Airplane attacker was listed in terror database, Vigilant passengers save 278 lives - and the future of the Obama Presidency

From the Washington Post:

A Nigerian man [Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab] charged Saturday with attempting to blow up a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day was listed in a U.S. terrorism database after his father told State Department officials that he was worried about his son's radical beliefs and extremist connections, officials said.

Abdulmutallab's... name was added to a catch-all terrorism-related database last month, when his father, a Nigerian banker, reported concerns about his son's "radicalization and associations" to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a senior administration official said...

The [latest bombing attempt] reignited a partisan debate within Washington over whether the Obama administration was doing enough to guard against terrorist attacks in the wake of shootings last month at Fort Hood, Tex., and other incidents...

The suspect allegedly told FBI agents after his arrest that he had received training and explosive materials from al-Qaeda-linked terrorists in Yemen, a claim that U.S. law enforcement officials were still attempting to verify Saturday.

Administration officials acknowledged Saturday that Abdulmutallab's name was added in November to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE, which contains the names of more than a half-million individuals and is maintained by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence at the National Counterterrorism Center...

A TIDE record on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was created in November 2009," the second administration official said, but "there was insufficient information available on the subject at that time to include him in the TSDB or its 'no fly' or 'selectee' lists."

Several top Republicans criticized the administration's approach to counterterrorism, saying the government had failed to piece together warning signs in recent cases, including the slayings of 13 people at Fort Hood, allegedly by a Muslim soldier. "I think the administration is finally recognizing that they got this terrorism thing all wrong," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee and a state gubernatorial candidate. "I think we came very, very close to losing that plane last night."

After being briefed by federal authorities, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said Abdulmutallab did not undergo body scans that might have helped detect the explosive material when he went through security at airports in Nigeria and Amsterdam...

The President owes a big "Thank You" to the heroic passengers who, in subduing the bomber, saved the lives of their fellow passengers, and consequently saved the Obama Presidency - even while the administration continues to pursue its perilous, politically correct and inept policies.

Read the full article

Update: Mr. Abdulmutallab's father was reportedly surprised to learn that his son had been issued a US visa even after he had reported his concerns to US authorities.

Mr. Abdulmutallab reportedly comes from a wealthy Nigerian family. His father was the former chief of the United Bank for Africa and First Bank of Nigeria, two of the nation's biggest banks. But despite all of this, the President will undoubtedly continue to assert what he asserted shortly after 9/11, namely, that these terrorist attacks grow "out of a climate of poverty, ignorance, helplessness and despair", and that "we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes" of these destitute, impoverished and helpless individuals.... - Including the 5 indigent and penniless students from Washington DC who traveled to Pakistan to engage in terrorist activities. [Pakistani police are now trying to determine whether the 5 poverty-stricken students were planning, among other things, to attack a complex that houses nuclear power facilities.]

Health care monstrosity - by law - could have been postponed and possibly blocked?

On January 18, 2007, the Senate Ethics Reform bill was brought to a vote by Sen. Harry Reid. The aforementioned legislation requires, among other things, that Senators who submit earmark requests on a bill be identified as the sponsor of their requests on a publicly accessible congressional website at least 48 hours before the item comes to a vote [Tile V (Sec. 521)]. The bill passed 96 to 2 and was signed into law by President George W. Bush in September of 2007.

Sen. John Cornyn cited the aforementioned legislation while discussing the pending health care reform bill in a blog-post on Wednesday:

I raised a Point of Order on the Senate floor along with Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, today regarding the possible violation of Senate rules in refusing to disclose a list of the earmarks included in the Reid health care bill and the names of the Senators who requested each earmark.

Senate Rule #44, created by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 [the Ethics Reform bill], requires bill sponsors to publicly disclose earmarks. Senate Democratic Leadership continues to refuse to do this. The motion was rejected on near party line basis. We’ve found that Leader Reid has not complied with his own public disclosure rules...

Here's what the Ethics reform bill states[PDF file page 26]:

1. (a) It shall not be in order to vote on a motion to proceed to consider a bill... unless the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction or the Majority Leader or his or her designee certifies - (1) that each congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, and limited tariff benefit, if any, in the bill... has been identified through lists, charts, or other similar means including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the committee for each item so identified; and (2) that the information in clause (1) has been available on a publicly accessible congressional website in a searchable format at least 48 hours before such vote.

Question: Have all the requested earmarks - tied to the health care bill - and the names of the senators who requested these earmarks, been identified through lists, charts etc.? Has all this information been available on a publicly accessible congressional website in a searchable format at least 48 hours before the senate is to vote on the bill [Thursday]?

Case in point: The senate bill contains a $100 million earmark for an unnamed health care facility. No one could ascertain who the intended recipient of the earmark was until Sen. Christopher Dodd - who is currently facing a difficult re-election campaign - told the AP that he had requested the earmark for construction of a hospital tied to the University of Connecticut.

Who knows what other hidden earmarks are lurking within this 2000 page health care monstrosity!

Nevertheless, it would stand to reason that if any additional earmarks - and names of the senators who sought out these earmarks - have not been identified both on lists, charts etc. and on a publicly accessible congressional website [in a searchable format] as of Tuesday, Dec. 22, a senate vote on the health care bill, by law, can not proceed [on Thursday].

