Marine Mom Takes On Harry Reid

All I can say is… God bless this woman!

Gio-

The Coming “Green” Scam

 

There is a new scam. It’s the “climate change” or Green Scam. It’s being perpetrated by people who are using “climate change” to stoke our fears to line their own pockets. (Recall that “climate change” used to be called “global warming” until evidence keeps mounting that the world isn’t warming, but instead may be heading toward a new ice age).

h/t to intrepid Giovanni’s World member Steve for the following article!

~Eowyn

…………………………………….

"Climate change" guru Al Gore's enormous energy-consuming mansion in Nashville, TN

MAY 22, 2009

The Climate-Industrial Complex

Some businesses see nothing but profits in the green movement

By BJORN LOMBORG http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286145192740987.html

Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets.

The tight relationship between the groups echoes the relationship among weapons makers, researchers and the U.S. military during the Cold War. President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned about the might of the “military-industrial complex,” cautioning that “the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” He worried that “there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties.”

This is certainly true of climate change. We are told that very expensive carbon regulations are the only way to respond to global warming, despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test. We must ask whether a “climate-industrial complex” is emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over money to please those who stand to gain.

This phenomenon will be on display at the World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen this weekend. The organizers — the Copenhagen Climate Council — hope to push political leaders into more drastic promises when they negotiate the Kyoto Protocol’s replacement in December.

The opening keynote address is to be delivered by Al Gore, who actually represents all three groups: He is a politician, a campaigner and the chair of a green private-equity firm invested in products that a climate-scared world would buy.

Naturally, many CEOs are genuinely concerned about global warming. But many of the most vocal stand to profit from carbon regulations. The term used by economists for their behavior is “rent-seeking.”

The world’s largest wind-turbine manufacturer, Copenhagen Climate Council member Vestas, urges governments to invest heavily in the wind market. It sponsors CNN’s “Climate in Peril” segment, increasing support for policies that would increase Vestas’s earnings. A fellow council member, Mr. Gore’s green investment firm Generation Investment Management, warns of a significant risk to the U.S. economy unless a price is quickly placed on carbon.

Even companies that are not heavily engaged in green business stand to gain. European energy companies made tens of billions of euros in the first years of the European Trading System when they received free carbon emission allocations.

American electricity utility Duke Energy, a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council, has long promoted a U.S. cap-and-trade scheme. Yet the company bitterly opposed the Warner-Lieberman bill in the U.S. Senate that would have created such a scheme because it did not include European-style handouts to coal companies. The Waxman-Markey bill in the House of Representatives promises to bring back the free lunch.

U.S. companies and interest groups involved with climate change hired 2,430 lobbyists just last year, up 300% from five years ago. Fifty of the biggest U.S. electric utilities — including Duke — spent $51 million on lobbyists in just six months.

The massive transfer of wealth that many businesses seek is not necessarily good for the rest of the economy. Spain has been proclaimed a global example in providing financial aid to renewable energy companies to create green jobs. But research shows that each new job cost Spain 571,138 euros, with subsidies of more than one million euros required to create each new job in the uncompetitive wind industry. Moreover, the programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs for every job created.

The cozy corporate-climate relationship was pioneered by Enron, which bought up renewable energy companies and credit-trading outfits while boasting of its relationship with green interest groups. When the Kyoto Protocol was signed, an internal memo was sent within Enron that stated, “If implemented, [the Kyoto Protocol] will do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory business.”

The World Business Summit will hear from “science and public policy leaders” seemingly selected for their scary views of global warming. They include James Lovelock, who believes that much of Europe will be Saharan and London will be underwater within 30 years; Sir Crispin Tickell, who believes that the United Kingdom’s population needs to be cut by two-thirds so the country can cope with global warming; and Timothy Flannery, who warns of sea level rises as high as “an eight-story building.”

Free speech is important. But these visions of catastrophe are a long way outside of mainstream scientific opinion, and they go much further than the careful findings of the United Nations panel of climate change scientists. When it comes to sea-level rise, for example, the United Nations expects a rise of between seven and 23 inches by 2100 — considerably less than a one-story building.

There would be an outcry — and rightfully so — if big oil organized a climate change conference and invited only climate-change deniers.

The partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians and alarmist campaigners truly is an unholy alliance. The climate-industrial complex does not promote discussion on how to overcome this challenge in a way that will be best for everybody. We should not be surprised or impressed that those who stand to make a profit are among the loudest calling for politicians to act. Spending a fortune on global carbon regulations will benefit a few, but dearly cost everybody else.

Mr. Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus, a think tank, and author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming” (Knopf, 2007).

Liberals Are Racist

You may have noticed recently that I’m spending much of my time on the subject of race, and you may be wondering why. My immediate answer is… “why not talk about race?”. Ok, I’ll stop being obnoxious and get to the point.

Race, or to be more specific, racism, is a subject that people do not talk about much anymore. Actually, It’s mostly conservatives that don’t talk much about racism anymore and there’s a damn good reason for it. Liberals have used racism as a club with which to beat-up on conservatives for such a long time, that we conservatives have shied away from even discussing race. This in my estimation is bullshit!

In the near future we are going to have a national discussion on illegal immigration. Or should I say ‘a national shouting match’. Our president and his Democrat minions will once again try to use the ‘racist’ taunt to shut down any push back from not only conservatives, but anyone that comes out against I-L-L-E-G-A-L immigration. And what will the left use as proof? How about this for proof…

The info below comes directly from Understanding Race.Org a pre-eminent organization on the subject of race and it’s history in the USA. The paragraphs highlighted in blue, is their historical proof that we are racists.

http://understandingrace.org/history/society/anti_immigrant.html
Society: 1980s-2000s
Anti-Immigrant Movement and Racial Profiling

The U.S. experienced increased immigration from former Soviet states and Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. But since the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, U.S. immigration law and anti-immigrant sentiment has largely been focused on illegal immigration from Central America. The 1986 law was intended to reduce the large number of U.S. immigrants who were either illegal or unemployed. Employers who knowingly hire an illegal immigrant may be subject to financial and other penalities. However, the law included a one-year amnesty provision for illegal immigrants who had lived and worked in the U.S. since January 1982. The 1986 IRCA amnesty offered more than 2.7 million immigrants and others without appropriate visas the opportunity to apply for and receive legal citizenship.

 
With the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1992 and increased (illegal) immigration from Central America, some states and local municipalities created legislation to discourage (illegal) Mexican immigrants from settling in their communities. Many localities actively practiced discrimination against recent (illegal) immigrants, especially those from Central America, by establishing ordinances that restricted (illegal) day laborers from congregating and finding adequate housing, thereby limiting economic opportunities. In 2006, Congress proposed several measures designed to deal with the problem of illegal immigration and the resulting backlash.
———————————

That’s it, that’s their proof. Well, that and the one lady holding the sign of course (below)!

And in case you were wondering, I had to edit-in the word “illegal” in red four times.

Gio-

Take the ‘I am not a racist’ pledge.

 

Canada Here We Come

This article in a Canadian Newspaper gives you a glimpse at what the USA is fast becoming. Apparantly, Mr. Paul Russell of the National Post believes that moral judgement is so ‘yesterday’. Jerk!

My fear is that the USA is not far behind in what I like to call ‘good is bad, bad is good’  ideology.

Take the ‘I am not a racist’ pledge 

Gio- 

 
Paul Russell: Keep your homophobic and racist comments to yourself
Posted: May 16, 2009, 12:30 PM by Paul Russell

The Letters page of the National Post gives readers a forum to vent their frustrations about the news of the day — but sometimes this criticism gets out of hand and becomes racist, homophobic or otherwise hateful in nature. Examples of all of these characteristics have been plentiful.

 
–  We carried numerous letters this week about Miss California and her views on gay marriage. It was a lively debate, with some correspondents agreeing with Carrie Prejean that marriage should be between a man and a woman; others argued that such a restriction is a violation of a gay person’s rights. But a handful of pro-Prejean letters were rejected out of hand.

 
Here are a few choice excerpts from those letters. “Homosexuality, per se, is a burden of sin upon those so afflicted,” one writer decreed. Another one urged gays to “abstain from sexual immorality.” A third called homosexuality a “despicable lifestyle choice … that in the end [people] will be judged for.”

 
While it is fine for readers to say they oppose gay marriage and to proclaim that they find it offensive, they cross the line when they pass moral judgment on those who don’t share their sexual orientation….

The Terror Threat Is Real

 

This group of home-grown jihadists would have inflicted some serious damage to life and property were it not for their almost comical ineptitude.

~Eowyn

 

 

 

CHILLING TERROR PLOT THWARTED

by MURRAY WEISS, ERIN CALABRESE and JENNIFER FERMINO

May 21, 2009 http://www.nypost.com/seven/05212009/news/regionalnews/chilling_terror_plot_thwarted_170280.htm?page=0

Four homegrown Muslim terrorists on a mission from hell were arrested last night as they planted what they thought were high-powered plastic explosives at two Bronx synagogues, authorities said.

