Archive for April, 2009
Great article by Dennis Prager!
Nine Questions the Left Needs to Answer About Torture
by Dennis Prager
Any human being with a functioning conscience or a decent heart loathes torture. Its exercise has been a blight on humanity. With this in mind, those who oppose what the Bush administration did to some terror suspects may be justified. But in order to ascertain whether they are, they need to respond to some questions:
1. Given how much you rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did — all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.
2. Are all forms of painful pressure equally morally objectionable? In other words, are you willing to acknowledge that there are gradations of torture as, for example, there are gradations of burns, with a third-degree burn considerably more injurious and painful than a first-degree burn? Or is all painful treatment to be considered torture? Just as you, correctly, ask proponents of waterboarding where they draw their line, you, too, must explain where you draw your line.
3. Is any maltreatment of anyone at any time — even a high-level terrorist with knowledge that would likely save innocents’ lives — wrong? If there is no question about the identity of a terror suspect , and he can provide information on al-Qaida — for the sake of clarity, let us imagine that Osama Bin Laden himself were captured — could America do any form of enhanced interrogation involving pain and/or deprivation to him that you would consider moral and therefore support?
4. If lawyers will be prosecuted for giving legal advice to an administration that you consider immoral and illegal, do you concede that this might inhibit lawyers in the future from giving unpopular but sincerely argued advice to the government in any sensitive area? They will, after all, know that if the next administration disapproves of their work, they will be vilified by the media and prosecuted by the government.
5. Presumably you would acknowledge that the release of the classified reports on the handling of high-level, post-Sept. 11 terror suspects would inflame passions in many parts of the Muslim world. If innocents were murdered because nonviolent cartoons of Muhammad were published in a Danish newspaper, presumably far more innocents will be tortured and murdered with the release of these reports and photos. Do you accept any moral responsibility for any ensuing violence against American and other civilians?
6. Many members of the intelligence community now feel betrayed and believe that the intelligence community will be weakened in their ability to fight the most vicious organized groups in the world. As reported in the Washington Post, former intelligence officer “(Mark) Lowenthal said that fear has paralyzed agents on the ground. Apparently, many of those in the know are certain that life-saving information was gleaned from high level terror suspects who were waterboarded. As Mike Scheuer, former head of the CIA unit in charge of tracking Osama bin Laden, said, ”We were very certain that the interrogation procedures procured information that was worth having.” If, then, the intelligence community has been adversely affected, do you believe it can still do the work necessary to protect tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people from death and maiming?
7. Will you seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who were made aware of the waterboarding of high-level suspects and voiced no objections?
8. Would you agree to releasing the photos of the treatment of Islamic terrorists only if accompanied by photos of what their terror has done to thousands of innocent people around the world? Would you agree to photos — or at least photo re-enactments — of, let us say, Iraqi children whose faces were torn off with piano wire by Islamists in Iraq? If not, why not? Isn’t context of some significance here?
9. You say that America’s treatment of terror suspects will cause terrorists to treat their captives, especially Americans, more cruelly. On what grounds do you assert this? Did America’s far more moral treatment of Japanese prisoners than Japan’s treatment of American prisoners in World War II have any impact on how the Japanese treated American and other prisoners of war? Do you think that evil people care how morally pure America is?
If you do not address these questions, it would appear that you care less about morality and torture than about vengeance against the Bush administration.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Obama is kind to the cruel and cruel to the kind!! Enough said!! Is that what we want for a president??? NOT ME!
Obama’s Kindness to the Cruel
By Victor Sharpe
April 28, 2009
There is an ancient saying best summarized as: “Those who are kind to the cruel in the end will be cruel to the kind.”
We saw this warning vividly and sorrowfully cast aside at the Summit of All Americas as President Obama smiled and warmly embraced the thug, Hugo Chavez, who sits astride Venezuela while its frail democracy dies by a “thousand cuts” under his growing dictatorship.