Unless all of the above has been confirmed and verified, Republican lawmakers should not, and can not allow this vote to proceed. It is incumbent upon them to see to it that the rule of law is upheld - or they will have been derelict in their duty to both their constituents and the American people.

Is it too late to call off this vote?

For the latest update as of January 12, 2009, click here.

Pentagon spending bill includes Inouye earmarks

From the AP:

A new defense appropriations bill includes several targeted spending provisions championed by U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye that will benefit companies whose officers have contributed to his re-election campaigns.

The 2010 defense appropriations act signed into law Monday by President Barack Obama contains 34 earmarks sponsored or co-sponsored by the Hawaii Democrat worth almost $180 million...

Inouye and his staff have repeatedly refused to explain the justification behind earmarks slated for companies that have donated to his campaigns, or why the firms need taxpayer money to proceed with their projects.

Like virtually all earmarks, none of Inouye's were included in the Pentagon budget submitted by the White House earlier this year...

Read the full article

Bob Nelson votes against DeMint's 'cash for cloture' Amendment and then votes in favor of it when he realizes Dems already have the votes to kill it

Above image from Red State
The image may look a bit akward; the very top part [the yeas and the nays] was spliced to the rest of the image due to space constraint. But go to the PDF file and examine the roll call closely, and you'll see that Nelson changed his vote. Also, there are two Senator Nelsons, hence, Bob Nelson's home state is listed next to his name. Bill Nelson from Florida voted 'yea' - and only voted once - heh.

From Red State:

The Senate of the United States just voted to table Jim DeMint’s proposed amendment that would prevent cash for cloture compromises.

As you will recall, Ben Nelson was bribed by Harry Reid to vote for the health care bill via targeted earmarks that will only benefit Nebraska.

DeMint asked for the Senate to suspend its rules to consider his amendment, which would prohibit such deals in the future.

Ben Nelson voted against Jim DeMint’s amendment, but when he realized the Democrats already had the votes to kill it, he raced back up to the clerk and changed his vote so the final record shows Nelson sided with DeMint.

Unfortunately for Ben Nelson, I have obtained the actual factual roll call sheet.

You can see it in PDF here.

Go to page two and find Nelson’s name. See the swiggly line through the mark on the left side? That’s the clerk noting that he switched his vote once the other Democrats defeated DeMint’s amendment.

California's rationing of mammogram screening, a prelude to ObamaCare?

Related Video: Dick Morris tell Fox News there's no such thing as a moderate Democrat. Toward the end of the interview he warns of the inherent danger of having an independent Medicare Advisory Board - Click here to watch the [informative] video.

CBO Rebuts Democratic Claims on Medicare; Sen. Sessions accuses Dems of manipulating CBO data

From Business Week:

The Congressional Budget Office challenged claims by health-care overhaul proponents that Medicare savings in Senate legislation would help finance expanded coverage and postpone the bankruptcy of the medical program for the elderly.

The nonpartisan agency said the $246 billion it projected the legislation would save Medicare can’t both finance new programs and help pay future expenses for elderly covered under the federal program.

Nor could those savings be used to extend the solvency of Medicare, set to run out of money in 2017, the budget office said in a letter to Senate Republicans.

“What we’ve seen is a colossal manipulation” by Democrats “of the accounting scores of CBO” and the independent actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, said Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, the Republican who requested the analysis from CBO. He called the letter “a potential game-changer.”

The estimated Medicare savings in the legislation overstate “the improvement in the government’s fiscal position,” the CBO said in the letter.

Read the full article

Sen. Sessions talked with Fox News today about the Democrats' accounting scheme. Video below:

Libtalker Ed Schultz: Mandatory Health Care Insurance is a form of Socialism

"This mandate is one of the most un-American things that the Senate, I think, has ever done... Forcing people.. to buy health care..., that's not liberty. It's not reform. It's restriction. It's a restriction of freedom. That's not Democratic... I think the mandate is very dangerous... The mandate is a form - and it pains me to say this - it is a form of socialism."
MSNBC host, Ed Schultz - Dec. 21, 2009




Related News:
Ensign, DeMint to Force Vote on Health Care Bill Unconstitutionality
Top SC prosecutor, others probing health care deal
Reid Bill Says Future Congresses Cannot Repeal Parts of Reid Bill

Gitmo unlikely to be closed until 2011 at the earliest

From the New York Times:

Rebuffed this month by skeptical lawmakers when it sought finances to buy a prison in rural Illinois, the Obama administration is struggling to come up with the money to replace the Guantánamo Bay prison.

As a result, officials now believe that they are unlikely to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and transfer its population of terrorism suspects until 2011 at the earliest — a far slower timeline for achieving one of President Obama’s signature national security policies than they had previously hinted...

The administration appeared to take a major step forward last week when [Obama] directed subordinates to move “as expeditiously as possible” to acquire the Thomson Correctional Center, a nearly vacant maximum-security Illinois prison, and to retrofit it to receive Guantánamo detainees.

But in interviews this week, officials estimated that it could take 8 to 10 months to install new fencing, towers etc. before any transfers take place. Such construction cannot begin until the federal government buys the prison from the State of Illinois.