The men were also allegedly plotting to use a Stinger missile to shoot a military plane out of the sky in upstate New York immediately after the bombings.

“They stated they wanted to commit jihad,” NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said in a press conference this morning. “These men meant to do some serious damage. … They were certainly intent on doing damage, on killing people.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, “This is a reminder that the peace is fragile, that democracy is fragile and we have to be vigilant all the time. The good news is that the NYPD and the FBI did exactly what they’re trained to do and they prevented what would have been a terrible event in our city.”

The four suspects are due to appear in court later in the day in White Plains, New York. Kelly said all four had criminal records and did not appear to be part of al Qaeda.

A rabbi at the targeted synagogue lauded the agencies involved in the bust.

“This is America’s finest hour. The best resources of the Police Department, Homeland Security and the FBI kept us safe,” said Jonathan Rosenblatt, a rabbi at the targeted Riverdale Jewish Center.

He noted that some of the members had survived the Holocaust. “To see a synagogue burning would have been painful,” he said.

The jihadist wannabes — all from Newburgh, NY — began their unholy mission last night at around 9 p.m. at the Riverdale Temple on Independence Avenue, authorities said.

They planted what they thought were explosives in a parked car outside the house of worship.

One acted as a lookout, while the other three allegedly drove up the block to the Riverdale Jewish Center and planted two more bags of “explosives” in cars.

Unbeknownst to them, their explosives were duds — supplied by authorities who had been monitoring their plan for more than a year.

Cops swooped in and arrested them right after they allegedly planted the last of the phony bombs.

One of the suspects, James Cromitie, aka Abdul Rahman, bragged that blowing up the synagogues would be a “piece of cake,” the feds said.

“I hate those motherf – - -ers, those f – - -ing Jewish bastards . . . I would like to get a synagogue,” Cromitie told an informant, according to a criminal complaint.

The alleged terrorists’ hatred also included the US military.

After bombing the temples, the men planned to split up and head to the New York Air National Guard Base at Stewart Airport in their hometown and shoot down a plane with a weapon they believed was a Stinger surface-to-air guided missile, sources said.

“They [the United States military] are killing Muslim brothers and sisters in Muslim countries, so if we kill them here [in the United States] with IEDs [improvised explosive devices] and Stingers, it is equal,” one of the busted men, Onta Williams, allegedly told the informant.

Also arrested was David “Daoud” Williams and Laguerre Payen, aka Amin or Almondo.

The arrests culminated a yearlong investigation by the FBI and NYPD joint terrorist task force, which monitored the four men with wiretaps, surveillance and the help of the undercover.

The informant — who had been cooperating with the feds on another, undisclosed case — met Cromitie at Mashjid al-Ikhlas, a mosque in Newburgh.

In their initial meeting in June 2008, Cromitie told the informant about his desire to do “something to America,” the feds charged.

“Cromitie explained to the CW [cooperating witness] that his parents lived in Afghanistan prior to his birth and that, because of his connection to Afghanistan, he was upset about the war there,” according to the legal papers filed in White Plains federal court.

The other three suspects converted to Islam after recent stints in jail, police sources said. Cromitie also has a criminal record.

“[Cromitie] was unhappy that many Muslim people were being killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan by the United States military forces,” the legal papers said. “Cromitie expressed interest in returning to Afghanistan and spoke to the CW about how if he, Cromitie, were to die a martyr, he would go to ‘paradise.’ “

The informant told Cromitie — who, like his alleged accomplices, is a US citizen — that he was part of Jaish-e-Mohammed, a Pakistan-based terror group.

“Cromitie [said he] would be interested in joining Jaish-e-Mohammed to ‘do jihad,’ ” the complaint said.

The suspects allegedly began going on reconnaissance missions, looking for targets for their anti-Semitic and anti-American rage.

“During this surveillance, Cromitie pointed to people walking on the street in the vicinity of a Jewish community center and said that if he had a gun, he would shoot each one in the head,” according to the court papers.

At one point, Cromitie allegedly lamented that “the best target [the World Trade Center] was hit already.”

Last night, the FBI, State Police, NYPD and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement swarmed the Newburgh homes of some of the men and brought in seven people for questioning.

The four suspects busted in The Bronx were charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction within the United States and conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles.

New York Sen. Charles Schumer said if there can be any good news out of this case, it’s that “the group was relatively unsophisticated, penetrated early, and not connected to any outside group.”

Mayor Bloomberg said, “This latest attempt to attack our freedoms shows that the homeland security threats against New York City are sadly all too real.”

Additional reporting by Perry Chiaramonte, Tom Liddy, Brigitte Williams-James and Ed Robinson

Dick Cheney A True Patriot

So much talk today about the speeches given by Obama and Cheney that I thought I would jump in feet first. I have a lot I could say, but I would rather let the words of another tell the story.

Below you will find the entire transcript from Dick Cheney’s speech. Grab a cup of coffee, or a cold soda. Turn off the TV. Lock the kids outside (just kidding), then take the time to read through every word from Cheney’s speech. If you are like me, you will realize what a true patriot sounds like.

God Bless Dick Cheney.

Gio-

Thank you all very much, and Arthur, thank you for that introduction. It’s good to be back at AEI, where we have many friends. Lynne is one of your longtime scholars, and I’m looking forward to spending more time here myself as a returning trustee. What happened was, they were looking for a new member of the board of trustees, and they asked me to head up the search committee.

I first came to AEI after serving at the Pentagon, and departed only after a very interesting job offer came along. I had no expectation of returning to public life, but my career worked out a little differently. Those eight years as vice president were quite a journey, and during a time of big events and great decisions, I don’t think I missed much.

Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition. Today, I’m an even freer man. Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen – a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.

The responsibilities we carried belong to others now. And though I’m not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. We understand the complexities of national security decisions. We understand the pressures that confront a president and his advisers. Above all, we know what is at stake. And though administrations and policies have changed, the stakes for America have not changed.

Right now there is considerable debate in this city about the measures our administration took to defend the American people. Today I want to set forth the strategic thinking behind our policies. I do so as one who was there every day of the Bush Administration -who supported the policies when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances.

When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President’s understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.

Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11th, 2001 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad. In 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, hoping to bring down the towers with a blast from below. The attacks continued in 1995, with the bombing of U.S. facilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the killing of servicemen at Khobar Towers in 1996; the attack on our embassies in East Africa in 1998; the murder of American sailors on the USS Cole in 2000; and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.

Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact – crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.

That’s how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least – but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat – what the Congress called “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.

We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in. We’d just been hit by a foreign enemy – leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit, and the Capitol or the White House were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.

Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn’t know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.

These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass – a 9/11 with nuclear weapons.

For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.

There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day – word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I’ve heard occasional speculation that I’m a different man after 9/11. I wouldn’t say that. But I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.

To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.

We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations … the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network … and the dismantling of Libya’s nuclear program. It’s required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.

So we’re left to draw one of two conclusions – and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event – coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.

The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the American people.

Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.

In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations.

In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.

Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.

By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.

Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Over on the left wing of the president’s party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they’re after would be heard before a so-called “Truth Commission.” Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It’s hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.

Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security, and what it requires. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at interrogations is utterly misplaced. And staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people.

One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see – including the enemy – let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.

It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You’ve heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed – the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.

We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn’t know about al-Qaeda’s plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

Maybe you’ve heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.

In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America’s cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about “values.” Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe – it’s no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.

Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country. You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term “war” where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we’re advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as, quote, “Overseas contingency operations.” In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, “man-made disaster” – never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.

And when you hear that there are no more, quote, “enemy combatants,” as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn’t change what they are – or what they would do if we let them loose.

On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation and no plan. Now the President says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system. Others, he says, will be shipped to third countries. But so far, the United States has had little luck getting other countries to take hardened terrorists. So what happens then? Attorney General Holder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept a number of the terrorists here, in the homeland, and it has even been suggested US taxpayer dollars will be used to support them. On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President’s own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states, these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.

The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.

In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as, quote, “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.

It’s one thing to adopt the euphemisms that suggest we’re no longer engaged in a war. These are just words, and in the end it’s the policies that matter most. You don’t want to call them enemy combatants? Fine. Call them what you want – just don’t bring them into the United States. Tired of calling it a war? Use any term you prefer. Just remember it is a serious step to begin unraveling some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11.

Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, “We brought it on ourselves.”

It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world – these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.

The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences – and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.

This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.

Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.

As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won’t let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I’ve formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It’s worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.

I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations – and I am not alone. President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration – the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn’t change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.” End of quote.

If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared, it’ll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs – on the continuing threat of terrorist violence, and on stopping the men who are planning it.

For all the partisan anger that still lingers, our administration will stand up well in history – not despite our actions after 9/11, but because of them. And when I think about all that was to come during our administration and afterward – the recriminations, the second-guessing, the charges of “hubris” – my mind always goes back to that moment.