Obama greeted Hugo Chavez 24 hours after the Venezuelan ruler said, “The United States Empire is on its way down and will be finished in the near future, inshallah!” The Arabic word Chavez uttered loosely means, “Allah wills it.”
No doubt, Chavez has now morphed into an Islamist after his love fest with the Iranian racist and bigot of the day, Mahmoud Ahmedinijad. Indeed Iran has found a willing ally in Chavez.
We have seen the ancient wisdom flouted as our president held hands with the Castro brothers while their political prisoners watched in mute torment from their Cuban jails. And even after Obama’s naïve outreach, Fidel Castro called President Obama, “superficial.”
We have seen this misplaced kindness in the endless prattle that President Obama dispenses to all and sundry as he preaches that America is no longer a super power imbued with an innate decency and morality: it is merely the equal of all other nations.
Mr. President, is America now the equivalent of the Iranian theocracy, the Sudanese, Syrian and Saudi Arabian autocracies, the North Korean dictatorship, the basket cases of Zimbabwe and Somalia?
According to President Obama, the United States of America has much to apologize to the world for; a theme he obsessively returns to on his foreign jaunts.
While in Europe he shrugged off the pleas of French President Sarkozy to visit the WW II graves of some 12,500 American soldiers who died on the Normandy beaches because, “it might offend the Germans.”
Perhaps he is not moved by the graves of American soldiers who died in their thousands to liberate Europe during two world wars and which dot that blood stained Continent’s landscape.
In the Obama vision, America is now merely the equal of every tin pot tyranny, dictatorship, oligarchy and Islamic theocracy in the world.
We can call this the new President’s twilight zone vision of America, or the Obama Moral Equivalency Nation, OMEN for short. And what a frightful and dire omen it portends for our future.
We have seen what the President does with our natural enemies; those who practice the worst human rights violations. He reaches out to them oblivious of the fact that these hard hearted monsters will play him like a skilled angler that has just reeled in a freshly caught fish.
His kindness to the assorted international thugs and gangsters from Iran to Cuba and from Syria to Venezuela may well kill the greatness that is America.
The memory of the American President bowing obsequiously to the Saudi King or listening in silence for nearly an hour while Daniel Ortega lectured him on all the perceived ills of the United States is one that is beyond demeaning. This is especially so when Obama not once stood up for America during the impudent harangue.
What are we to make of Obama’s attitude towards Iran when he makes humiliating overtures to the evil Ahmedinijad who plumbed new depths of squalor in his anti-Semitic ravings at the so-called UN Racism Conference in Geneva. Iran’s reply to Obama’s olive branch was to put an American woman journalist, Roxana Saberi, in jail on trumped up charges of espionage. This poor woman may well endure real torture and it remains to be seen if her plight moves our new president as much as his concern for the Islamist monsters in Guantanamo.
The President has proven by his inactions that America under his leadership is humiliated and ridiculed, North Korea launches a missile while ignoring with contempt the empty warnings of President Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
As President Barak Obama nears his hundred days in office, much has already changed in America as the President promised, but it is not for the good. Despite his Amen Chorus in the mainstream media, which sees no evil and hears no evil, the country is slowly awakening.
There is an unease, which is becoming palpable. Tea Parties are a manifestation of this grassroots fear, which became evident in the streets of America. All this occurring while a Mad Hatter’s Tea Party continues apace in the Congress and the White House.
Let us hope that cruelty, which always follows misplaced kindness, will not yet be meted out to the kind.
And who are the kind?
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Do I really need to add any comments to this article?? I mean, really? It’s obvious that Obama is the MOST ARROGANT, SMUG, CONCEITED president that we’ve ever had and hopefully this article is correct and it WILL be his undoing!
Obama’s liberal arrogance will be his undoing
The hubris and overreaching of the left sets the stage for the political correction sure to come.
April 28, 2009
The most remarkable, or certainly the least remarked on, aspect of Barack Obama’s first 100 days has been the infectious arrogance of his presidency.
There’s no denying that this is liberalism’s greatest opportunity for wish fulfillment since at least 1964. But to listen to Democrats, the only check on their ambition is the limits of their imaginations.