The federal Bureau of Prisons does not have enough money to pay Illinois for the center... The White House... floated the idea of adding about $200 million for the project to the military spending bill for the 2010 fiscal year..., but Democratic leaders refused to include the politically charged measure in the legislation....

Frustrated by the difficulties in obtaining financing from Congress, administration officials had discussed invoking a little-known statute that would allow the president to declare a national emergency and then use military funds allocated for other construction projects to buy and retrofit the Illinois prison.

"A national emergency"! Obama wants to play nice with the terrorists and he has the gall to call this a national emergency! Congress should declare a national emergency to prevent Obama and his cronies from bringing the terrorists here! Incredible!

That statute, however, has never been used for a project quite like this one. Fearing that lawmakers would be angered by such a move and could respond by erasing the statute, the administration decided not to invoke it...

[It is also] not clear that Congress will be willing to approve money enabling the transfer of Guantánamo detainees to domestic soil — especially as the 2010 midterm election campaign heats up, with the likelihood that Republicans will pick up seats...

Read the full article.

Rep. Stupak: White House Pressuring Me to Keep Quiet on Abortion Language in Senate Health Bill

From CNS News:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives have been pressuring him not to speak out on the "compromise" abortion language in the Senate version of the health care bill.

“They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview on Tuesday. “Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here.”...

The current version of the Senate bill contains so-called “compromise” language crafted by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). This language does not bar taxpayer funding of health plans that cover abortion, but does create a firewall to supposedly keep federal money from being used to pay for abortions. Over the weekend, Stupak issued a statement calling the proposed Senate language "unacceptable."

"A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage," said the statement.

In his interview with CNSNews.com on Tuesday, Stupak said that the White House "asked me just to hold off for awhile and not to say anything about this language.

Stupak said he is not alone in being pressured from the White House and the House Democratic leadership – other pro-life Democratic colleagues apparently are, as well. But they plan to hold firm, he said...

When asked if he has the votes he needs to stop the bill if, in its final version, it does not include the language of his amendment or nearly identical language, Stupak did not answer directly.

“Well, if all the issues are resolved and we’re down to the pro-life view or, I should say, no public funding for abortion, there’s at least 10 to 12 members who have said, repeatedly, unless this language is fixed and current law is maintained, and no public funding for abortion," said Stupak. "There’s 10 or 12 of us, and they only passed the bill by 3 votes, so they’re going to be short 8 to 9, maybe 6 to 8 votes. So they [Democrats] do not have the votes to pass it in the House.”...

Read full article - Video below:

Top SC prosecutor, others probing health care deal

From the AP:

The top prosecutors in seven states are probing the constitutionality of a political deal that cut a funding break for Nebraska in order to pass a federal health care reform bill, South Carolina's attorney general said Tuesday.

Attorney General Henry McMaster said he and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state—all Republicans—are jointly taking a look at the deal they've dubbed the "Nebraska compromise."

"The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution—as well as other provisions of federal law," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said.

McMaster's move comes at the request of Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint of South Carolina...

Along with Texas, officials in Washington, Alabama, Colorado and Michigan confirmed they were working with McMaster.

Read the full article.

Hopefully, the prosecutors will also probe the constitutionality of a specific clause in the senate health care bill that barrs future Congresses from amending or repealing portions of the bill.

Good luck with the probing, gentlemen!

Obama offers Iran some tasty carrots and shelves the sticks

From Reuters:

A "bunker buster" bomb with more than 10 times the explosive power of its predecessor is to be put into service by the United States next December, six months later than previously scheduled, the Defense Department told Reuters on Friday.

The deployment's timing may help shape new calculations in long standoffs with Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs, much of which are believed to be underground to avoid detection and enhance their chances of surviving an attack.

The precision-guided, 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, is designed to destroy potential targets such as deeply buried facilities that are beyond the reach of existing penetrating bombs...

"Funding delays and enhancements to the planned test schedule have pushed the capability availability date to December 2010," Tara Rigler, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said in an email.

The Pentagon's announcement gives Iran additional time to develop nuclear weapons without having to worry about an imminent military strike against its nuclear facilities.

Debka notes that the moratorium on the bunker busters and a recent announcement by the head of the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. John Kerry, saying he "needs time to consider" a proposed punitive measure put forth by Congress which would penalize firms that sell gasoline to Iran [and the insurance companies underwriting these sales], is an indication that Obama has chosen the "carrot" approach over the stick approach, hoping to lure the Iranian regime into making concessions by appeasing it.

Of course, this is merely a theory and nothing more. But clearly the bunker buster delay will only serve to embolden the Iranian regime in its quest to develop nuclear weapons.

Good luck with the soft approach, Mr. President, and make sure those carrots are sufficiently tantalizing, and pleasing to the Iranian palate. The Iranians are quite finicky about the quality of carrots they eat and the kinds of appeasement they are willing to ingest.

In a related development, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, says tough U.N. sanctions against North Korea are successfully putting pressure on North Korea to halt its nuclear program.

Rice told the Associated Press on Tuesday that North Korea is indicating in various ways that it is feeling the pressure of sanctions and perhaps responding to it. She declined to elaborate.