To put things in perspective, suppose that on the evening of 9/11, President Bush and I had promised that for as long as we held office – which was to be another 2,689 days – there would never be another terrorist attack inside this country. Talk about hubris – it would have seemed a rash and irresponsible thing to say. People would have doubted that we even understood the enormity of what had just happened. Everyone had a very bad feeling about all of this, and felt certain that the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and Shanksville were only the beginning of the violence.

Of course, we made no such promise. Instead, we promised an all-out effort to protect this country. We said we would marshal all elements of our nation’s power to fight this war and to win it. We said we would never forget what had happened on 9/11, even if the day came when many others did forget. We spoke of a war that would “include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.” We followed through on all of this, and we stayed true to our word.

To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.

Along the way there were some hard calls. No decision of national security was ever made lightly, and certainly never made in haste. As in all warfare, there have been costs – none higher than the sacrifices of those killed and wounded in our country’s service. And even the most decisive victories can never take away the sorrow of losing so many of our own – all those innocent victims of 9/11, and the heroic souls who died trying to save them.

For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements, for granted.

Thank you very much.

How to Pill a Cat

 

Here’s my peace-offering to Dok, a fellow cat-lover  – for the sake of unity.

~Eowyn

…………………

Make sure that you read to the end!

How to give a cat a pill

1. Pick up cat and cradle it in the crook of your left arm as if holding a baby. Position right forefinger and thumb on either side of cat’s mouth and gently apply pressure to cheeks while holding pill in right hand. As cat opens mouth, pop pill into mouth. Allow cat to close mouth and swallow. 

2. Retrieve pill from floor and cat from behind sofa. Cradle cat in left arm and repeat process. 

3. Retrieve cat from bedroom, and throw soggy pill away. 

4. Take new pill from foil wrap, cradle cat in left arm, holding rear paws tightly with left hand. Force jaws open and push pill to back of mouth with right forefinger. Hold mouth shut for a count of ten. 

5. Retrieve pill from goldfish bowl and cat from top of wardrobe. Call spouse from garden. 

6. Kneel on floor with cat wedged firmly between knees, hold front and rear paws. Ignore low growls emitted by cat. Get spouse to hold head firmly with one hand while forcing wooden ruler into mouth. Drop pill down ruler and rub cat’s throat vigorously. 

7. Retrieve cat from curtain rail, get another pill from foil wrap. Make note to buy new ruler and repair curtains. Carefully sweep shattered figurines and vases from hearth and set to one side for gluing later. 

8. Wrap cat in large towel and get spouse to lie on cat with head just visible from below armpit. Put pill in end of drinking straw, force mouth open with pencil and blow down drinking straw. 

9. Check label to make sure pill not harmful to humans, drink 1 beer to take taste away. Apply Band-Aid to spouse’s forearm and remove blood from carpet with cold water and soap. 

10. Retrieve cat from neighbor’s shed. Get another pill. Open another beer. Place cat in cupboard, and close door on to neck, to leave head showing. Force mouth open with dessert spoon. Flick pill down throat with elastic band. 

11. Fetch screwdriver from garage and put cupboard door back on hinges. Drink beer. Fetch bottle of scotch. Pour shot, drink. Apply cold compress to cheek and check records for date of last tetanus shot. Apply whiskey compress to cheek to disinfect. Toss back another shot. Throw Tee shirt away and fetch new one from bedroom. 

12. Call fire department to retrieve the damn cat from across the road. Apologize to neighbor who crashed into fence while swerving to avoid cat. Take last pill from foil wrap. 

13. Tie the little bastard’s front paws to rear paws with garden twine and bind tightly to leg of dining table, find heavy-duty pruning gloves from shed. Push pill into mouth followed by large piece of filet steak. Be rough about it. Hold head vertically and pour 2 pints of water down throat to wash pill down. 

14. Consume remainder of scotch. Get spouse to drive you to the emergency room, sit quietly while doctor stitches fingers and forearm and removes pill remnants from right eye. Call furniture shop on way home to order new table. 

15. Arrange for SPCA to collect mutant cat from hell and call local pet shop to see if they have any hamsters.

 

 

How To Give A Dog A Pill

 

1. Wrap it in bacon. 

2. Toss it in the air.

It’s Obama vs. Cheney!

 

h/t to Giovanni’s World member Slicedsky!

~Eowyn

…………..

President Obama: U.S. ‘went off course’ fighting terror
By MIKE ALLEN 5/21/09 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22804html

President Barack Obama declared defiantly Thursday that the U.S. “went off course” in fighting terrorism over the past eight years, and said his policies will “better protect” the country against al Qaeda.

In a remarkable split-screen presentation of opposing worldviews, former Vice President Dick Cheney spoke across town moments later, saying he supported the controversial policies “when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances.”

“The point is not to look backward,” Cheney said. “A lot rides on our President’s understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.” 

Obama, in a major address at the National Archives, argued that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods “did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts – they undermined them.”

The president unblinkingly, methodically confronted a string of national-security decisions that have drawn criticism from the political left or right. He called the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay an inherited “mess” that “has weakened American national security” by providing a rallying cry for enemies.

Seeking to defuse one of Republican’s most potent arguments, the president added: “Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people.” 

Obama rejected calls for a “truth commission” about the Bush administration’s handling of the war on terror, saying he has “no interest in spending our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight years.”

“I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them together as Americans,” he said. “In all of the areas that I have discussed today, the policies that I have proposed represent a new direction from the last eight years. … If we cannot stand for those core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall.”

“Decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable – a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass,” Obama said. “And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people.”

In a stark warning, he said: “We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.”

“I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more,” Obama continued. “As commander-in-chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation. What’s more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts – they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all.”

Obama repeated his pledge to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“Rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security,” Obama said. “It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That is why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign. And that is why I ordered it closed within one year.”

Cheney appeared at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, where the audience watched the president on large TV screens.

“When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support,” Cheney said. “And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer.”

Cheney continued: “Though I’m not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. … What I want to do today is set forth the strategic thinking that drove our policies.”

“Watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities,” Cheney said. “To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy.

On the domestic eavesdropping program, Cheney said: “The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.”

Obama said that the paramount responsibility of any president is to keep the American people safe. That is what he thinks about every morning when he wakes up and every night when he goes to sleep. The president believes with every fiber of his being that we cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values.

The president referred to the setting, saying that the documents in the National Archives — including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights — “are not simply words written into aging parchment.

“They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world,” he said. “I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values.”

Obama said he had tried to “strike the right balance between transparency and national security,” including in his decision withhold of an inflammatory series of detainee photos.

“There is a clear and compelling reason to not release these particular photos,” he said. “There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm’s way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief. Nothing would be gained by the release of these photos that matters more than the lives of our young men and women serving in harm’s way. “

Obama pointed out that he is providing the resources to take the fight to the extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan who attacked us on Sept. 11; investing in the 21st-century military and intelligence capabilities; re-energizing a global nonproliferation regime and locking down loose nuclear material to deny the world’s most dangerous people access to the world’s deadliest weapons; protecting our borders and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster; building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda and its affiliates; and renewing American diplomacy.

Referring back to the opening week of his presidency, Obama pointed out that he ordered the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. For over seven years, the U.S. has detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting only three suspected terrorists.

“In dealing with this situation, we do not have the luxury of starting from scratch,” he said. “We are cleaning up something that is – quite simply – a mess; a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my Administration is forced to deal with on a constant basis, and that consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.”

Obama contended that the record is clear: Rather than keep Americans safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. Turning to detainees who remain, the president will announce this framework:

–When feasible, try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts.

–When necessary, try those who violate the rules of war through Military Commissions.

–When possible, transfer to third countries those detainees who can be safely transferred.

Where’s the Birth Certificate?

 

Even before he was elected president, questions were raised about Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS, specifically whether he really is a “Natural Born Citizen” as prescribed by the U. S. Constitution.

Lawsuit after lawsuit have been filed, in state courts as well as the Supreme Court. Reportedly, Obama has hired three law firms and expended about $1 million on legal expenses thus far to delay and ward off these lawsuits. Which is most odd because the matter can be settled with something very very simple — by Obama producing the original or vault copy of his birth certificate! (Those who have been following this issue know that the birth certificate that Obama’s campaign had put on its website is merely a “certificate of live birth” (COLB) that the state of Hawaii issues to confirm that a live birth of a human infant indeed had taken place. It does not say or confirm that the child, in this case, Barack Hussein Obama Jr., was actually born in Hawaii. COLB is not the actual birth certificate.)

Undaunted, citizens who want to get down to the bottom of this mystery are donating money to erect billboards such as the one below. Let’s keep up the pressure!

~Eowyn

…………………..

The first birth certificate billboard in Ball, La

May 20, 2009 WorldNetDailyhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98724 

More than $25,000 has been raised in the first two days of a national billboard campaign to raise awareness of questions surrounding the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as president – and the first sign, an electronic one, is already up and online.

Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, said he’s calling it “the truth and transparency campaign.”

The money is being used to erect billboards around the country that ask a simple question: “Where’s the birth certificate?”