“The world has changed,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York proclaimed on MSNBC. “The old Reagan philosophy that served them well politically from 1980 to about 2004 and 2006 is over. But the hard right, which still believes … [in] traditional values kind of arguments and strong foreign policy, all that is over.”
Right. “Family values” and a “strong foreign policy” belong next to the “free silver” movement in the lexicon of dead political causes.
No doubt Schumer was employing the kind of simplified shorthand one uses when everyone in the room already agrees with you. He can be forgiven for mistaking an MSNBC studio for such a milieu, but it seemed not to dawn on him that anybody watching might see it differently.
When George W. Bush was in office, we heard constantly about the poisonous nature of American polarization. For example, Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg came out with a book arguing that “our nation’s political landscape is now divided more deeply and more evenly than perhaps ever before.” One can charitably say this was abject nonsense. Evenly divided? Maybe. But more deeply? Feh.
During the Civil War, the political landscape was so deeply divided that 600,000 Americans died. During the 1930s, labor strife and revolutionary ardor threatened the stability of the republic. In the 1960s, political assassinations, riots and bombings punctuated our political discourse.
It says something about the relationship of liberals to political power that they can overlook domestic dissent when they’re at the wheel. When the GOP is in office, America is seen as hopelessly divided because dissent is the highest form of patriotism. When Democrats are in charge, the Frank Riches suddenly declare the culture war over and dismiss dissent as the scary work of the sort of cranks Obama’s Department of Homeland Security needs to monitor.
If liberals thought so fondly of social peace and consensus, they would look more favorably on the 1920s and 1950s. Instead, their political idylls are the tumultuous ’30s and ’60s, when liberalism, if not necessarily liberals, rode high in the saddle.
Sure, America was divided under Bush. And it’s still divided under Obama (just look at the recent Minnesota Senate race and the New York congressional special election). According to the polls, America is a bit less divided under Obama than it was at the end of Bush’s 100 days. But not as much less as you would expect, given Obama’s victory margin and the rally-around-the-president effect of the financial crisis (not to mention the disarray of the GOP).
Meanwhile, circulation for the conservative National Review (where I work) is soaring. More people watch Fox News (where I am a contributor) in prime time than watch CNN and MSNBC combined. The “tea parties” may not have been as big as your typical union-organized “spontaneous” demonstration, but they were far more significant than any protests this early in Bush’s tenure.
And yet, according to Democrats and liberal pundits, America is enjoying unprecedented unity, and conservatives are going the way of the dodo.
Obama has surely helped set the tone for the unfolding riot of liberal hubris. In his effort to reprise the sort of expansion of liberal power we saw in the ’30s and ’60s, Obama has — without a whiff of self-doubt — committed America to $6.5 trillion in extra debt, $65 billion for each one of his first 100 days, and that’s based on an impossibly rosy forecast of the economy. No wonder congressional Democrats clamor to take over corporations, tax the air we breathe and set wages for everybody.
On social issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research, Obama has proved to be, if anything, more of a left-wing culture warrior than Bush was a right-wing one. All the while, Obama transmogrifies his principled opponents into straw-man ideologues while preening about his own humble pragmatism. For him, bipartisanship is defined as shutting up and getting in line.
I’m not arguing that conservatives are poised to make some miraculous comeback. They’re not. But American politics didn’t come to an end with Obama’s election, and nothing in politics breeds corrective antibodies more quickly than overreaching arrogance. And by that measure, Obama’s first 100 days have been a huge down payment on the inevitable correction to come.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Huh…imagine that…the mainstream media is spinning their coverage of Obama’s popularity.Thanks to their bias, most people don’t realize that Obama is the second-LEAST-POPULAR president in 40 years. To listen to them you would think he is the most popular and everyone loves him. Gag!