Meanwhile, the AP is reporting that "the flight plan for an aircraft [recently] seized in Thailand with a load of illicit North Korean arms and ammunition shows that the mysterious plane was headed to Iran...", which seems to confirm Susan Rice's assertion, namely, that North Korea is REALLY "feeling the pressure of sanctions." Ahem.....

Thai authorities, acting on a U.S. tip, impounded the... cargo plane... uncovering 35 tons of weapons, reportedly including explosives, rocket-propelled grenades and components for surface-to-air missiles. The plane's papers described its cargo as oil-drilling machinery for delivery to Sri Lanka...

Ah, the good ol', time-tested carrot approach. Diplomacy at its best!

Obama exempts INTERPOL from search and seizure on US soil

From The Obama File:

EO: AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

Here’s the text of 2(c), which this EO now has applying to INTERPOL:

(c) Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.

An INTERPOL branch in the US now cannot be searched, it’s files are not subject to legal subpoena nor discovery. If any branch of government wants to keep documents out of the hands of the court system, just hand them over to INTERPOL until the smoke clears. INTERPOL will now be able to maintain files on US citizens....

Does INTERPOL have a file on Obama — on his associations?

Heh, The Obama File is wondering whether INTERPOL has a file on Obama. Cute.

Tricky Reid slipped unrepealable provision in bill AFTER it was passed by the Finance Committee

With regards to the language in the senate health care bill that fascistically barrs future Congresses from amending or repealing the subsection pertaining to the Medicare Advisory Board [see previous post] - a Senate aide tells the Weekly Standard that it appears that Harry Reid slipped in the provision AFTER it had already been passed by the Finance Committee.

The Independent Advisory Board for Medicare was under jurisdiction of Finance Cmte. After looking at the legislative language for the Finance bill, I cannot find similar language as is included on Page 1020 of the new Reid bill in relation to Medicare advisory Board.

How cunning and deceitful. He just slipped it in there AFTER it had already been passed by the Finance Committee....

Reid Bill Says Future Congresses Cannot Repeal Parts of Reid Bill

From the Weekly Standard:

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:

Sen. DeMint: There's one provision that I found particularly troubling and it's under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection."

And I quote -- "It shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

This is not legislation, it's not law. This is a rule change. It's a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

I'm not even sure that it's constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates...

This goes to the fundamental purpose of Senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co-congresses.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D - Oregon), the Presiding Officer, offers a weak response in defense of Harry Reid. But of course I'm not an expert in constitutional law, and I'm also a little bit too tired to think this one out right now. You be the judge:

DeMint's full remarks in the video below. Feel free to fast forward the video if necessary:



Also see the recent update: Tricky Reid slipped unrepealable provision in bill AFTER it was passed by the Finance Committee

News To Peruse

OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY BEARS ITS CRIMINAL FRUIT

INCREDIBLE! CLIMATEGATE SCIENTIST CREATED/REWROTE 5,428 WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES AND ALSO REMOVED 500 ARTICLES FROM WIKIPEDIA TO STIFLE DISSENT!

SEN. WHITEHOUSE SAYS OBAMACARE OPPONENTS ARE FANATICS, RIGHT-WING MILITIAS AND ARYAN SUPPORT GROUPS

LAWMAKERS PUSH TO BAR ISNA FROM LECTURING TO US TROOPS AFTER LEARNING THAT A RADICAL ISLAMIC OFFICIAL ADDRESSED SOLDIERS AT FORT HOOD SHORTLY AFTER HORRIFIC ATTACK

LEFT NOW ADMITING OBAMACARE FULL OF BUDGET GIMMICKS

WASHINGTON POST: OBAMACARE UNSUSTAINABLE

LAWYER FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DEMANDING IT RELEASE RECORDS ON HEALTHCARE MEETINGS WITH LOBBYISTS

DID OBAMA OVERRULE MILITARY IN GITMO RELEASE?

RELATED TO PRECEDING LINK: OBAMA ORDERS FIRST RELEASE OF "HIGH-VALUE" DETAINEE

SERIOUS MORTGAGE DELINQUENCIES UP 20%

2010 WILL BE A MUCH WORSE YEAR FOR US BANKS THAN 2009

OBAMA: WE CAN'T TREAT TAX DOLLARS LIKE MONOPOLY MONEY

Christopher Dodd, beneficiary of $100 million earmark in health care bill

On Sunday it was revealed that the Senate health care bill contained several hidden earmarks benefiting the home states of both Sen. Max Baucus, a key figure in crafting the bill and Sen. Bill Nelson, who recently reversed himself and decided to support the bill. However, also included in the health care bill was a $100 million earmark for an unnamed health care facility.

The Republican Senate website raised the questions: Who inserted the earmark into the bill and who was the intended recipient of that money?

The AP has the answer:

A $100 million item for construction of a university hospital was inserted in the Senate health care bill at the request of Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who faces a difficult re-election campaign, his office said Sunday night.

The legislation leaves it up to the Health and Human Services Department to decide where the money should be spent, although spokesman Bryan DeAngelis said Dodd hopes to claim it for the University of Connecticut...

Dodd has played a key role in development of the health care bill in the Senate...

Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, is seeking a new term in 2010, but polls so far show him in a tight race.

Apparently, Sen. Dodd decided to disclose this information to save face before others had a chance to find out who was behind the hidden earmark. But of course, the fact that Mr. Dodd inserted a $100 million earmark for his own political benefit still does not reflect too kindly on him, despite his [forced] admission.

Also troubling is the following sentence in the AP article: "The legislation leaves it up to the Health and Human Services Department to decide where the money should be spent, although spokesman Bryan DeAngelis said Dodd hopes to claim it for the University of Connecticut."

Are we supposed to believe that Sen. Dodd inserted this earmark into the bill, merely hoping to claim it for the University of Connecticut, without knowing for certain that he would be the beneficiary of the money? Please! [It should also be noted that Sen. Dodd and his cronies were very specific in stipulating who is to be the beneficiary of this money: "Such facility shall be affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in the United States that contains a State’s sole public academic medical and dental school.” In other words, in a state where there is only one public medical and dental school.]

Nevertheless, now that Sen. Dodd has confessed to the crime, the HSS, in all likelihood, will be forced to give the money to a different medical facility - in an order to save face and to avoid being labeled an accessory to the crime....

The moral of the story?

Sometimes crime pays, and sometimes it doesn't....

What's New?

REPUBLICANS MUZZLED IN COPENHAGEN?

TALIBAN USING MOSQUES AS TRAINING AREAS - MILITARY OFFICIAL SAYS "WE'RE SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT BY MAKING THE MOSQUES A NO-FIRE AREA"

OBAMA'S 'SAFE SCHOOL CZAR' AUTHORED HETEROSEXUAL-BASHING QUESTIONNAIRE NOW USED IN SCHOOLS ACROSS THE COUNTRY

Incredible! Is there another President in American history that would have permitted this heterosexual-bashing moron to be the "School Safe Czar"?! Even if Obama were to fire Mr. Jennings today, the mere fact that he let him remain in office this long is grounds for impeachment. While it's true that Obama did not violate any constitutional laws by keeping him in office, he did, however, violate the very basic fundamental tenets of both morality and decency. I can't help but wonder why millions of parents of school children across the country still support Barack Obama and why they are not the least bit fazed by any of this. After reading all that has been documented about Jennings in the blogosphere, can there be any lingering doubts as to whether Obama is the most radical US President ever to be elected?

UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE IN HEALTH CARE BILL ATTACKED BY THE LEFT

RUSSIANS YELL FOUL ON CLIMATEGATE

US troops heading to the battle field without extensive training

From the AP:

In a Dec. 10 letter to the Pentagon's top leaders, Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Solomon Ortiz, who heads the subcommittee on military readiness, said they are "greatly troubled" by what they learned as the Obama White House begins escalating the U.S. presence in Afghanistan...

The lawmakers said they were told troops are being taken straight from boot camp and being sent to Afghanistan and Iraq without extensive training at stateside bases.

"Is this a common practice now"? Skelton and Solomon ask. "And will the upcoming surge into Afghanistan exacerbate this situation?"...

Unfortunately, the answer to that question is a resounding "yes".

The President's plan is to deploy 30,000 US soldiers to Afghanistan by next summer and to begin withdrawing the troops 18 months later. [Although the United States' second in command in Afghanistan, Gen. David Rodriguez says it could take until November 2110 before the U.S. is able to deploy all 30,000 troops.] It goes without saying that when you're dealing with such a short timetable for success, there really isn't ample time for extensive training. A couple of quick lessons on how to use a compass, flashlight and a Swiss army knife, and off to the battlefield the troops shall go...

Of course, I'm not really concerned about any of this. For, indeed, our commander-in-chief recently told soldiers at the US Naval Air Station in Jacksonville Florida that, “While I will never hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests, I also promise you this, 'I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way'.”

Obviously the President - who clearly possesses a profound sense of empathy and compassion for his fellow man - believes the troops do not need extensive training and that a few months in boot camp is sufficient. For indeed, he would never, ever send our troops into harms way...

CIA eyes new threat: Climate Change

Just in case you thought the Obama administration was incapable of confronting modern-day, 21st century threats, here's a little piece of news that may put your mind at ease. Ahem:

Global warming is now officially considered a threat to U.S. national security.

For the first time, Pentagon planners in 2010 will include climate change among the security threats identified in the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Congress-mandated report that updates Pentagon priorities every four years.

The reference to climate change follows the establishment in October of a new Center for the Study of Climate Change at the Central Intelligence Agency...

The drafters of the Quadrennial Defense Review were instructed by Congress to accept the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international body established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization to gather and report world climate data...

Analysts at the National Intelligence Council are trying to develop a set of early warning signs that could suggest where the next famine might arise or which countries are in most danger of being destabilized as a result of dramatic climate changes...."

Finally, after 8 years of dithering by the previous administration, we have a president who is willing to take on America's real enemy: The Weather Insurgency.....

Cheney: Obama is more radical than I thought

Former Vice President, Dick Cheney, sat down for an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity on Monday. Mr. Cheney criticized the Obama administration's decision to try 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City. He also criticized Obama's approach to the war in Afghanistan.