The first such sign to be posted under the 2-day-old campaign, a digital, electronic one, is up and online on Highway 165 in Ball, La. – the result of a donation by the owner. In addition, based on the heavy volume of financial donations in the first two days of the campaign, WND was able to commit to leasing two more standard billboards – one in Los Angeles and the other in Pennsylvania. It will take several weeks to get those billboards up because of the vinyl printing and shipping involved.

“I know now, because of the sensational response to this idea from WND viewers, that this national campaign is going to be big and long-lasting,” said Farah. “I want to thank all of those who have pitched in and contributed – with either cash donations or, in some cases, space donations. But the need for money continues. The public should know it costs about $2,000 just to print these 15-by-45 foot billboards. Each one is a huge commitment.”

Donations are being accepted to defray the costs of a national billboard campaign with the simple message: “Where’s the birth certificate?”

While the campaign is off to a great start, many viewers have asked why Obama’s name is not included in the billboard. Farah said the matter was carefully considered.

“There are several reasons we chose the message: ‘Where’s the birth certificate?’” he explained. “There is only one birth certificate controversy in this country today – despite the near-total absence of this issue from coverage in the non-WND media. This is a grass-roots issue that resonates around the country, as our own online petition with nearly 400,000 signers suggests. In addition, I like the simplicity of the message. I like the fact that the message will cause some people to ask themselves or others about the meaning of the message. It will stir curiosity. It will create a buzz. I’m assuming when these billboards are springing up all over the country, it might even make some in the news media curious. And there’s one more factor that persuaded me this was the way to go.

“Come 2012, campaign laws will pose restrictions on political advertising mentioning the names of presidential candidates. This one clearly doesn’t. I would like to see the federal government make the case that this is somehow a political ad,” he said.

Farah said the campaign was born of frustration with timid elected officials in Washington, corrupt judges around the country and a news media that show a stunning lack of curiosity about the most basic facts of Obama’s background – especially how it relates to constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land.

“As Obama transforms this country from self-governing constitutional republic to one governed by a central ruling elite, the simple fact remains that no controlling legal authority has established that he is indeed a ‘natural born citizen’ as the Constitution requires,” Farah said. “Obama’s promises of transparency have become a bad joke as he continues to hide simple, innocuous documents like his birth certificate and his student records.”

The idea behind the billboard campaign is to make sure Obama cannot avoid this question any longer. He must be asked to produce it at every turn, Farah says. Billboard space is currently being hunted in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Sacramento, San Francisco, New York-New Jersey, Des Moines, Seattle and other metro areas.

“Is it unusual for a news agency to launch such a campaign?” asks Farah. “Yes it is. But we live in very unusual times. The founding fathers built special protections into the First Amendment for the free press. The reason they did that is because they understood a vibrant ‘Fourth Estate’ was necessary as an independent watchdog on government. It is in that tradition that WND assumes this role – since nobody else in the press will do it.”

WND previously launched a petition campaign that has collected more than 370,000 names demanding Obama’s eligibility be verified and demonstrated publicly. That campaign continues. That list has been shared with members of the Electoral College and the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

“I wish such a campaign were not absolutely necessary,” said Farah. “I wish there were checks and balances in our political and electoral systems to ensure that constitutional eligibility of presidential candidates was established before politicians could assume the highest office in the land. I wish my colleagues in the news media believed the Constitution really means what it says and pressed this issue as hard as we have pressed it at WND. I wish radio talk-show hosts were bold enough to ask this question. But wishing is not enough. It’s time to raise the visibility of this issue vital to the rule of law in America. I ask everyone to pitch in and help WND make a simple yet profound statement: The Constitution still matters.”

Your donation – from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 – can be made online at the WND SuperStore. (Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM. If you would prefer to mail in your contributions, they should be directed to WND, P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Be sure to specify the purpose of the donation by writing “billboard” on the check. In addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)

Special Announcement

I would like to formally announce the launch of the “I Am Not A Racist” innitiative, proudly sponsored by Giovanni’s World.

Conservatives can now show the public that we are NOT racists! Tell  Janeane Garofalo to ‘go to hell’.

Go here.

Then help us spread the word by sending this link to everyone you know…  http://iamnotaracist.wordpress.com/

 

“Gio’s World” Makes a Difference!

 

Friends of Giovanni’s World,

Just want you to know that we are making a difference! Our recent post “Let’s Take Her Down!” got the attention of Roll Call, which calls itself “The Newspaper of Capitol Hill since 1955.” It is sponsored by Congress.org. Here’s the article (see below).

~Eowyn

………..

 

Ethics Office Gets a Taste of Mass Complaints

May 20, 2009

By Jennifer Yachnin

Roll Call Staff

In what is likely the first mass-mail appeal to the Office of Congressional Ethics to open an investigation, a conservative blog and its readership began distributing a form letter last week requesting a probe of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

The site, which bills itself as dedicated to “Politics and Global Warming Nonsense,” calls for an investigation of Pelosi and when she first learned about harsh CIA interrogation techniques.

“I, (your name here), residing at ___, phone # ___, e-mail ____, would like to open an Ethics violation case against the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi,” states the letter, originally posted May 15 on GiovanniWorld.Wordpress.com.

The blog also lists contact information for the OCE and one of its investigators, as well as links to a variety of House documents, including the House Ethics Manual.

An e-mail sent to a contact address for the Web site was not immediately answered Tuesday afternoon.

OCE Staff Director and Chief Counsel Leo Wise declined Tuesday to confirm whether the office has received any of the form letters to date, stating that the office does not discuss specific complaints.

But Wise said that if the office were to receive an influx of identical complaints on any subject, it would likely treat those inquiries no differently than it does individual letters.

“We’re going to handle it like we handle all citizens’ submissions,” Wise said. “We take it seriously. We look at the facts. We do our due diligence.”

Under the OCE’s rules, the office first reviews all submissions to determine whether the office has jurisdiction over a matter. To qualify, the subject of a complaint must be a current Member, officer or employee of the House, and the allegations, if true, would constitute a violation of House rules or other laws.

In addition, House rules limit the OCE to reviewing only those events that occurred after March 2008, when the office was established.

When a complaint fails to meet those criteria, the OCE notifies the submission’s author, but it is not required to report that decision to the House ethics panel, nor are the letters made publicly available.

Responding to such “post-card campaigns” — any instance in which numerous individuals submit identical letters, or even preprinted postcards — could tax the committee’s relatively small staff, as well as increase postage costs.

In its first quarterly report, covering January to March, the OCE recorded 37 contacts with “private citizens” who were either seeking information about the group’s procedures or alleging misconduct by Members, staff or House employees.

But Wise said a deluge of identical complaints should not hinder the OCE’s operations.

“Our intention is to address things individually,” Wise said. “We’ve always taken the approach that we are going to staff appropriately for the demand. I’ve always kind of expected there would be an increase in submissions over time and we would reach some sort of steady state where it plateaued.”

Unlike the House ethics committee, which restricts the filing of formal complaints to Members, the semiautonomous OCE accepts recommendations from the general public.

While any individual or organization can submit a complaint to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as the panel is formally known, it is not required to address or even acknowledge those complaints.

One former House aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the ethics committee is rarely, if ever, a target of such mass mail campaigns.

The OCE and the House panel are also permitted to initiate inquiries of their own volition.

The OCE is tasked with reviewing and recommending potential rules violations to the House ethics committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheney in 2012?

 

This past weekend, on PBS’s shout-fest, McLaughlin Report, host John McLaughlin noted that former VP Dick Cheney has been very vocal in his criticism of the Obama administration, and that this means Cheney may be positioning himself for a run in the 2012 presidential election.

I must admit my reaction was one of incredulity. Haven’t we had enough of Cheney, widely rumored to be the guy behind the curtain (a la the wizard of Oz) in the two Bush the Younger terms?

What do you think?

~Eowyn

Wednesdays Open Thread

First an apology. Some of you know that I have been wrapped-up in a little project that is near and dear to my heart. Because of my head-down plow-ahead attitude, I have been focusing more on the project and less on Gio’s World which is a dis-service to my loyal readers.

Thankfully, Gio’s World has had our west coast editor to lean on while I have been derelict in my duties. I thank God every day that he sent me such an intelligent, wonderful, and loyal friend. Please give Eowyn some recognition for her efforts the next time you post, as I’m sure she will enjoy the gift of gratitude.

One last thing… As soon as my project is launched (soon) I will be back to my normal pissed-off-at-the-clowns-in-DC self filling the pages of Gio’s World with their stupidity. My little project is going to be rolled out in a few stages. Although the first stage is the essence of simplicity, it is probably the most powerful part. Because of the subject matter I have decided to tackle, every word, on every page, of every stage, has to be carefully considered, and once I present the first stage (here at Giovanni’s World of course) I think all of you will understand.

Ok, enough of me…. Go for it!!!

Eyes of Obama

It is said that our eyes are the windows into our souls.