Barack’s in the basement
Obama is less popular than Nixon and Carter
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES | Tuesday, April 28, 2009
President Obama’s media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup’s April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton, who got off to a notoriously bad start after trying to force homosexuals on the military and a federal raid in Waco, Texas, that killed 86. Mr. Obama’s current approval rating of 56 percent is only one tick higher than the 55-percent approval Mr. Clinton had during those crises.
As the attached chart shows, five presidents rated higher than Mr. Obama after 100 days in office. Ronald Reagan topped the charts in April 1981 with 67 percent approval. Following the Gipper, in order of popularity, were: Jimmy Carter with 63 percent in 1977; George W. Bush with 62 percent in 2001; Richard Nixon with 61 percent in 1969; and George H.W. Bush with 58 percent in 1989.
It’s no surprise the liberal media aren’t anxious to point out that their darling is less popular than George W. Bush. But given the Gallup numbers, their hurrahs could be more subdued. USA Today’s front page touted the April poll results as positive, with the headline: “Public thinks highly of Obama.” The current cover of Newsweek magazine ponders “The Secret of His [Mr. Obama's] Success.” The comparison with previous presidents is useful because they are usually popular during their first few months in office – and most presidents have been more popular than Mr. Obama.
The explanation for Mr. Obama’s low approval is that he ran as a moderate but has governed from the far left. The fawning and self-deceiving press won’t go there. On Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” host David Gregory asked a panel about critics who “would say one of the things that he’s done in 100 days already is expand the role of government, the size of government.” Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin claimed, “That’s what he ran for the presidency in the first place for.”
Perplexed about complaints over Mr. Obama’s expansion of government, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham asked: “does no one listen during campaigns?”
It was these pundits who weren’t paying attention during last year’s campaign. In all three presidential debates, Mr. Obama promised to cut government spending and reduce the size of the deficit. He blamed the economic crisis on excessive deficits. At no time did candidate Barack Obama say that more deficit-spending was the solution.
Mr. Obama’s popularity after 100 days is the second-lowest for a simple reason: He is more partisan and divisive than his predecessors – including Richard Nixon.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
AMEN to this article!! Even this Brit can see Obama’s dislike of his own country!! Once again I repeat, IMPEACH OBAMA!!!
Barack Obama and the CIA: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
Posted By: Gerald Warner at Apr 24, 2009
If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people – not even Jimmy Carter.
Obama’s problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.
That is why he opened Pandora’s Box by publishing the Justice Department’s legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.
“Don’t be discouraged by what’s happened the last few weeks,” he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them – or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.
So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers.
Obama promised his CIA audience that nobody would be prosecuted for past actions. That has already been contradicted by leftist groups with a revanchist ambition to put Republicans, headed if possible by Condoleezza Rice, in the dock. Talk about playing party politics with national security. Martin Scheinin, the United Nations special investigator for human rights, claims that senior figures, including former vice president Dick Cheney, could face prosecution overseas. Ponder that – once you have got over the difficulty of locating the United Nations and human rights within the same dimension.
President Pantywaist Obama should have thought twice before sitting down to play poker with Dick Cheney. The former vice president believes documents have been selectively published and that releasing more will prove how effective the interrogation techniques were. Under Dubya’s administration, there was no further atrocity on American soil after 9/11.
President Pantywaist’s recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America’s enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
This is priceless!!! And I’m proud to say my daughter will be attending Liberty next year!!
Liberal Student Infiltrates Liberty University to Write Expose
This is just too funny! A liberal Ivy League student decides to enroll at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Virgina and write a book exposé (The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner’s Semester at America’s Holiest University) supposedly showing the intolerance that must be there, or so he thought. The liberal student, however, was surprised to find little of the expected intolerance but is now finding plenty of it from the left because his book was not an outright condemnation of Liberty University nor of Jerry Falwell whom he met during his semester there. An AP story by Eric Tucker sets the scene:
PROVIDENCE, R.I. – Kevin Roose managed to blend in during his single semester at Liberty University, attending lectures on the myth of evolution and the sin of homosexuality, and joining fellow students on a mission trip to evangelize partyers on spring break.