Here's a couple of small excerpts from the interview:

HANNITY: You said that.. the President is looking far more radical than you expected... I was criticized a lot [during the campaign] because I was warning of the president's radical associations. How radical do you view him now? How radical do you view his opinions?

CHENEY: I saw him when he got elected as a liberal Democrat, but conventional, in the sense of sort of falling within the parameters of the national Democratic Party. I think he's demonstrated pretty conclusively now during his first year in office that he's more radical than that, that he's farther outside the parameters, if you will, of what we've traditionally had in Democratic presidents in years past.

On trying KSM in a civilian court in New York City:

HANNITY: Do you think that part of this is to put our CIA on trial? To put you on trial? To put President Bush on trial? Or maybe if it's not designed to do that, ultimately, will that happen?

CHENEY: Uh... I don't know. I don't know whether that's a motive for them or not. Um..., it could be. It could be that Holder expects to be able to use this to go back and sort of review in depth the Bush/Cheney administration policies in terms of what we did to prevent attacks against the United States. I think that's a loser for them. I think the vast majority of the American people appreciate the fact that we had good, tough policies, we had great people carrying them out, and we succeeded.

Click here to watch the aforementioned part of interview [part two].

Click here to watch part one of the interview where Cheney discusses the President's mishandling of the war in Afghanistan.

Radical Islamic official invited to speak at Fort Hood, one month after horrific attack

In the wake of the Fort Hood massacre, you would think the Obama administration would do everything in its power to correct the policies and egregious mistakes that brought about the carnage. But apparently, the administration has chosen to tread the same crooked and politically correct path that led to the attack in the first place. For indeed, only one month after the horrific shooting spree, a radical Islamic official, with terrorist ties, was invited to speak to the soldiers at Fort Hood:

From Erick Stakelbeck - CBN News:

The U.S. military is facing criticism for bringing a controversial Islamic speaker to Fort Hood.

The criticism comes just one month after a radical Muslim's shooting spree at the fort that killed 13 soldiers.

Dr. Louay Safi lectured on Islam last week to U.S. troops about to deploy to Afghanistan. He is a top official for the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA.

In 2007, the group was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history. Evidence introduced at that trial showed that ISNA is closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. The brotherhood is a global Islamic jihadist movement that laid the foundation for groups like al Qaeda and Hamas.

Dr. Safi has also worked for a Saudi-funded organization called the International Institute of Islamic Thought. The group has been on the radar screen of federal investigators for years.

But Safi's radical ties don't end there.

In 1995, he was recorded on an FBI wiretap talking to convicted Palestinian terrorist Sami al-Arian.

So how was Safi chosen to lecture at Fort Hood? A spokesman for the Army base told CBN News that "Safi was one of the faculty members during a seminar about Islam for the Army's 135th expeditionary unit. He said speakers are invited based on learning objectives, audience experience, and availability. The spokesman added that "organizers of the seminar were not aware of Safi's alleged association, but have had no issues or concerns over his presentations nor has any unit raised any."

Ironically, US officials issued similar statements concerning a slew of emails that Nidal Hussein had sent to his spiritual mentor, radical Islamic Imam, Anwar al-Awlaki. Some of the emails included discussions of when jihad is considered "appropriate," and if it is acceptable for innocent people to die in suicide attacks. In one particular email, Hasan told Awlaki that he couldn't wait to join him in the discussions they would be having over non-alcoholic wine in the afterlife.

But, apparently Hasan's emails did not raise any red flags with US officials, because - as one intelligence official explained - "they were consistent with the topic of Hasan's academic research and involved merely a bit of social chatter and some religious discourse."

In 2002, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Denver rescinded an arrest warrant for Anwar al-Awlaki, despite the fact that authorities suspected him of being involved in terrorist activities in the US. Whether that decision was also based on political correctness or not remains unclear. [You can read ABC's initial report on the matter here and the follow up report here]

With regards to Louay Safi, Andrew McCarthy notes as follows:

In a 2003 publication, "Peace and the Limits of War," Safi wrote, "The war against the apostates [non-believers of Islam] is carried out not to force them to accept Islam, but to enforce the Islamic law and maintain order."...

He also wrote "It is up to the Muslim leadership to assess the situation and weigh the circumstances as well as the capacity of the Muslim community before deciding the appropriate type of jihad. At one stage, Muslims may find that jihad, through persuasion or peaceful resistance is the best and most effective method to achieve just peace." [ACM: Implicitly, this concedes there is a time for violent jihad, too.]

Ironically - as Erick Stakelbeck notes - Louay Safi also spoke at a prayer breakfast for President Obama during his inauguration last year.

Nevertheless, by inviting Mr. Safi to speak at Fort Hood, the Obama administration has shown that it has no intention of amending the inane policies that led to the recent carnage. Quite the contrary, the administration is clearly breaking its promise to rectify the situation and is stubbornly adhering to its crooked, politically correct and inept policies. And in doing so, Obama and his cronies are dragging all of us down the path of self-destruction.

School Children Celebrate Obama's Election: "It's A Brand New Day!"

"Barack Runs, so our children can fly!" - Jan., 22, 2009:



[I couldn't quite make out what the boy - at 2 minutes and 9 seconds into the video - was screaming. Sounds a bit strange.]