Take a look at these pics of Obama. Don’t look at his mouth, but focus on just his eyes. Use your hand to block the lower half of his face, Tell us what you see!

If you come across striking pics of his eyes, please share them with us by posting a comment with a link to the pic. Thanks

~Eowyn

…………….

h/t Giovanni's World member Janis Shepard Moon!

h/t to Giovanni's World member, The Doktor!

I find O’s eyes to be especially disturbing in this McCain-Obama prez debate:

ObamaLand

 

Remember this heartwarming photo-op from Obama’s visit to our troops in Iraq?

Well, just as in the Land of Oz, it turns out the entire event was stage-managed. Here’s an account of what actually happened by blogger Sidney Allen Johnson. 

~Eowyn

………..

 

The new U.S. Propaganda ministry (a.k.a. the mainstream media) doesn’t satisfy itself with the mere misrepresentation of facts. Deliberately manufactured events and photo opportunities are just as useful in portraying our new president as something other than what he is. A recent “surprise visit” (c’mon “Clockwork Orange” fans) by the president to visit the troops in Iraq was plastered in the media all around the world. If you believed your lying eyes you thought the troops were elated to see the president. They were cheering and gathering around him in much the same way as they did for his predecessor who was very popular with them. The Associated Press expressed it thusly:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama went for the defining television shot by capping his first extended foreign tour with a surprise visit to Iraq. He got it – pictures of hundreds of U.S. troops cheering wildly as he told them it was time for the Iraqis to take charge of their own future. The war-zone photo opportunity produced a stunning show of appreciation for Obama from military men and women who have made great sacrifices, many serving repeated tours in a highly unpopular war. - AP

But alas, you didn’t see what you thought you saw. As it turns out the entire event was no “surprise visit” at all, but was instead a thoroughly planned and orchestrated event. When the curtain is pulled back we learn that all of the soldiers that were invited to greet the president on this fabricated “surprise visit” were, in fact, questioned beforehand so that only those who revealed themselves as having voted for Obama would be in attendance.

That wonderful cheering welcome that President Obama received with his unscheduled surprise visit to the troops in Iraq, was entirely a staged event. The troops were interrogated beforehand, with those military members who had voted for President Obama given identical digital cameras and placed in front of the media cameras covering the event. – Minority Report

Uh-Oh…

A sergeant who was there explained the subterfuge. “We were pre-screened, asked by officials ‘Who voted for Obama?’, and then those who raised their hands were shuffled to the front of the receiving line. They even handed out digital cameras and asked them to hold them up.” – Minority Report

Isn’t it strange that all these soldiers managed to have their cameras with them when the president “surprised” them with his visit? And don’t they all look remarkably similar? Isn’t that curious considering the plethora of different cameras there are on the market? But really, has this administration shown any competence at ANYTHING? Why would we presume they would be all that good at deception?

Do you remember that episode of the classic TV show “The Brady Bunch” where Greg Brady was made into a rock star because he fit the suit that the record company already had? They even hired girls to attack him everywhere he went so he would look like a star. Barack Obama’s presidency is playing out much the same way. Everything is controlled and contrived, and he is not going to deviate from the pre-arranged plan. It worked to get him elected and as long as he keeps the mainstream media in his pocket, he hopes he can continue to manipulate public opinion through these deceptions. And boy does he have the media in his pocket!! Consider these recently revealed facts from the Center For Media & Public Affairs:

Total network news coverage for the first 50 days:

Obama 27 hours- 44 minutes– Reporting 58% Positive
Bush 7 hours- 42 minutes — Reporting 33% Positive
Clinton 15 hours- 2 minutes– reporting 44% Positive

Obama’s news coverage for the first 50 days:

CBS 10 hours 46 minutes — Reporting 58% Positive
NBC 9 hours 38 minutes — Reporting 61% Positive
ABC 7 hours 20 minutes — Reporting 57% Positive

Fox- Bret Baier 10 hours 24 minutes ( from the first 30 minutes of the show)–
Reporting 13% Positive

I would like to say these numbers are surprising but, unfortunately, we all knew this to be true. However what IS surprising is how blatantly and shamelessly journalists have sold their integrity. And for what? Like Esau in the famous Bible story, it would appear to be for food! Well, maybe not for food but certainly the transaction did take place over dinner. A recent report from Howard Kurtz revealed that David Bradley of the Atlantic Monthly has been, for over a year, regularly hosting dinners that allow certain elitist journalists to mingle with A list members of the Obama campaign and administration. These exclusive dinners are ongoing even as his campaign has become his administration. Who are these elitist journalists that merit invitations to these exclusive dinners?

“Among those in regular attendance are David Brooks and Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Gene Robinson and Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post, NBC’s David Gregory, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, PBS’s Gwen Ifill, the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, Vanity Fair’s Todd Purdum, former Time managing editor Walter Isaacson and staffers from Bradley’s Atlantic and National Journal, including Ron Brownstein, Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch.” - Washington Post

And you wonder how Obama gets such favorable reporting!! Don’t be too impressed by all those polls that show Obama to have a high approval rating either. Numbers and statistics are even easier to manipulate than journalists…and they eat less! Barack Obama first conquered the media and effectively made them into his propaganda ministry. They have a lot invested in him. They need him to succeed to cover their own asses. Those polls that originate from media sources reflect a higher opinion of Obama than the more respectable (and accurate) polls used to track elections. He is not nearly as well approved of as is being reported. But remember, according to the media in Germany during WW II, they were always winning the war, even as the American and Russian armies were destroying their country. When your entire government is built on a foundation of deception and manipulation, you cannot ever abandon those methods. Certainly Joseph Goebbels would approve of Obama’s methods. But then again, both Joseph Goebbels AND Barack Obama are…SOCIALISTS!!

Is this the Missing Link?

 

In 1859 , Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species and sparked a fierce debate between scientific proponents of evolution and religious advocates of creation. Those skeptical of Darwin’s theory of evolution long maintain that the chief weakness of his theory is the absence of the so-called “missing link” – fossilised remains of some intermediary form of life that illustrates an evolutionary transition between a lower to a higher species, in this case, between the lower primates (monkeys, chimps, apes, baboons, gorillas, orangutans) and homo sapiens.

The biggest news today is the claim by a group of scientists that the missing link is found – the 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a lemur monkey, dubbed “Ida,” which the paleontologists claim to be the ancestor of both monkeys and humans.

Of course, in accordance with the norms of science, their mere proclamation of having found the missing link does not make it true. Their claim must now meet the rigorous demands of science – those of verification (Is this really the missing link?), replication (Can the results be reproduced by the same scientists?), and intersubjectivity (Can other scientists repeat and confirm that the fossil indeed is the missing link?).

My question to religious readers of Gio’s World:

If ”Ida” indeed is the missing link, does this change your belief in a creator God?

~Eowyn

………..

Evolution of man?

Scientists Unveil Missing Link in Evolution

Alex Watts, Sky News Online http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In_New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor

The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years – but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York.

The discovery of the 95%-complete ‘lemur monkey’ – dubbed Ida – is described by experts as the “eighth wonder of the world”.

They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be “somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth”.

Fossilised skeleton of "Ida," the alleged missing link

Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle.

Sir David Attenborough said Darwin “would have been thrilled” to have seen the fossil – and says it tells us who we are and where we came from.

“This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals,” he said.

“This is the one that connects us directly with them.

“Now people can say ‘okay we are primates, show us the link’.

“The link they would have said up to now is missing – well it’s no longer missing.”

A team of the world’s leading fossil experts, led by Professor Jorn Hurum, of Norway’s National History Museum, have been secretly researching the 1ft 9in-tall young female monkey for the past two years.

And now it has been transported to New York under high security and unveiled to the world during the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth.

Later this month, it will be exhibited for one day only at the Natural History Museum in London before being returned to Oslo.

Scientists say Ida – squashed to the thickness of a beer mat by the immense passage of time – is the most complete primate fossil ever found.

With her human-like nails instead of claws, and opposable big toes, she is placed at the very root of human evolution when early primates first developed features that would eventually develop into our own.

Another important discovery is the shape of the talus bone in her foot, which humans still have in their feet millions of lifetimes later.

Ida was unearthed by an amateur fossil-hunter some 25 years ago in Messel pit, an ancient crater lake near Frankfurt, Germany, famous for its fossils.

She was cleaned and set in polyester resin – and incredibly, was hung on a mystery German collector’s wall for 20 years.

Sky News sources say the owner had no idea of the unique fossil’s significance and simply admired it like a cherished Van Gogh or Picasso painting.

But in 2006, Ida came into the hands of private dealer Thomas Perner, who presented her to Prof Hurum at the annual Hamburg Fossil and Mineral Fair in Germany – a centre for the murky world of fossil-trading.

Prof Hurum said when he first saw the blueprint for evolution – the “most beautiful fossil worldwide” – he could not sleep for two days.

A home movie records the dramatic moment.

“This is really something that the world has never seen before, this is a unique specimen, totally unique,” he says, clearly emotional.

He says he knew she should be saved for science rather than end up hidden from the world in a wealthy private collector’s vault.