Roose had transferred to the Virginia campus from Brown University in Providence, a famously liberal member of the Ivy League. His Liberty classmates knew about the switch, but he kept something more important hidden: He planned to write a book about his experience at the school founded by fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell.
Roose explains the reason for his infiltration:
“As a responsible American citizen, I couldn’t just ignore the fact that there are a lot of Christian college students out there,” said Roose, 21, now a Brown senior. “If I wanted my education to be well-rounded, I had to branch out and include these people that I just really had no exposure to.”
We have to give Roose credit here. Unlike most liberals, he actually opened himself up to contrary ideas. Something his parents found hard to understand:
Roose’s parents, liberal Quakers who once worked for Ralph Nader, were nervous about their son being exposed to Falwell’s views. Still, Roose transferred to Liberty for the spring 2007 semester.
He was determined to not mock the school, thinking it would be too easy _ and unfair. He aimed to immerse himself in the culture, examine what conservative Christians believe and see if he could find some common ground. He had less weighty questions too: How did they spend Friday nights? Did they use Facebook? Did they go on dates? Did they watch “Gossip Girl?”
Did they Twitter? Did they use electricity? Did they eat with utensils?
He lined up a publisher _ Grand Central Publishing _ and arrived at the Lynchburg campus prepared for “hostile ideologues who spent all their time plotting abortion clinic protests and sewing Hillary Clinton voodoo dolls.”
Instead, he found that “not only are they not that, but they’re rigorously normal.”
GASP! But how can that be? Haven’t all good liberals been taught that Liberty University students are a bunch of ignorant hateful yahoos foaming at the mouth? Kevin Roose appeared to have strayed dangerously from the Party Line.
He met students who use Bible class to score dates, apply to top law schools and fret about their futures, and who enjoy gossip, hip-hop and R-rated movies _ albeit in a locked dorm room.
Stop! You’re making the LU students sound too normal!
A roommate he depicts as aggressively anti-gay _ all names are changed in the book _ is an outcast on the hall, not a role model.
But…but where’s all the hate?
Roose researched the school by joining as many activites as possible. He accompanied classmates on a spring break missionary trip to Daytona Beach. He visited a campus support group for chronic masturbators, where students were taught to curb impure thoughts. And he joined the choir at Falwell’s Thomas Road Baptist Church.
Roose scored an interview with the preacher for the school newspaper, right before Falwell died in May of that year. Roose decided against confronting him over his views on liberals, gays and other hot-button topics, and instead learned about the man himself, discovering among other things that the pastor loved diet peach Snapple and the TV show “24.”
You mean Falwell wasn’t consumed with hate 24/7 as all good liberals “know” as absolute fact?
And now something that will really disturb the “tolerant” liberals:
Once ambivalent about faith, Roose now prays to God regularly _ for his own well-being and on behalf of others. He said he owns several translations of the Bible and has recently been rereading meditations from the letters of John on using love and compassion to solve cultural conflicts.
He’s even considering joining a church.
This latter must be very upsetting to liberals including his own parents. Sonny Boy! Where did we go wrong? To see just how upset the liberals are over this book, just read a few examples of intolerace in the Huffington Post comments section:
Wow, that must be a pretty good brainwashing program they’ve got there. That or this guy is weak sauce. You wouldn’t catch me praying to some magic sky daddy if I spent a THOUSAND years at Liberty “University.”
He should have gone to a deprogrammer to complete the experience.
I wish he’d done an MRI before and after. It appears he’s been brainwashed. Long periods of time with cults will do that.
I’m a little worried about Kevin’s soul now that he’s been programmed. He seems strong and intelligent though, so there’s still hope for him. I’ll be praying for his salvation from the radical right.
I hope he’s been debriefed and re-socialized into the real world. Never visit the darkside.
So it turns out that Kevin Roose did discover intolerance due to spending a semester at Liberty University and, as we can see from these comments, it is now coming from the left.
Welcome to the Brave New World of ironic reality, Kevin.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
« Previous Entries