In another video - filmed shortly after the President delivered his "Back to School Speech" in September - children from the same elementary school say "thank you" to Obama. The teacher also asks one of the students if the President "is like a hero to" her. At about 1 minute and 59 seconds into the video, the children say "Thank You" to Obama while holding a photo with the words, "Extreme Loyalty...." inscribed on the top. Ahem......

Video: "Thank You President Obama" - 'Extreme Loyalty!':

Obama: I think I had a fake ID

President Obama hosted a reception in the White House for the recipients of this year's Kennedy Center Honors Awards.

Film legend Mel Brooks was among the recipients who were honored for their contribution to the arts.

Of Brooks, the president said:

"I was telling him that I went to see Blazing Saddles when I was ten. He pointed out that, I think, according to the ratings I should not have been allowed in the theater. That's true," Obama said, adding, "I think I had a fake ID. [pause] But the statute of limitations has passed."........

Global Cooling and the inevitable Ice Age, a result of Man-Made Emissions: Time Magazine - 1974

Excerpted from a Time Magazine article - June 24,1974:

When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing... The weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age...

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth. [The exact opposite of what the Global Warming wackos are saying now.]

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years...

From Newsweek - April 28, 1975:

A study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average...

Scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food etc. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

The 'Now And Futures' website chronicles various Global Cooling headlines from the 1890's- 1930s, the 1970's, and the present - plus, various Global Warming headlines from the 1930s-1960s, the 1990's through 2006:

GLOBAL COOLING: 1890s-1930s:

The Times, February 24, 1895:

"Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again"
Fears of a "second glacial period" brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia's climate.

New York Times, October 7, 1912
"Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age"

Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923
"The possibility of another Ice Age already having started ... is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak."

Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923
"Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."

Time Magazine, September 10, 1923
"The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age."

New York Times, September 18, 1924
"MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1930s-1960s:

New York Times, March 27, 1933
"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise"

Time Magazine, January 2, 1939
"Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right.... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

Time Magazine, 1951
Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year.

New York Times, 1952
Reported global warming studies citing the "trump card" as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat.

U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954
"[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing."

GLOBAL COOLING: 1970s:

Time Magazine, June 24, 1974
"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Christian Science Monitor, August 27, 1974
"Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect"
Reported that "glaciers have begun to advance"; "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter"; and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool".

Science News, March 1, 1975
"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the 'very extraordinary period of warmth' that preceded it."

Newsweek, April 28, 1975
"The Cooling World"
"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now."

International Wildlife, July-August, 1975
"But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime."

New York Times, May 21, 1975
"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1990s-?:

Earth in the Balance, Al Gore, 1992
"About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level due to global warming, in the next few decades."

Time Magazine, April 19, 2001
"[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible."

New York Times, December 27, 2005
"Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming"

The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2006
"Billions will die, says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not usually a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a 'broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords,' and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot where a few breeding couples will survive."

2020s?:

RIA Novisty(Russian News & Information Agency), February 8, 2007
Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060. This period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again."
Quoting Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory. Full article at http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 95, 115-121 (2007)
"Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years"

Bizarre quotes from various Global Warming, environmental wackos:

“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart - former Canadian Minister of the Environment

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."
Tim Wirth - President of the UN Foundation

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.... You are what the media define you to be. [Ultimately], Greenpeace became a myth and fund generating machine."
Paul Watson - co-founder of Greenpeace - Forbes, Nov. 1991

"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous [Global Warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
Al Gore

“Rather than seeing [climate] models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as "convenient fictions" which try to provide something useful.”
Dr. David Frame - Climate Modeler, Oxford University

"Convenient fictions?"

"An incovenient truth?"

Hmmm.....

Long-term unemployment soars

According to data released by the Department of Labor on Friday, long-term unemployment in the US is soaring:

From the AP:

The number of Americans out of work for 27 weeks or more reached 5.9 million last month, the most on records dating from 1948. That's 18 percent more than just three months ago, when the total was just below 5 million.

Baucus Admits Obamacare Costs $2.5 Trillion

Last month, I quoted an article from the The Foundry [the Heritage blog], stating that the House health Care bill, over a period of 10 years - from years 2114 to 2023 - will cost $2.6 trillion, despite misleading claims made by the CBO:

The [House health care] bill is front loaded with taxes, and back-loaded with spending in the first ten years. Since most of the spending in the House bill does not fully go into effect until 2014, the 10-year cost estimates based on the preliminary CBO score (for years 2010 through 2019) only account for six years of new spending under the plan. Once it is implemented (over a full 10-year window from years 2014 to 2023), the giant House health bill carries a price tag of $2.4 trillion, or as much as $2.6 trillion with the “doc fix.”

Similar assessments have also been made with regards to the cost of the Senate health care bill.

And, today, the Heritage blog [The Foundry], posted a video of Sen. Max Baucus - a key figure in crafting the health care bill - admitting on the Senate floor that Obamacare, even without the “doc fix,"would cost $2.5 trillion:

BAUCUS: "Bare with me and take the doc fix and put that off the table, just for a second, we can address that later... Health care reform...[using a 10 year number], whether you start in 2110 or you start in 2114 - whenever you're gonna start - either it's a trillion dollars or $2.5 trillion, depending upon when you start ...."