But the dealer’s asking price was more than $1 million (£660,000) – ten times the amount even the rarest of fossils fetch on the black market.

Eventually, after six months of negotiations, he managed to raise the cash in Norway and brought Ida to Oslo.

Prof Hurum – who last summer dug up the fossil remains of a 50ft marine monster called Predator X from the permafrost on Svalbard, a Norwegian island close to the North Pole – then assembled a “dream team” of experts who worked in secret for two years.

They included palaeontologist Dr Jens Franzen, Dr Holly Smith, of the University of Michigan, and Philip Gingerich, president-elect of the US Paleontological Society.

Researchers could prove the fossil was genuine through X-rays, knowing it is impossible to fake the inner structure of a bone.

Through radiometric dating of Messel’s volcanic rocks, they discovered Ida lived 47 million years ago in the Eocene period.

This was when tropical forests stretched right to the poles, and South America was still drifting and had yet to make contact with North America.

During that period, the first whales, horses, bats and monkeys emerged, and the early primates branched into two groups – one group lived on mainly as lemurs, and the second developed into monkeys, apes and humans.

The experts concluded Ida was not simply a lemur but a ‘lemur monkey’, displaying a mixture of both groups, and therefore putting her at the very branch of the human line.

“When Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859, he said a lot about transitional species,” said Prof Hurum

“…and he said that will never be found, a transitional species, and his whole theory will be wrong, so he would be really happy to live today when we publish Ida.

“This fossil is really a part of our history; this is part of our evolution, deep, deep back into the aeons of time, 47 million years ago.

“It’s part of our evolution that’s been hidden so far, it’s been hidden because all the other specimens are so incomplete.

“They are so broken there’s almost nothing to study and now this wonderful fossil appears and it makes the story so much easier to tell, so it’s really a dream come true.”

Up until now, the most famous fossil primate in the world has been Lucy, a 3.18-million-year-old hominid found in Ethiopia in 1974.

She was then our earliest known ancestor, and only 40% complete.

But at 95% complete, Ida was so well preserved in the mud at the bottom of the volcanic lake, there is even evidence of her fur shadow and remains of her last meal.

From this they concluded she was a leaf and fruit eater, and probably lived in the trees around the lake.

The absence of a bacculum (penis bone) confirmed she was female, and her milk teeth put her age at about nine-months-old – in maturity, equivalent to a six-year-old human child.

This was the same age as Prof Hurum’s daughter Ida, and he named the fossil after her.

The study is being published and put online by the Public Library of Science, a leading academic journal with offices in Britain and the US.

Co-author of the scientific paper, Prof Gingerich, likens its importance to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, an ancient Egyptian artefact found in 1799, which allowed us to decipher hieroglyphic writing.

One clue to Ida’s fate – and her remarkable preservation as our oldest ancestor – was her badly fractured left wrist.

The team believes this stopped her from climbing and she had to emerge from the trees to drink water from the 250-metre-deep lake.

They think she was overcome by carbon dioxide gas from the crater, and sunk to the bottom where she was preserved in the mud as a time capsule – and a snapshot of evolution.

But amazingly this final piece of Darwin’s jigsaw was almost lost to science when German authorities tried to turn Messel into a massive landfill rubbish dump.

Eventually, after campaigning by Dr Franzen, the plans were rejected and the fossil-rich lake was designated a World Heritage Site.

But no doubt there would have been one person happy for the missing link to have remained hidden.

When Darwin famously told the Bishop of Worcester’s wife about his theory of evolution, she remarked: “Descended from the apes! My dear, let us hope that it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known.”

Now, it certainly is.

Tuesdays Open Thread

Did you ever have one of those days?

Bad Is Good In Utopia

Photo taken by an attendee of an Obama rally. They took this pic looking forward to the entrance. The next photo was taken at the line behind this person. My question to these people... will you be as happy when this line represents the Unemployment line you stand in?

Another Example of Central Planning Failure

-By Dan Scott

 

I find it particularly amusing when liberals proclaim the end of capitalism by their self-righteous actions of micromanaging companies they plan to make the centerpiece of their social responsibility. Of course, since I am not directly affected as an employee or investor, my sense of humor might be lost those who are being manipulated for the so-called benefit of society. Chrysler has become the liberal showcase of what they can do when their “superior intellect” is employed. In Chrysler we have fascism, environmentalism, unionism and redistribution of wealth all mixed into one big bubbling pot of failure. While I do feel for the employees and investors of Chrysler and shake my head at the billions of taxpayer dollars yet to be expended on top of that already wasted, I can’t help but smirk at the inevitable debacle of feel good, we must do something, liberalism. As a conservative, I’m not into the self-righteousness thing of projecting an image to get people to like me or manipulate them into doing what I want.

How long until the country wakes up to how we are being manipulated? Every month we get at least 1/2 million people filing for Unemployment benefits. How long can this last?

In show of power, Obama’s political appointees running Chrysler  recently slashed the company’s advertising budget in half during the bankruptcy process. It’s rather ironic that the very group of people who depend upon the marketing of their image should make the first blow to Chrysler’s ability to sell the vehicles currently sitting unpurchased on the dealership lots. I’m sure the dealerships appreciate the government for having no interest in moving the existing inventory. Apparently, they believe they must look to the future promises of green cars while ignoring current reality of the 80,000 people employed selling cars. What do they care? Chrysler doesn’t own those cars anyway; the dealerships do and are paying interest on the unsold inventory sitting on their lots. It seems Obama’s flunkies either believe cars will magically sell themselves or the surviving dealerships must be made to share in their cause of wealth redistribution occurring at Chrysler by making them expend more money to offset the loss of advertising.

To further the irony of liberal micromanagement, not only are the dealerships being hurt by the narrow minded decisions of ignoring the present,  the advertising sales of the MSM  are also being hit! There’s nothing like friendly fire to litter the battlefield of ideology. The combined with the loss of almost 2000 dealerships many of whom will not survive, will also not be spending money on advertising as well, thus giving a double whammy to the MSM in the revenue department. All this means for the MSM is more layoffs. But we are all told that the light is at the end of the tunnel for the economy, the recession has bottomed out.

If this is the superior intellect of liberalism on display, it only begs the question of what’s the next shortsighted decision among many to occur by a company run by political appointees and union stiffs? One can only imagine the antics of political hacks and union stooges making decisions based on liberal demagoguery. I’m sure some stand up comedian on Comedy Central will make a secure living skewering the car companies, after all the material will be endless. Chrysler will be an unending drain upon the taxpayers for years to come until the Congress is so embarrassed by the obvious failure that they will undoubtedly be held responsible for bad decision-making. Their defense will be, “we had to do something.” No, you didn’t have to do the wrong thing! But long before this awakening happens, what we see at Chrysler will also have been played out at GM, a company much larger than Chrysler. In fact, all the TARP controlled lenders to GM and Chrysler who were forced to lose 71% of their bond holdings to make the glorious social experiment work have themselves been a show case of liberal profitability. Any TARP bank who declared a dividend essentially paid taxpayer funds to the shareholders.

Regardless of the  Happy Talk  that liberals espouse at Chrysler or GM, their demagogic decision making process is already derailing the economy yet again as I pointed out last week the price gasoline is rising again due to their continued insistence of the domestic drilling ban. All because, once again they are focused upon the future with no regard to the present. Which brings me to the underlying point of how liberalism works or rather fails.

It starts with the idea that government can do anything. However in reality what’s the track record here? Negative or Positive? Something always glossed over is the incompetence of central planning by a small group of people making naive decisions based on limited general knowledge versus the collective and cumulative genius of 300 million plus people making endless individual decisions based on specific knowledge. The fact that a small group of people can screw up the economy does not validate the idea of government power. On the contrary, the fact that most of our current problems could be solved with minimal expense by government undoing all the stupid things it did, invalidates the concept of central planning. By the way I call that behavior  Munchausen’s By Proxy.

Here’s a really important point we have brought to bear when  President Obama mentions “Animal Spirits”  in one of his speeches. Obama and the rest of the liberals love this concept because it dovetails nicely with their belief system. Remember what that liberal system of belief is?

Utopia is the endgame of the agenda. ->

The agenda is the truth. ->

All assertions to support the agenda are the truth. ->

Only facts that support the assertion are relevant, all other facts are a distraction from the truth. ->

Reality is what you make of it; therefore perception is all that counts. ->

Selling people on the agenda is the duty of all liberals. ->

Lying and misrepresentation are acceptable in selling the agenda because only perception is truth.

This is classic, though rather an elaborate, form of circular reasoning.

Now do you now see why Obama and the liberals continually sell a vision of the future that has no rational basis in today’s reality? Utopia doesn’t exist, they believe by ignoring reality they can bring Utopia into existence. This is why the book “Animal Spirits”  is wildly read and accepted by the Obama team, it confirms their faulty Keynesian worldview. This is also why all their actions to date are irrational, as they have no basis in reality. The entire premise of their belief system rests upon an extreme fallacy: “Anything can be made to work if you spend enough time, talent and money on it.” Reality says there are some things that cannot be done due to the laws of physics or nature. Common sense says that if you can accomplish the same thing spending one dollar, it is better than spending ten dollars.

