy will not succeed in this situation.

North korea believes they are the legitimate government of all Korean people, and that they hold title to Seoul and all points South. They believe the government in Seoul consists of usurpers and that the US supports them illegitimately. In their eyes we are criminals. They have no more desire to discuss with Barack Obama than I would to twitter Chucky Manson.

Thus, the US has three valid options. We can drop a Cleveland Steamer on Kim Il Jung and take over. We can continue a slow bleed strategy of supporting a status quo arrangement, where North Koreans don’t eat three meals a day too often. The third option involves our withdrawal of the 2nd Army Division to Scofield Barracks. Call it the Acheson Perimeter.

If you read that paragraph closely, you’ll notice conversation with our enemies does not appear anywhere on the menu of available options. Neither did George W. Bush’s Six Party Talks. A successful conversation requires more than one interested listener.

So if George W. Bush and Barack Obama both followed a similarly impotent set of guidelines towards dealing with Nannutjob of The North, why then does Barack Obama get the worse end of the stick in terms of hostile conduct from North Korea? It has to do with how each man is perceived in Pyongyang. Kim Il Jung believed Gearge W. Bush had both the nerve and the nasty intent to pull the trigger. He doesn’t think Barack Obama would feel comfortable weilding a paint-pellet gun.

The long list of smaller provocations by the North Koreans were preperatory steps. They wanted to determine whether the United States was still engaged as an interested party, and whether the United States was still willing to deal with North Korea without blinking.

As a Pilot Test, these provocations told Kim Il Jung that the US no longer wanted to expend the capital of empire in his neck of the woods. This allowed him to feel safe in utterly flaunting the recent treaties he had signed with the Six Party talks under durress; instead of good will. Finally, it allowed him to feel cocky enough to express what he always has and always will feel towards Barack Obama, and all other Americans. He expressed his complete and unmitigated contempt.

From Rasmussen

Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters nationwide now disagree with President Barack Obama’s decision to close the prison camp for suspected terrorists at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted after the President’s speech on Guantanamo last week, shows that 38% agree with his decision.

Just 25% share the President’s view that the Guantanamo camp weakened national security. Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree with that perspective.

And, by a 57% to 28% margin, voters oppose moving any of the suspected terrorists to prisons in the United States. Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party strongly oppose transfers to U.S. prisons. Democrats are evenly divided.

Just 15% now say the President is Very Likely to close the prison camp during his first year in office while 6% say that is Not at All Likely to happen. Two-thirds of the nation’s voters are not so sure—35% say the President is Somewhat Likely to close the prison camp while 30% say he is Not Very Likely to do so.

America may never be able to re-pay the national debt to foreign bondholders that the ObamaDems’ stimulus and budget bills promise to incur and certainly we will never be able to re-pay the ultimate sacrifices so many Americans have made that we honor on this and every Memorial Day.

So, is it too much to ask that we that our Commander-in-Chief at the least, not make it more likely that the latter debt in blood be increased exponentially while he surrenders what that memorialized blood bought?

The United States last paid off the national debt in 1835 at the insistence of President Andrew Jackson, whose victory as General of US forces in 1815 at New Orleans secured the revolution against taxation without representation and other evils made possible for non-self government, launched 39 years earlier and for which thousands died.

Yet, surely the fallen didn’t die for self-government that would find representatives like Senator Barack Obama voting to grant the Treasury unfettered power to squander $750 billion last September and a President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi tripling the national debt built up during the past 194 years in the next ten.

Surely those that fell for to secure Texas and the Southwest for the manifest destiny of a Fruited Plain from sea to shining sea in the 19th Century didn’t die so that ObamaDems could populate labor unions through an illegal invasion by the ancestors of those from whom they secured the Lower Forty-Eight in the 21st.

Surely those that fell to secure Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness didn’t die for a cap on such pursuits at $250K; liberty restricted by one man’s whim to hold back pitchforks; and life not even secure for born alive infants whose deaths are the object of conspiracies between expectant, yet reluctant mothers and the graduates of medical schools.

Surely those that died to defeat fascism under the leadership of Democrats FDR and HST in WWII didn’t fall so that a future President from the World’s Oldest Party would aid and abet the rise of totalitarians promising to provide a more complete Holocaust without the defenders of liberty firing a shot.

Surely those that died in the efforts that led to the capture of those whose squealings saved Los Angeles after 911, without harming one hair on the heads of prominent perpetrators of 911, didn’t fall so that those that defined interrogations down could be disbarred.

The fallen did die, though, for freedom of speech, even speech as vile as what periodically spews from prominent ObamaDem Dick Durbin who famously compared American armed forces heroes as akin to Nazis, who belched more slander yesterday:

MR. GREGORY: Senator Durbin, the vice president’s–former vice president’s daughter, Liz Cheney, said that President Obama has a September 10th mentality in his fight against terrorists.

SEN. DURBIN: Let me say–if you, if you step back and take a look at history for a moment, you will find the message we just heard from Mr. Gingrich, from Vice President Cheney and Mr. Rush Limbaugh to be the same, it’s a message of fear: “Be afraid, be very afraid.” And to say that this president is not doing everything in his power to keep America safe is just as irresponsible as anything I’ve ever heard said on your program.

Yes, Senator Durbin, let’s talk about fear, but first, let’s hear more of your slander against those that have kept more innocent Americans from being killed since 911 no thanks to you and Obama:

SEN. DURBIN: First, let me tell you that America cowering in fear is not going to be a strong nation. I disagree with Mr. Gingrich. We can understand the threat, we can deal with it rationally, we can be strong and we will be safe with President Obama. But this notion that fear is going to guide us is what brought us to the notion of weapons of mass destruction and this war in Iraq and all that it has cost us. You know, Vice President Cheney said the other day without hesitation, “I’d do everything all over again.” He hasn’t learned any lesson from history.

Now, as far as President Obama’s approach at the National Archives, he made it clear and he was open to the American people, and this is what he said: there will be military commissions, but these are going to be commissions that are going to follow our constitutional values. We’re going to basically say that we’re not going to have hearsay that has to be rebutted by a defendant. We’re going to allow for the right of counsel. We’re going to have the basic approaches under the law that the Supreme Court is going to demand this.

MR. GREGORY: But do you, do you see that correlation between President Bush’s approach and President Obama?

SEN. DURBIN: I would say they’ll both have military commissions, and we’ve had them back to the time of George Washington. But the approach of President Obama is one that is closer to our Constitution and our rule of law. And just consider this, in seven years in Guantanamo there were exactly three who were convicted by military commissions, and those were thrown out by the Supreme Court. The–President Obama has learned from that lesson of history. He’s going to make sure that any military commission, military tribunal in the future is one that can be sustained by the courts.

Before Hitler invaded Poland and Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, President Franklin Roosevelt declared that the only thing we had to fear economically, was fear itself. But apparently, according to ObamaDems, FDR was “cowering in fear” when he tried and executed German spies via military commissions. Apparently what ObamaDems fear more than the killing of innocent Americans is offending terrorists and giving them “recruiting tools” via nose swabbings.

Durbin and Obama want to return to the 1990s strategy that saw America repeatedly attacked before any nose swabbings at Gitmo. One could forgive the failure to “get it” before 911, but after 911 one must conclude that many ObamaDems will never get it, given their lack of fear of big holes in LA.

Apparently the status quo in the 90s was acceptable to ObamaDems whose only fear today is that we offend the already offended.

History suggests that such weakness invites aggression that ensures the number we will mourn on future last Mondays in May will increase exponentially.

The fallen didn’t die for this.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

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

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