Obama Refuses photo-op with an F-22!

President Obama, in his recent visit to Dover Air Force base, posed for a photo-op with the remains of a US soldier. But apparently, he refuses to be photographed standing next to an F-22 fighter plane!:

When President Obama spoke to troops at Alaska's Elmendorf Air Force Base last month, the unit there parked a shiny new F-22 fighter plane in the hanger. But according to multiple sources, White House aides demanded the plane be changed to an older F-15 fighter because they didn't want Obama speaking in front of the F-22, a controversial program he fought hard to end.

"White House aides actually made them remove the F-22. They would not allow POTUS to be pictured with the F-22 in any way, shape, or form," one source close to the unit relayed.

Stephen Lee, a public affairs officer at Elmendorf, confirmed... that the F-22 was parked in the hanger and then was replaced by an F-15 at the White House's behest.

The airmen there took offense to the Obama aides' demand, sources told The Cable, seeing it as a slight to the folks who are operating the F-22 proudly every day. They also expressed bewilderment that the White House staff would even care so much as to make an issue out of the fact that the F-22 was placed in the hanger with the president.

Members of Congress recently pleaded with the president to proceed with the purchase of F-22 fighter jets in order to strengthen US national security.

They contend that only the F-22 has the capability to penetrate Russia’s powerful S-300 and S-400 air-defense missile system.

What's more, Teheran's ambassador to Moscow said on Friday that Russia had assured Iran it will honor a deal to supply the Islamic Republic with advanced S-300 air-defense missiles - despite reports to the contrary.

Nevertheless, Obama has decided to kill the F-22 program - despite its ability to penetrate the S-300 air-defense system - and even refuses to be caught standing next to the fighter plane. Perhaps, Obama is simply trying to ingratiate himself with his Russian pals.

After currying favor with the Russians by scrapping plans to deploy an air missile defense system in Eastern Europe, why ruin all that good chemistry by posing for a photo-op right next to the detestable F-22?

Related Post: Obama accused Bush of staging a photo-op with wounded troops in '07

Taliban: "You Have All The Watches, But We Have All The Time!"

President Obama on Tuesday announced his plan to begin withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan in 18 months. However, in an interview with CNN, Zalmay Khalilzad, former US Ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, criticized Obama's strategy:

Today, the president of the United States... announced an escalation of the war... But he also coupled that with an exit strategy, including a goal of when the troops can start coming home...

If you [establish] a time line, you encourage the enemy to out-wait you, to regard the strategy as not enduring.When I was the ambassador in Afghanistan, the Taliban sent me a message saying: "You have all the watches, but we have all the time!.."

I think the emphasis on an artificial time line may encourage the Taliban to persist, to endure and for the region to assume that we do not have the staying power and, therefore, make the job of succeeding harder.

Give the Taliban credit where credit is due; they came up with a fantastic line!:

"You Have All The Watches, But We Have All The Time!" [Great advertisement for a watch company.]

Nevertheless, I noticed the president, when announcing his exit strategy Tuesday, did not use the famous slogan he always uses when he tries to rally his troops around him: The words,"Yes We Can!"

But undoubtedly, the Taliban - while watching Obama's speech - were chanting their own campaign slogan...., and Obama's campaign slogan too!:

"You have all the watches, but we have all the time!"

"Yes we can!"

"Osama bin-Laden and Mullah Omar in 2011!".....

The only thing missing is the pin.

Muntadhar al-Zaidi, the shoe-throwing Liberal icon, gets a taste of his own medicine

Muntadhar al-Zaidi, the Iraqi journalist - who became an instant sensation in Liberal circles last year after he threw his shoe at former former President Bush - got a taste of his own medicine Tuesday:

Al-Zaidi was in Paris to promote his campaign for the "victims of the US occupation in Iraq" when a fellow Iraqi critic turned the tables on him, shouting: "Here's another shoe for you."

The thick-set man with an Iraqi accent made a brief speech in Arabic during the question and answer session, defending US policy and accusing Zaidi of "working for dictatorship in Iraq," before throwing his shoe.

The missile was thrown hard at Zaidi's head, but he managed to dodge it and it bounced harmlessly off a curtain erected behind the speakers by the event's hosts, the Foreign Press Welcome Center in Paris.

Zaidi's brother grappled with and slapped the man, whom witnesses later described as an asylum-seeker they know only as "Khayat", before venue staff and bystanders separated them and the aggressor was hustled away.

As I noted previously: "Al-Zaidi was once head of the student union under Saddam Hussein. [He was also a fellow Baathist]. Another individual to head the National Students Union in Iraq was a fellow by the name of Umar Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hasan al-Tikriti. Mr. al-Tikriti, who was also the head of Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen, allegedly provided support for the Iraqi insurgency. A warrant for his arrest was issued by the Central Criminal Court of Iraq in March of 2005.

"What's more, Mr. Al-Zaidi - the notorious shoe thrower - had previously been detained in November of 2007 for two weeks after videotaping the scene of an improvised explosive device that targeted an American Humvee. Why they released him from detention is anyone's guess..."