We made it to the moon didn’t we? What was Obama’s assertion on green energy,  he repeated Al Gore’s line on 10 years?  Why else do you think they believe spending trillions with borrowed money will move the economy? Why else do you think he asserts a government take over of health care will “save” money. It’s all circular reasoning based on the agenda. The “Yes We Can” motto is nothing more than the false positivism of liberal demagoguery based on liberalism’s mistaken idea that self-righteousness is a positive moral virtue. Self-righteousness is a God-less necessity and the implementation of a God-less society inevitably leads to the gulag, ask Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn  about that.

　

Not the Same “Girl Scouts”

 

Please warn your children/grandchildren about the Girl Scouts. They are no longer what we’ve known them to be.

The organization has been taken over by New Age “spirituality” (vs. Christian), radical feminism, pro-lesbianism, Marxist socialism, and a one-world (vs. patriotism) worldview — in short, by the Left..

An alternative to Girl Scouts is American Heritage Girls, a non-profit scouting organization dedicated to the mission of building women of integrity through service to God, family, community, and country. AHG’s website: http://www.ahgonline.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=18722

I know I’ll no longer buy Girl Scouts cookies!

~Eowyn

…………………………………..

Girl Scouts exposed: Lessons in lesbianism
Communists, radical feminists cited as role models for troops
May 17, 2009 – By Chelsea Schilling – WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97977

When many parents think of Girl Scouts, they imagine young girls in uniform selling Thin Mints and Tagalong cookies  not learning about stone labyrinths, world peace, global warming, yoga, avatars, smudging incense, Zen gardens and feminist, communist and lesbian role models.

But that’s exactly what many of 2.7 million Girl Scouts will learn about with a new curriculum called “Journeys” released last year.

Patti Garibay spent nearly two decades in Girl Scouts  six years as a girl member and 13 years as a volunteer. She was also a recruiter, camp coordinator and area delegate winning outstanding leader and volunteer in both councils in which she served. In Garibay’s words, she “bled green.”

But in 1993 when Girl Scouts USA decided to make God optional in its program at the national convention in Minneapolis, an idea known as “Proposal 3: Flexibility in Spiritual Wording,” Garibay chose to leave the organization.

“I had always used Girl Scouts as part of my life’s ministry, modeling my faith while serving girls,” she told WND. “However as this change became policy, mandates were made against Christmas caroling, praying at meetings and singing hymns. I had a true moral dilemma and felt that I could not uphold the GSUSA’s rules and remain a Christian never denying my Lord.”

In the Girl Scout curriculum, the organization’s promise now includes an asterisk with the following disclaimer:

* Girl Scouts of the USA makes no attempt to define or interpret the word “God” in the Girl Scout Promise. It looks to individual members to establish for themselves the nature of their spiritual beliefs. When making the Girl Scout Promise, individuals may substitute wording appropriate to their own spiritual beliefs for the word “God.”

Garibay said it appears that Girl Scouts has taken a stance toward religion the religion of the New Age  despite its proclaimed secular scouting program. WND asked Girl Scouts USA spokeswoman Michelle Tompkins if the organization is shifting its focus toward a New Age agenda.

“No, Girl Scouts isn’t headed into a New Age direction,” she said. “We’re just looking for new ways to get through to girls.”

WND reviewed the following books in the Girl Scouts’ new “Journeys” curriculum:

‘Amaze: The Twists and Turns of Getting Along’

In “Amaze: The Twists and Turns of Getting Along,” girls from the sixth to the eighth grade will read a quote from Buddha and be encouraged to explore mazes and stone or dirt labyrinths  symbols rooted in pagan mythology and popular within the New Age movement as meditation tools.

They will be briefly introduced to Polish poet Anna Swir, known for her feminist and erotic poems, and Jane Addams, an ardent feminist and pacifist who received a Nobel Peace Prize.

The text features a quote from Harriet Woods, former president of the National Women’s Political Caucus  a bipartisan group that endorses pro-abortion female candidates who run for public office.

To cope with bullying, girls as young as 11 are encouraged to “take a peace break,” make a Zen garden, take martial arts, do yoga and visit a website to learn the sun salutation poses.

The book features a strong emphasis on feminism and world peace, concluding with the following message:

Life is a maze. Navigate its twists and turns and you’ll find true friendships, meaningful relationships, and lots of confidence to boot. So, go ahead, enter the maze. The goal is peace  for you, your world, and the planet, too.

Garibay said, “Placing an asterisk by the word ‘God’ in the Girl Scout promise in an effort to be tolerant, yet promoting Eastern mysticism through Zen gardens and Buddha writings hardly seems tolerant to those who believe in Christianity.”

‘Girltopia’

In the next age group, for teens in the ninth and tenth grades, girls are taught about wage disparities between the sexes, and a lack of assets and senior management positions held by women.

“Girltopia” poses the questions, “When women don’t earn enough, what happens to their children?” and “How could everyone help create a Girltopia?”

Asked what the purpose of including a message of inequality served in the Girl Scout curriculum, Tompkins explained:

It’s to show girls what’s going on in the country and have them be part of the dialogue. A lot of girls just aren’t aware of what’s going on. I think that specific topic might be new this year, but in the broader scheme of things, it’s not that new. I’m sure it’s something that came up in the  1920s as well. Girls Scouting has been around since before women had the right to vote, so I’m sure these discussions were always part of this.

The text praises Renaissance author Sir Thomas More for his book “Utopia,” Mary Cavendish for her book “A New World: The Blazing World” about a utopian kingdom and 24-year Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood and feminist author Sheri S. Tepper for her novel, “The Gate to Women’s Country.”

“Girltopia” encourages girls to “let songs inspire you,” and as some examples, it provides lyrics to songs such as “Independent Women, part 1″ by Destiny’s Child; “Hammer and a Nail” by the Indigo Girls - an “out” lesbian rock band; and “Imagine” by John Lennon. The curriculum also asks girls to create an avatar “to represent the ideal you in Girltopia” and features “Wild Geese,” a short poem by lesbian poet Mary Oliver.

“This book was so depressing that I don’t know what I would have done as a teen reading it,” Garibay said. “The sense of hopelessness abounds in ‘Girltopia.’ The positivity, the enthusiasm and the vigor of youth is
completely destroyed by data found to further the Girl Scout USA’s feminist agenda. It plants seeds of despair and hopelessness in today’s girls.”

“Girltopia” also features a section on ethics and asks, “What are your ethical standards based on?” Girls must check all of the following answers that apply:

• Whatever does the most good and least harm
  Whatever treats everyone as fairly and equally as possible
• Whatever is best for most people in the community
• Whatever is consistent with your character

“Although not everyone shares the same sense of personal ethics, most people in the world have many ethical principles in common,” it states.

“The hollow toll of moral relativism is throughout these books,” Garibay
said. “The girls are left up to their own ‘feelings’ in making decisions. This is not age appropriate for girls, nor is it what girls want to be forced to do. They want to know right from wrong.”

‘Your Voice Your World: The Power of Advocacy’

When teens reach their junior and senior years in high school, they begin a Girl Scouts curriculum called “Your Voice Your World: The Power of Advocacy.” It encourages young women to begin “raising their voices as advocates” and follow the examples of other young people who are speaking out on causes such as global warming, universal health care, racism and child poverty.

One question asks, “What policies is our city putting in place to combat global warming?”

Teens are then asked to generate a list of causes they are passionate about.

One example suggests girls “propose new environmental protection laws for waterways in your state.”

The text encourages Girl Scouts to take their ideas and list steps necessary to accomplish goals on advocacy charts. It provides the following suggestion for a cause:

I worry about all the waste in using plastic bags and how their use in my community contributes to global warming. One example is the supermarket do we really need to be using all those plastic bags?

Girls are encouraged to read the bottom of each page to discover a “Voice for Good,” or female advocates who are meant to be role models. Of more than 50 women listed, only three are women who are known for their faith: Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman and Mother Teresa. Their religions are only briefly mentioned, if at all.

Many of the female role models mentioned are feminists, lesbians, existentialists, communists and Marxists. Examples include:

Elizabeth Gurley Flynn: labor leader, activist, feminist, founding member of ACLU and chairwoman of the American Communist Party

Luisa Moreno: labor leader, social activist, member of the Communist Party, married to delegate of the Socialist Party of America

Simone de Beauvoir: existentialist, French author of feminist books including “The Second Sex,” key player in France’s women’s liberation movement

Rigoberta Menchu: Guatemalan activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner who joined Marxist guerrilla movement

Emily Greene Balch: writer, feminist, recipient of Nobel Peace Prize, pacifist who campaigned against U.S. involvement in World War I, former editor of The Nation

Billie Jean King: retired tennis champion, sued for palimony by lesbian girlfriend while she was still married, first prominent professional athlete to come out as homosexual

Ethel Mary Smyth: English composer, lesbian, leader of the women’s suffrage movement, member of Women’s Social and Political Union

Jeanette Rankin: first woman elected to the House of Representatives, R-Montana, pacifist who voted against U.S. entry into World War I and World War II, founding vice-president of American Civil Liberties Union and founding member of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

Carrie Chapman Catt: feminist politician, president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, founded the League of Women Voters, anti-war activist

Frances Perkins: teacher and U.S. secretary of labor from 1933 to 1945, first woman appointed to the U.S. Cabinet, helped write New Deal legislation including minimum-wage laws, allegedly had lesbian relationship with Mary Harriman Rumsey

Rachel Carson: marine biologist and nature writer, author of “Silent Spring” (1962), spurring a nationwide ban on DDT, inspiration from book led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, reported to have had lesbian relationship with Dorothy Freeman

Barbara Jordan: member of House of Representatives from 1973 to 1979, first black woman to deliver keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 1976, supported Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 requiring banks to lend to poor and minority communities. The Houston Chronicle reported Jordan had lesbian partner of more than 20 years named Nancy Earl

Martina Navratilova: former World No. 1 women’s tennis champion from Czechoslovakia who fled communism, came out openly as a lesbian and admitted to having crushes on other female tennis players, spoke before the National March on Washington for Gay and Lesbian Rights, was 2000 recipient of National Equality Award from the Human Rights Campaign

Shirley Chisholm: member of the House of Representatives from 1969 to 1983, feminist, first black woman elected to Congress, first major-party black candidate for president of the United States, founding member of the National Organization of Women, helped pass Title IX, homosexual advocate

Pauli Murray: feminist, lawyer, writer, poet, teacher, ordained priest, author of the 1950 book “States’ Laws on Race and Color,” founder of the Women’s Rights Law Reporter, co-founder of the National Organization for Women.

Betty Friedan: feminist writer on Girl Scouts’ board of directors, best remembered for 1963 book “The Feminine Mystique,” primary founder and first president of the National Organization for Women, founder of the National Women’s Political Caucus, strong opponent of abortion laws, founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League, or NARAL, active in Marxist circles, spoke in favor of homosexual “rights”

Dolores Huerta: co-founder of the United Farm Workers of America, co-founder of the National Farm Workers Association with Cesar Chvez, directed the UFW’s national grape boycott, serves on boards of People for the American Way and Feminist Majority Foundation, spoke in favor of “gay” and lesbian rights, marched in GLBT parades, served as Human Rights Campaign board member

Bette Midler: singer, actress, self-proclaimed advocate for “gay liberation movement”

Other “Voices for Good” include Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - a former Brownie and Girl Scout  and TV talk show host Oprah Winfrey.

WND asked Tompkins why Girl Scouts USA has chosen to focus on lesbians, radical feminists and controversial figures as role models instead of other significant female pioneers.

“There was a council of people who worked on the ‘Journeys.’ They tried to figure out who would be profiled,” she said. “It came out from lots of discussions. I think the change the world message has been part of Girl Scouts since the beginning. It’s not a radical agenda at all.”

She continued, “I think the concept of change is incredibly radical, but it’s about making the world better and being conscious and respecting authority. There was a wide cross-section of women mentioned in the ‘Journeys’ that came about from the discussions.”

Readers will find very few men in the book, with the exception of a brief mention of Kofi Annan, former secretary-general of the United Nations.

“Men are not seen favorably but, rather a force to diminish and avoid,”
Garibay said. “It alarmed me that women of faith were only mentioned in these few cases despite their many contributions. Not one pro-life woman was mentioned, nor was a missionary or conservative public figure.“

Tompkins said she doesn’t know why there are only three women of faith mentioned, but she said, “Girl Scouts isn’t a religious organization, so that could be part of it.”

She continued, “I would imagine we keep everything open when it comes to faith. I know no doors are ever shut with us. It’s sort of like the way that God can never be taken out of the Girl Scout promise and law in writing.”

“Your Voice Your World” finishes by encouraging teens who are bitten by the “advocacy bug” to pursue some of the following careers:

ambassador, congressperson, artist, filmmaker, labor union organizer, fund raiser/grant writer, lawyer, lobbyist, mediator, professor, public affairs officer, researcher, religious leader, senator, web master, blogger, journalist

Tompkins told WND a new “Journeys” book will be arriving this month called “It’s Your Planet, Love It.” She said the text has a strong environmental focus.

Other controversy

As WND columnist Jane Chastain reported, at the 51st Girl Scout National Council Session and Convention last year, the organization did away with its traditional flag ceremony and the playing of the National Anthem. Flags of all nations were brought in to the tune of “September” by Earth, Wind and Fire.

The Girl Scouts also made headlines in recent years after it refused to adopt what it called “a discrimination policy” against homosexual leaders.

In a 2000 National Review Online editorial titled “The Cookie Crumbles,” author Kathryn Jean Lopez cites the 1997 book “On My Honor: Lesbians Reflect on Their Scouting Experience.” She said it is “filled with coming-of-age stories sparked by gay encounters in the Girl Scouts.”

“On My Honor” includes an essay titled “All I Really Need to Know About Being a Lesbian I Learned at Girl Scout Camp.” Lopez reported that “staffers writing in the book claim that roughly one in three of the Girls Scouts’ paid professional staff is lesbian.”

According to news reports, Planned Parenthood has also had some involvement with Girl Scouts in recent years.

In Waco, Texas in 2004, a Girl Scout council cosponsored a sex education program with Planned Parenthood and honored PP Executive Director Pam Smallwood.

On NBC’s Today Show in 2004, Kathy Cloninger, CEO of Girls Scouts USA, admitted that it “partners with Planned Parenthood across the country to bring information based sex education programs to girls.”

In response to the interview, American Life League’s STOPP International surveyed 350 councils to ask if they had any involvement with Planned Parenthood. While 80 percent refused to answer, 17 councils reportedly admitted to associating with Planned Parenthood, and 49 said they don’t.

Garibay told WND Girl Scouts USA is not the same program most women remember.

“Originally scouting was about citizenship, service and life skills,” she said. “The founder, Juliette Lowe, wanted girls to do their duty to God and their country. She encouraged girls to activate, not meditate. Now the Girl Scouts want to move into self-discovery and lobbyist training.”

An alternative to Girl Scouts

Garibay said she had enough after she heard about sexuality camps for Girl Scouts.

“I realized it was no longer my mom’s Girl Scouts,” she said. “We thought we would have a little alternate scouting group for our daughters here in Cincinnati, Ohio. Word got out, and we started getting calls from across the nation from people asking to be a part of it.”

Garibay founded a group called American Heritage Girls in 1995, and she has encouraging news for families who do not want to participate in the Girl Scouts’ new direction:

“Do not despair. There are still some scouting organizations holding onto traditional values,” she said.

Now the organization has 8,000 members and is growing rapidly - by more than 20 percent in the last year. American Heritage Girls has also started a Trailblazer program that allows girls who are not in troop areas to be members and work on establishing their own troops. American Heritage Girls has expanded internationally, with troops in Japan, Germany and Italy.

American Heritage Girls’ mission is to build women of integrity through dedication to service, spiritual growth, servant leadership, goal setting through merit badge and advancement opportunities and teamwork through its outdoor program.

Parents won’t find an emphasis on New Age spirituality, radical feminism, homosexual role models and combatting global warming at American Heritage Girls. Garibay said she has a higher goal for her troops.

Instead, she said, “Girls in AHG learn about their God-given gifts, their identity in Christ and the importance of seeking His will for their life.”

This Is For The Kids – Seriously

This post was forgotten in the shuffle of so many postings on this blog, and thankfully, I have rediscovered it. This is more proof that the left is doing all that it can to brainwash our youth.

These are just two little offshoots of a far lefty organization known as “People For the American Way”, the very same group that owns “Born Again American”, another slick brainwashing organization.

Check these out and decide for yourself how organized (and dangerous) the left has gotten.

Gio-

Little Black Books

Little Black Books are carefully designed by senior fellows to be handy guides for campus organizers and student leaders. Little Black Books are straightforward and to the point, but useful for even the most experienced progressive activists. Little Black Books focus on essential organizing skills, illustrated with real-life stories and case studies from college activists so others can learn from fellows’ experiences.

Progressive Academy Online

YP4′s Progressive Academy Online allows you to access trainings anytime, anywhere.

Progressive Academy Online courses are free, open to everyone, and taught by experienced professionals who use interactive activities along with resources that you can access and use at your own pace.

Learn real-world skills, including how to start a nonprofit, manage a campaign, run for public office and spread ideas through the arts, media and think tanks.

Course in Progress

 

Now Enrolling

Grassroots Fundraising: Watering the Roots of the Movement (sign up today!)

Cosponsored by the Earth Island Institute. Learn best practices and discuss case studies from experts — students and professionals — who’ve successfully raised thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Runs November 10–December 19.

 

Upcoming Courses